Effects
of overheight
Editor’s quick points
n  Few studies are available that assess the contribution of
diaphragms to impact resistance of prestressed concrete bridge
girders.
n  This research program attempts to create—and correlate to
measured data—a finite-element model to be used in the
analysis of prestressed concrete bridge girders with intermedi-
ate diaphragms.
n  Critical factors that affect the design of intermediate dia-
phragms were also studied, and guidelines are recommended
to improve the design of intermediate diaphragms to withstand
the impact of overheight trucks.
58 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal
truck impacts
on
intermediate
diaphragms
in
prestressed
concrete
bridge
girders
Mijia Yang, Pizhong Qiao,
David I. McLean,
and Bijan Khaleghi
A great number of prestressed concrete bridge girders
in the United States have been damaged by impacts of
overheight trucks.1 Reinforced concrete intermediate
diaphragms are usually provided to help minimize impact
damage and improve the impact resistance of prestressed
concrete bridge girders. Only a few limited studies are
available in the literature to discuss the effect of intermedi-
ate diaphragms on impact protection of bridge girders.
Andrawes2 investigated the lateral impact response of
prestressed concrete–girder bridges with intermediate dia-
phragms. Comparisons of finite-element models (FEMs)
and experimentally measured data for a large-scale,
laboratory model bridge were made between the strain
and displacement results, thus validating and calibrating
the FEMs used in the analyses of prestressed concrete
bridge girders with intermediate diaphragms. FEMs were
then used to simulate nonskewed and skewed prestressed
concrete–girder bridges, and they were analyzed for lateral
impact loads, which were applied to the bottom flange
 of the exterior girders at and away from the intermediate
diaphragm.
A comparison was made among the strains and displace-
ments induced in girders with different types of interme-
diate diaphragms. Abendroth and Fanous3 studied lateral
impacts of prestressed concrete girders in bridges with
intermediate steel diaphragms. In their study, a compari-
son of steel versus concrete intermediate diaphragms was
made and they concluded that reinforced concrete inter-
mediate diaphragms provide greater protection for gird-
ers than those made from structural steel when the lateral
impact load is applied at the location of the intermediate
diaphragm. However, there is no apparent difference in im-
pact resistance of the two types of intermediate diaphragms
if the impact load is applied away from the intermediate
diaphragm location.
Green et al.4 studied the contribution of intermediate
diaphragms in enhancing precast concrete bridge girder
performance. Their results indicated that intermediate
diaphragms have the modest positive effect of reducing the
maximum deflections for the chosen girder.
Although preliminary studies on the lateral impact of
prestressed concrete bridges with intermediate diaphragms
have been conducted,2,3 there has not been an extensive
evaluation of the role of intermediate diaphragms in en-
hancing bridge impact resistance. Also, in these previous
studies only strain and displacement results under pulse
impact were considered. Thus, the benefits of using inter-
mediate diaphragms are much debated and still
controversial.
There are sound arguments in favor of using intermediate
diaphragms in bridge construction5: they can transfer lat-
36 in.
4 in.
Girder
Centerline of girder 1
Figure 1. This diagram is a cross-section view of the bridge used in the experiment. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.
eral loads to and from the deck, and they can distribute lat-
eral impact loads from overheight trucks to all girders, thus
reducing the total damage. However, there is also a reason
in favor of eliminating the intermediate diaphragms.
Instead of limiting damage from overheight trucks, the
intermediate diaphragms actually spread the damage. The
debate is largely due to the complicated behavior of impact
between the overheight trucks and bridges.
One factor is the maximum impact force generated, and
another factor is the maximum energy dissipated. For an
impact between the overheight truck and bridge, if the
stiffness of the bridge is increased because of intermedi-
ate diaphragms, the maximum generated impact force will
also be increased, leading to more damage to the structure.
However, the situation can be changed if a soft layer is
used over the impact girder flange to reduce the contact
stiffness between the overheight truck and girder.
Without considering the contact process and when bridges
are under the same impact loading, the deflection and
strain in a bridge with intermediate diaphragms are smaller
than in a bridge without intermediate diaphragms. In
terms of given kinetic energy, the case with intermediate
diaphragms will have larger safety margins compared with
the one without intermediate diaphragms.
The American Association of State Highway and Trans-
portation Officials’ (AASHTO’s) Standard Specifica-
tions for Highway Bridges6 recommend that intermediate
diaphragms be used at the point of maximum positive
moment for spans in excess of 40 ft (12 m), but no reason
for this requirement is given. The AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications7 state that intermediate diaphragms
can improve live-load distributions, yet this effect is not
included in the calculation of load-distribution factors.
72 in. 72 in. 36 in.
Centerline of girder 2 Centerline of girder 3
PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 59
 150
484 in.

100
Girder 3

50

Girder 2 Location 2
0
100 200 300 400

-50 Girder 1

Location 1
-100

-150

Figure 2. The plan view of the bridge used in the experiment shows the locations of intermediate diaphragms. Note: The scale is in inches. 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

Articles 8.12.1 for reinforced concrete and 9.10.1 for pre- • location of intermediate diaphragms within the span
stressed concrete bridges in the AASHTO standard specifi-
cations allow omitting intermediate diaphragms when tests • size of intermediate diaphragms (for example, height
or structural analyses show adequate strength. and width)

AASHTO LRFD specifications article 5.13.2.2 has a
similar provision, which allows omitting intermediate dia-
phragms if tests or structural analyses show that they are
unnecessary. To this end, from the impact/contact mechan-
ics and energy-absorption points of view, a thorough in-
vestigation is warranted to study the effects of intermediate
diaphragms and develop proper design recommendations
and guidelines for constructing intermediate diaphragms in
prestressed concrete bridges.
The effect of intermediate diaphragms in prestressed
concrete bridge girders when subjected to overheight truck
impacts can be addressed by conducting dynamic numeri-
cal finite-element analysis (FEA) using the commercial
software ABAQUS or LS-DYNA3D. Factors in the design
of intermediate diaphragms can include, but are not limited
to, the following:
• girder types (for example, flange width and girder
height)
• truck speed and types (for example, the different impact
forces generated by various types of overheight trucks)
A better understanding of these influencing factors in the
design of intermediate diaphragms will reduce impact
damage to bridge girders and thus promote the safety and
integrity of bridge superstructures.
The objectives of this study are threefold:
• develop and validate dynamic FEMs to simulate
prestressed concrete bridge girders with intermediate
diaphragms
• conduct a numerical parametric study to evaluate the
effect of critical factors in the design of intermediate
diaphragms

60 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal 60

 35
13 in.

30 4 in.

1 in.

25

20
16 in.
32 in.

15

10

6 in. Location of intermediate

diaphragms to the top
5 edge of the bottom flange
(defined as the full-depth
intermediate diaphragms
5 in.
in the present study)

0
-10 -5 0 5 10
17 in.

Figure 3. This drawing illustrates details of the prestressed concrete I-girder in the bridge. Note: The scale is in inches. 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

• provide recommendations and guidelines to improve Bridge geometry

the design of intermediate diaphragms to withstand the
impact of overheight trucks
This study aims to provide improved impact protection
of prestressed concrete bridge girders with intermediate
diaphragms and to aid bridge engineers in design, analysis,
and construction of prestressed concrete bridges.
Numerical FEM
In this section, the validation of the numerical FEM with
existing available testing data8 and preliminary quasi-static
and dynamic analyses of a three-girder prestressed con-
crete bridge are presented.
The bridge used in the experiment8 was a one-span, two-
lane, prestressed concrete bridge (Fig. 1 and 2). It had a
lane width of 6.0 ft (1.8 m), a span of 40.4 ft (12.3 m),
and an overhang of 3.0 ft (0.91 m) on each side and was
supported by three prestressed concrete I-girders. Figure
3 shows the size of the I-girder. The size of the intermedi-
ate diaphragm was extended to the top edge of the bottom
flange in the I-girder (Fig. 3). The applied load locations in
the experiment were in the middle span of girder 1 (Fig. 4).
Material model and parameters
Abendroth et al.8 used an elastic model or an elastic brittle-
damage model based on the linear load-displacement curve
given in the report. A close comparison of the simulation

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 61

 Deck

30

25

20

15

10

Girder

Vertical force Horizontal force

0
-10 -5 0 5 10

Figure 4. The arrows point to the details of applied loads on the girder. Note: The scale is in inches. 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

results with the experimental data was found when the
elastic models had a modulus of elasticity Ec of 4084 ksi
(28.16 GPa) and Poisson’s ratio v of 0.15. These material
properties were adopted in this study as well.
Load type and locations
The load simulated in the ABAQUS model was represented
as concentrated loads applied at two points on the bottom
flange of either girder 1 or girder 2 (Fig. 4), one for horizontal
forces and the other for vertical forces. For the horizontal
forces, each load increased linearly from 0 kip to 37.5 kip
(167 kN). The total horizontal force at the two loading points
in Fig. 4 thus increased from 0 kip to 75.0 kip (334 kN). For
the vertical forces, each load increased linearly from 0 kip to
12.5 kip (55.6 kN). The total vertical force thus increased at
the two loading points from 0 kip to 25.0 kip (111 kN).
FEM
The Abendroth et al.8 physical model was used for this
study’s numerical model, and the FEM results were
compared with the experimental ones.
Comparisons and validation
with experiment
As stated previously, the horizontal and vertical loads were
applied separately at the middle point of girder 1 (Fig. 1,
2, and 4). The horizontal and vertical displacements were
measured at the same point where the load was applied
(Fig. 4). In all of these plots, the load was the total of the
two loading points (either horizontal or vertical). The dis-
placement was taken as the average of the displacements
of the two loading points.

62 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

 60
Experiment without intermediate diaphragms

Experiment with intermediate diaphragms

50
FEM without intermediate diaphragms

FEM with intermediate diaphragms

40
Load, kip

30

20

10

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16

Displacement, in.

Figure 5. This graph compares FEM results with experimental results for a vertical load applied at location 1. Note: FEM = finite-element model. 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip =
4.448 kN.

60

Experiment without intermediate diaphragms

Experiment with intermediate diaphragms

50
FEM without intermediate diaphragms

FEM with intermediate diaphragms

40
Load, kip

30

20

10

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16

Displacement, in.

Figure 6. This graph compares FEM results with experimental results for a vertical load applied at location 2. Note: FEM = finite-element model. 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip =
4.448 kN.

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 63

 100
90
80
70
60
Load, kip
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.05
Figure 7. This graph compares FEM results with experimental results for a horizontal load applied at location 1. Note: FEM = finite-element model. 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip =
4.448 kN.
Vertical displacement Figure 5 shows compari-
sons of vertical load versus vertical deflection between
the experimental and numerical simulation for bridges
with and without intermediate diaphragms. As indicated
by the experimental results, intermediate diaphragms have
insignificant effects on vertical displacement, which is also
shown in the FEM. However, the ABAQUS model predicted
less displacement compared with the experimental results,
which may be attributed to ABAQUS’s not including the
effects of concrete cracking in its modeling.
Figure 6 shows the same pattern for the vertical load applied
at location 2. The maximum differences between the FEM
and the experimental results for the bridge without interme-
diate diaphragms were 24% and 10% for the load applied at
locations 1 and 2, respectively. The maximum differences
between the FEM and experimental results for the bridge
with intermediate diaphragms were 23.5% and 27% for the
load applied at locations 1 and 2, respectively.
Again, the increased differences for the bridge with
intermediate diaphragms may be because of the existence
of cracks in the experimental bridge deck after the bridge
without intermediate diaphragms was tested, as reported in
Abendroth et al.8 However, compared with their simulation
results (that is, minimum differences of 18% and 29% for
the bridges without and with intermediate diaphragms,
respectively), the FEM results for this study showed better
correlations with the experiment. The improved compari-
64 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal
Experiment without intermediate diaphragms
Experiment with intermediate diaphragms
FEM without intermediate diaphragms
FEM with intermediate diaphragms
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Displacement, in.
son in the current FEM simulation may be a result of the
solid elements used in this study, compared with the shell
elements used in Abendroth et al.
Horizontal displacement Figure 7 compares the
experimental results with the FEM results of the horizontal
load versus horizontal deflection for the load applied at
location 1 (see Fig. 2). The maximum differences between
the experimental and FEM results for the bridges with-
out and with intermediate diaphragms were 25.0% and
24.4%, respectively. Figure 8 compares the experimental
results with the FEM results of the horizontal load versus
horizontal deflection for the load applied at location 2.
Excellent agreement between the experimental results and
FEM results was achieved with maximum differences of
0.5% and 0.1% for the bridges without and with intermedi-
ate diaphragms, respectively.
In all cases of static load versus displacement, the FEM
predictions were greater than the experimental results,
except for the bridge with intermediate diaphragms under
horizontal loading (Fig. 8). The reason for this difference
may be that the average displacement over the two loading
points is used in the FEM prediction while the experiment
only measured one point using the hydraulic jacket, which
was applied close to the upper surface of the bottom flange
of the girder. Thus, the experimental results showed less
displacement, resulting in a greater stiffness.
 180

160

140

120

100
Load, kip

80

60

Experiment without intermediate diaphragms

40
Experiment with intermediate diaphragms

20 FEM without intermediate diaphragms

FEM with intermediate diaphragms
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Displacement, in.

Figure 8. This graph compares FEM results with experimental results for a horizontal load applied at location 2. Note: FEM = finite-element model. 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip =
4.448 kN.

Influential factors in middle of the span where the impact load is applied.
intermediate diaphragm design The girder spacing was 6 ft (1.8 m) (Fig. 9), and a sim-
ply supported boundary condition was considered. The
In this section, an FEM considering the elastic-plastic be- horizontal loads were applied at two points (each point
havior of concrete is introduced and a parametric study on with a load of 60 kip [270 kN]) along the bottom flange
the influential factors (that is, intermediate diaphragm loca-
tion, depth, girder type, and analysis type) in the design
of intermediate diagrams is conducted using the improved Table 1. The effect of concrete plasticity in compression
FEM.
Yield stress, psi Plastic strain
Elastic-plastic modeling of concrete 3900 0.0
and quasi-static impact simulation
4495 0.001
The elastic-plastic quasi-static modeling for concrete 5824 0.0012
damage plasticity was considered in this study. The con-
crete’s modulus of elasticity Ec was 4084 ksi (28.16 GPa) 6933 0.002
and Poisson’s ratio v was 0.15. To include the effect of
6933 0.2
plasticity of concrete, the plastic strains under different
yielding stresses in compression are given in Table 1. Note: 1 psi = 6.895 kPa.
Table 2 shows the tensile behavior of concrete with tensile
strengths and cracking strains. It was adapted in this study
to simulate tensile-damage-induced softening. That is, Table 2. Tensile behavior of concrete to account for tensile-damage-
when cracking strain increases, tensile strength decreases. induced softening

Tensile strength, psi Cracking strain

The bridge model in Fig. 9 consisted of three W42G-type
I-girders spanning 50 ft (15 m), and a deck thickness of 481 0.0
4 in. (100 mm). The intermediate diaphragm was 8 in.
(200 mm) thick and extended to the upper surface of the 252 0.5
bottom flange of the bridge girder (that is, a full-depth Note: 1 psi = 6.895 kPa.
intermediate diaphragm) (Fig. 4) and was located in the

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 65

 Figure 9. This diagram illustrates the finite-element mesh of a one-span, three-girder bridge.

of the I-girder with a total magnitude of 120 kip (530 kN).
The load duration of 0.1 sec and magnitude of 120 kip are
defined as a full design load in this study to emulate the
impact load from the overheight truck.
Parametric study
Location of intermediate diaphragms within
spans The location of intermediate diaphragms within
spans is important. Therefore, the effects of the locations
of the intermediate diaphragms were evaluated. The load-
ing point was located at the center of the span on the bot-
tom flange of the girder (Fig. 4). A one-span prestressed
concrete bridge supported by three prestressed concrete
I-girders was simulated for this experiment (Fig. 1 and 2).
The girders were type W42G I-girders, and the 8-in.-thick
(200 mm) intermediate diaphragm extended to the top
edge of the bottom flange of the I-girder (Fig. 3) with a
girder spacing of 6 ft (1.8 m). The intermediate diaphragm
locations within the span as well as the impact load loca-
tions with respect to the intermediate diaphragm locations
(for example, at or away from) were investigated. The
effects of the number of intermediate diaphragms used in
a 30.5-m-long (100 ft) bridge were studied, and two cases
were evaluated: intermediate diaphragms at midspan and
intermediate diaphragms at 1/3-point span.
A bridge with only one intermediate diaphragm located at
midspan as well as a bridge with two intermediate dia-
phragms located at the 1/3-span and 2/3-span points between
two adjacent girders were simulated and compared. The
impact load was applied at the midspan for both cases, and
the bridge was simply supported. Table 3 summarizes key
performance responses. The bridge with two intermediate

Table 3. Effect of spacing of intermediate diaphragms under full design load

Number and
Maximal Maximal plastic
location of Totally damaged Maximal vertical Maximal principal Maximal tensile
horizontal dissipative
intermediate area, in.2 displacement, in. strain stress, psi
displacement, in. energy, N-m
diaphragms

At span 15,000 4.27 1.42 4.15 × 10-3 497 120,663

Two at 1/3 span 180 4.38 1.45 4.15 × 10-3 494 120,663

Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 psi = 6.895 kPa; 1 lb-in. = 0.1129 N-m.

66 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

 Full depth of intermediate diaphragms (to the top edge of bottom flange)

Partial depth of intermediate diaphragms (to the bottom of web)

Half depth of intermediate diaphragms (to the 2/3 depth of web)

Figure 10. This diagram shows side views of the bridge system with different depths of intermediate diaphragms.

diaphragms between two adjacent girders (that is, at 1/3-
span points) distributed the load more evenly, and the local
bending effects were reduced significantly. In addition, the
damage area was greatly reduced.
Depth of intermediate diaphragms In order to
analyze the depth effect of intermediate diaphragms on the
impact response of the bridge, three different bridges with
an intermediate diaphragm thickness of 8 in. (200 mm)
under a full design load were analyzed. The three bridge
configurations included those shown in Fig. 10: full depth
(to the top edge of the bottom flange), partial depth (to the
bottom of the web), and about half depth (to 2/3 of the web
depth). Table 4 shows FEM results of the analysis for the
three bridges.

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 67

 Table 4. Effect of depth of intermediate diaphragms

Maximal Maximal plastic

Depth of interme- Totally damaged Maximal vertical Maximal Maximal tensile
horizontal dissipative
diate diaphragms area, in.2 displacement, in. principal strain stress, psi
displacement, in. energy, N-m

Full 26.3 0.566 0.419 0.0071376 524.4 15,955.7

Partial 50.0 0.569 0.699 0.0083508 528.5 26,268.5

2
/3 web > 625 8.256 5.422 0.0483 518.0 400,000

Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 psi = 6.895 kPa; 1 N-m = 8.851 lb-in.

The full design load was applied. The plastic dissipative
energy is defined as the dissipated energy through dam-
age or failure of elements, including partially damaged
elements. More plastic dissipative energy means that
more damage developed in the bridge. In Table 4, it is
observed that the depth of the intermediate diaphragm
has an influence on maximal horizontal displacement and
maximal vertical displacement. The large deformation in
the bridge with reduced intermediate diaphragm depth was
primarily caused by increased rotation of the bottom girder
flange. Reducing the depth of the intermediate diaphragm
increased the plastic dissipative energy significantly, which
caused more damage to the bridge system in order to
generate the dissipated energy.
The influence of the depth of the intermediate diaphragm
was pronounced (Table 4): the shallower the intermedi-
ate diaphragm depth, the more vulnerable (more induced
damage) the system became because of large deformation
and rotation of the girder associated with a shallower depth
of the intermediate diaphragm. As demonstrated in Fig. 11
through 13, the respective horizontal (transverse) displace-
ment, longitudinal strains, and plastically dissipated energy
were increased for a shallow (partial)–depth intermediate
diaphragm (that is, 2/3 of the web depth). Thus, a full-depth
intermediate diaphragm is recommended to maximize the
impact resistance.

-1

-2

-3
Nonconvergent results
Displacement, in.

reached
-4

-5

-6

-7
Partial depth
-8 Half depth
Full depth
-9
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002

Time, sec

Figure 11. This graph shows the effect of depth of intermediate diaphragm on the horizontal displacement at the loading point. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

68 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

 0.025

Partial depth
0.02 Half depth
Full depth
LE principal strain

0.015
Nonconvergent
results reached

0.01

0.005

0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002

Time, sec

Figure 12. This graph shows the effect of the depth of the intermediate diaphragm on the maximal principal strain at the loading point.

450,000

400,000 Partial depth

Half depth
350,000 Full depth
Plastic dissipated energy, lb-in.

300,000
Large portion of
structure failed
250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002

-50.000

Time, sec

Figure 13. This graph shows the effect of the depth of the intermediate diaphragm on the plastically dissipated energy (failure-dissipated energy). Note: 1 lb-in. = 113 N-mm.

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 69

 Table 5. Effect of girder types under full designed load

Maximal Maximal plastic

Totally damaged Maximal vertical Maximal Maximal tensile
Girder type horizontal dissipative
area, in.2 displacement, in. principal strain stress, psi
displacement, in. energy, lb-in.

W42G 45.0 0.298 0.138 0.000195 443.8 6245.28

WF74G 0 0.557 0.312 0.0000967 481.2 6290.47

WF42G 0 0.352 0.360 0.0000514 424.5 2365.76

Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 psi = 6.895 kPa; 1 lb-in. = 0.1129 N-m.

Girder types (effect of wide flange and deep increased for WF42G and WF74G compared with W42G.
web) The effects of the girder type on the responses of In general, the girders with wider flanges increased the
bridges under impact were also investigated. Bridges with vertical deflection of the deck due to the enhanced cou-
girder types of W42G, WF74G, and WF42G were modeled, pling between the girders and the deck. Increasing the web
and the effects of flange width and web depth were consid- height of girders increased the girder stiffness as well as
ered. A concentrated impact load was applied at midspan, the total bridge stiffness; however, the local displacement
and the span of 50 ft (15 m) with a girder spacing of 8 ft at the loading point also increased because of the increase
(2.4 m) and a full-depth, 8-in.-thick (200 mm) intermedi- of web height.
ate diaphragm located at the central span was considered.
Table 5 summarizes the comparisons among three types of A detailed analysis of the performance parameters of
girders. bridges with WF74G and WF42G girders was performed.
Figure 14 shows the plastically dissipated energy history
When the results of different girder types are compared, for WF74G and WF42G girders. The large web height of
W42G generated more failed elements and WF74G was the WF74G girder dissipated more plastic energy than the
better at spreading the energy dissipation into larger areas. small height with the WF42G girder. Figure 15 shows the
The maximum horizontal and vertical displacements horizontal displacement of the bridges with two different

7000

6000

5000
Plastic dissipated energy, lb-in.

WF74G
WF42G

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

Time, sec

Figure 14. This graph compares the plastic dissipated energy of WF74G- and WF42G-type girders. Note: 1 lb-in. = 113 N-mm.

70 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

-0.1

-0.2 WF74G front

WF74G back
Displacement, in.

WF42G front
-0.3 WF42G back

-0.4

-0.5

-0.6
Time, sec

Figure 15. This graph compares the horizontal displacement history at the front and back of the bridge girder corresponding to the loading location. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

0.1

0.05

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
-0.05

-0.1
Deflection, in.

-0.15

-0.2 WF74G front

WF74G back
-0.25 WF42G front
WF42G back
-0.3

-0.35

-0.4

Time, sec

Figure 16. This graph compares the vertical deflection history at the front and back of the bridge corresponding to the loading location for the WF74G- and WF42G-type
girders. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 71

 0.00012
0.0001
WF74G
Transverse plastic strain
0.00008
WF42G
0.00006
0.00004
0.00002
0
0 0.02
Figure 17. This graph compares the transverse plastic strain history at the loading location for the WF74G- and WF42G-type girders.
girders. WF74G exhibited a larger horizontal deforma-
tion compared with WF42G. Similarly, Fig. 16 gives the
vertical displacement of the bridges, and both points on the
fronts and backs of the bridges are plotted. As expected, a
large bending stiffness of WF74G caused the bridge with
WF74G girders to have a smaller downward deflection
in the front and upward deflection in the back than the
WF42G girder had. Figure 17 shows the transverse plastic
strain. Due to large deformation induced in the WF74G
girder, the plastic strain immediately increased once the
load made impact. In contrast, it took time for WF42G to
reach the plastic strain because of its smaller deformation
under impact.
In summary, the girder type affects the impact resistance of
bridges. A wider-flange girder promotes a higher bend-
ing stiffness in the horizontal (transverse) direction (that
is, the direction of truck impact loading) and thus imparts
a better impact resistance. A larger girder with a deeper
web induces more horizontal deformation, leading to more
spreading damage in the web.
Truck speed and impact force The dynamic impact
of overheight trucks with a bridge is different from the
impulse (quasi-static) force assumed previously. The truck
speed, contact process of the trucks with the bridge, and
inertial mass of the bridge all have an influence on the bridge
responses. In order to evaluate these effects, dynamic analy-
ses of two bridges (that is, impact of an overheight mass on
72 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal
0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Time, sec
an elastic bridge and a perfectly elastic-plastic bridge) were
conducted. The yield stress of the elastic-plastic bridge was
assumed to be 4 ksi (28 MPa), and other parameters in the
simulations remained the same as in previous tests. The con-
tact forces generated for the two bridges with and without
intermediate diaphragms were compared. For the two bridge
models (that is, the elastic versus elastic-plastic), the truck
overheight mass was assumed to be 200 lb (90 kg) and to
have an initial velocity of 100 ft/sec (30 m/sec).
The force generated with the two different bridges (that
is, the elastic and elastic-plastic bridges) with and without
intermediate diaphragms was evaluated. Figure 18 shows
the contact force histories generated by the elastic bridges.
The elastic bridge with intermediate diaphragms generated
a much larger contact force with a short contact duration,
which is consistent with the results reported by Yang and
Qiao.9
Figure 19 shows the contact force histories generated by
elastic–perfectly plastic bridges. With consideration of
plasticity in concrete bridges, the contact force histories of
bridges with and without intermediate diaphragms were
similar. Compared with the elastic bridges, the contact
force in the elastic-plastic bridges was reduced because of
the plasticity involved.
The energy transferred to bridges with and without inter-
mediate diaphragms was also evaluated. Figure 20 shows
 18,000

Without diaphragms
16,000
With diaphragms

14,000

12,000
Contact force, kip

10,000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

Time, sec

Figure 18. Contact force histories were generated for the elastic bridges. Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN.

1200

With diaphragms

Without diaphragms
1000

800
Contact force, kip

600

400

200

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

-200

Time, sec

Figure 19. Contact force histories were generated for the elastic-plastic bridges. Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN.

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 73

 120,000

Without diaphragms
100,000
With diaphragms

80,000
Strain energy, kip-in.

60,000

40,000

20,000

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

Time, sec

Figure 20. Strain energy histories were generated for the elastic bridge. Note: 1 kip-in. = 113 kN-mm.

45,000

Dissipated energy with diaphragms

40,000
Strain energy with diaphragms

35,000 Dissipated energy without diaphragms

Strain energy without diaphragms

30,000
Energy, Kip-in.

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

Time, sec

Figure 21. Strain energy and plastic dissipated energy histories were generated for the elastic-plastic bridges. Note: 1 kip-in = 113 kN-mm.

74 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

 45

40 Without diaphragms
With diaphragms
35

30
Displacement, in.

25

20

15

10

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

Time, sec

Figure 22. Deflection histories were generated for the elastic bridge. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

the strain energy histories transferred from the impact Figure 21 shows the strain energy histories transferred
mass to the elastic bridges. The strain energy transferred from the impact mass to the elastic–perfectly plastic bridg-
from the truck to the bridge with intermediate diaphragms es. The plastic energy dissipation and stored strain energy
was less than the energy transferred to the bridge without in the bridge with intermediate diaphragms were greater
intermediate diaphragms, indicating that the bridge with than those of the bridge without intermediate diaphragms.
intermediate diaphragms experienced less vibration after Although the final status of the bridge is hard to judge
impact. from Fig. 21, the bridge with intermediate diaphragms

60
With diaphragms

50 Without diaphragms

40
Displacement, in.

30

20

10

0
0 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Time, sec

Figure 23. Deflection histories were generated for the elastic–perfectly plastic bridge. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 75

 had more safety margins in terms of the dissipated and
stored energies. Large plastic zones appeared in the bridge
without intermediate diaphragms. The damage zones for
the bridge without intermediate diaphragms are thus more
critical because the intermediate diaphragm connects the
girders with the deck and could overturn the deck under
certain conditions if the region is separated.
Finally, the deflections in the bridges with and without in-
termediate diaphragms were considered. Figure 22 shows
the deflection histories generated by the impact mass to
the elastic bridges at the impact point. The displacement
at the impact point of the bridge without intermediate
diaphragms was greater than the bridge with intermediate
diaphragms. The stiffness of the bridge with intermediate
diaphragms was greater because of the inclusion of inter-
mediate diaphragms.
Figure 23 shows the deflection histories generated by the
impact mass to the elastic–perfectly plastic bridges on the
impact point. The deflection history of the impact point
was similar for the bridges with and without intermedi-
ate diaphragms. The effect of intermediate diaphragms
was marginal. However, the inclusion of the intermediate
diaphragms increased the bridge safety margin against
overheight truck impacts.
In summary, although the FEM proves that the benefits of
using dynamic analysis over the quasi-static analysis may
be marginal from the tested simulations, it is important
to install the intermediate diaphragms in bridge construc-
tion to prevent tearing or overturning of decks on bridges
because of large bridge deformation induced by an over-
height truck impact (Fig. 22 and 23).
Conclusion
Quasi-static and explicit dynamic numerical finite-element
analyses of prestressed concrete girder bridges with inter-
mediate diaphragms were conducted, and key factors (that
is, location and size of intermediate diaphragm, spacing
and types of girders, and dynamic load types) involving the
role of intermediate diaphragms in the impact protection
were evaluated. The bridge without intermediate dia-
phragms was not capable of sustaining the full design load
of 120 kip (530 kN), demonstrating the important role of
intermediate diaphragms on impact protection and perfor-
mance enhancement of the bridges under impact. Thus, it
is worth investigating the role of intermediate diaphragms
on collision protection of prestressed concrete bridges. The
following discussions and recommendations for the effects
of these key factors and their corresponding design on
impact resistance are provided:
• Location and spacing of intermediate diaphragms.
The location and spacing of intermediate diaphragms
within the span have an effect on impact protection.
76 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal
For a long bridge, multiple and distributed intermedi-
ate diaphragms resisted impact better by effectively
transferring large deformations to other girders and
the deck, reducing the damaged areas and absorbing
more kinetic energy. Based on the observation from
the simulation, a suitable distance of intermediate
diaphragm spacing can be determined for a particular
loading, and it is recommended that spacing interme-
diate diaphragms at 25 ft (7.6 m) to 40 ft (12 m) for
bridges with a span of 100 ft (30 m) or longer im-
proves impact protection.
• Depth of intermediate diaphragms. The effect of the
depth of intermediate diaphragms on impact protection
is significant. The deeper the intermediate diaphragm
is, the less rotation of the girder and the better the
impact protection to the bridge system. It is thus rec-
ommended that a full-depth intermediate diaphragm
(Fig. 3) should be used to maximize the capacity of
intermediate diaphragms on the impact protection.
• Girder types. The types of girders in the bridge
system have some noticeable effect on the impact
resistance of the bridge with consideration of inter-
mediate diaphragms. A wider-flange type of girder
promotes a higher bending stiffness in the horizontal
(transverse) direction (that is, the direction of load-
ing) and improves composite action with the bridge
deck, and it thus results in better impact resistance.
The deeper-web type of girder induces more horizon-
tal deformation in the girder, leading to more spread
damage on the web. A girder type with a wider flange
and a moderately deep web is thus recommended
when the intermediate diaphragms are considered to
transfer and resist the horizontal impact load acting at
the bottom flange of the girder.
• Quasi-static versus dynamic analyses. Although the
dynamic analysis, which included bridge mass, truck
impact speed, and contact process, showed improved
simulations, its benefits over the quasi-static analy-
sis were marginal. The relatively simple quasi-static
analysis is thus recommended for any future extensive
parametric studies.
Design guidelines
Based on the conclusions and recommendations, the fol-
lowing step-by-step design guidelines for implementing
the intermediate diaphragms to improve impact resistance
and protection of the prestressed concrete–girder bridges
are proposed:
1. Site investigation of girder types, spacing, and
span length. Determine girder types, spacing,
and span length based on the site and construction
requirements.
2. Design of intermediate diaphragm size. Design
the size of the intermediate diaphragms. Choose
full-depth intermediate diaphragms, and select the
thickness of intermediate diaphragms as the mini-
mum allowed. Although the reinforcement ratio is not
critical, follow a standard reinforcement ratio for the
intermediate diaphragm design.
3. Design of intermediate diaphragm location and
placement. Place the intermediate diaphragms with
a spacing of 20 ft to 40 ft (6 m to 12 m) for bridges
with a span of 100 ft (30 m) or longer. For bridges
with a span of less than 50 ft (15 m), place one in-
termediate diaphragm at the center. For bridges with
an intermediate span between 50 ft and 100 ft, place
either two intermediate diaphragms at the 1/3-span
points or three intermediate diaphragms at the 1/4-span
points. For bridges with a small aspect ratio (that is,
the width-to-length ratio), place the intermediate dia-
phragms among the first three or four rows of girders
facing traffic.
5. Garcia, T. M. 1999. IDs for Precast Prestressed Con-
crete Bridges. Paper presented at the Western Bridge
Engineer’s Seminar, Seattle, WA.
6. American Association of State Highway and Trans-
portation Officials (AASHTO). 2002. Standard Speci-
fications for Highway Bridges. 17th ed. Washington,
DC: AASHTO
7. AASHTO. 2004. LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.
3rd ed. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
8. Abendroth, R., F. Fanous, and B. O. Andrawes. 2004.
Steel Diaphragms in Prestressed Concrete Girder
Bridges. Final report to Iowa Department of Transpor-
tation, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
9. Yang, M. J., and P. Z. Qiao. 2005. Higher-Order
Impact Modeling of Sandwich Beams with Flexible
Core. International Journal of Solids and Structures,
V. 42, No. 20 (October): 5460–5490.

4. Protection of girder flanges. In order to significantly 10. Qiao, P. Z., M. J. Yang, and A. S. Mosallam. 2004.
reduce the dynamic contact effect from the impact Impact Analysis of I-Lam Sandwich System for Over-
of overheight trucks (but not the inertia effect on the height Collision Protection of Highway Bridges. Engi-
bridge itself), a soft buffer layer (for example, a foam neering Structures, V. 26, No. 7 (June): 1003–1012.
or sandwich material as reported by Qiao et al.10) is
suggested for the outside girders (the ones first in
contact with the overheight truck).

References

1. Shanafelt, G. O., and W. B. Horn. 1980. Damage

Evaluation and Repair Methods for Prestressed
Members. National Cooperative Highway Research
Program report 226. Washington, DC: Transportation
Research Board.

2. Andrawes, B. O. 2001. Lateral Impact Response for

Prestressed Concrete Girder Bridges with Intermediate
Diaphragms. MS thesis, Iowa State University, Ames,
Iowa.

3. Abendroth, R., and F. Fanous. 2003. Lateral Impacts to

PC Girders in Bridges with Intermediate Diaphragms.
In Proceedings of the 2003 Mid-continent Transporta-
tion Research Symposium, Ames, Iowa, August 2003.
Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.

4. Green, T. M., N. Yazdani, and L. Spainhour. 2004.

Contribution of Intermediate Diaphragms in Enhanc-
ing Precast Bridge Performance. Journal of Perfor-
mance of Constructed Facilities, V. 18, No. 3 (Au-
gust): 142–146.

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 77

 About the authors
Mijia Yang, PhD, P.E., is an
assistant professor for the
Department of Civil and Environ-
mental Engineering at the
University of Texas at San
Antonio in San Antonio, Tex.
Pizhong Qiao, PhD, P.E., ASCE
Fellow, is a professor for the
Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering and
Wood Materials and Engineering
Laboratory at Washington State
University in Pullman, Wash.
David I. McLean, PhD, P.E., is a
professor and chair of the
Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at
Washington State University and
a member of ASCE.
Bijan Khaleghi, PhD, P.E., S.E.,
is a state bridge design engineer
for the Bridge and Structures
Office at the Washington State
Department of Transportation in
Olympia, Wash.
Synopsis
This paper studies the capacity of prestressed concrete
bridge girders to withstand overheight truck impacts.
The numerical model of the bridge was validated with
the existing experimental data in the literature. The
elastic-plastic modeling of concrete damage and quasi-
static impact simulation of the bridge were considered.
Parametric studies were then conducted with respect
to the spacing and depth of intermediate diaphragms
as well as girder types from which the role of inter-
mediate diaphragms in protection and enhancement of
78 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal
prestressed concrete bridge girders from truck impacts
is obtained.
From the simulation results, it was concluded that the
optimum spacing of intermediate diaphragms (that is,
25.0 ft [7.62 m]) is consistent with the results re-
ported for previous studies. The depth of intermediate
diaphragms should be extended to the top edge of the
bottom flange of girders to provide maximum impact
protection. Wide flanges in girders increase the bend-
ing stiffness and reduce the horizontal deflection and
correspondingly decrease damage areas. However,
deep webs in girders introduce a large rotation with
respect to the deck, and thus increase the deflection
under the truck impact.
Design guidelines for typical parameters for interme-
diate diaphragms in prestressed concrete bridges are
provided. The numerical finite-element parametric
study provides a better understanding of placement
and size of intermediate diaphragms in prestressed
concrete bridges and their role in protecting girders
from overheight truck impacts.
Keywords
Bridges, elasto-plasticity, energy absorption, finite-el-
ement model, girder, intermediate diaphragm, vehicle
impact.
Review policy
This paper was reviewed in accordance with the
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute’s peer-review
process.
Reader comments
Please address any reader comments to PCI Journal
editor-in-chief Emily Lorenz at elorenz@pci.org or
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, c/o PCI Journal,
209 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60606. J