Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lehigh Preserve
Fritz Laboratory Reports
1-1-1979
This Technical Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Civil and Environmental Engineering at Lehigh Preserve. It has been accepted
for inclusion in Fritz Laboratory Reports by an authorized administrator of Lehigh Preserve. For more information, please contact
preserve@lehigh.edu.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Report No.
3. Recipient's
C.:~tolog
No.
FHWA-PA-RD-72-4-3
4.
5. Report Dare
August 1979
6. Performing Orgoni otion Code
No .. 387.3
Project 72-4
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~------------------~
12. Sponsoring Agency Nome and Address
Interim Report
14. Sponsoring Agency Cade
17. KeyWords
Unclassified
Form DOT F 1700.7 ca-72l
Unclassified
Reproduction of completed poge authorized
221
22. Price
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Department of Transportation
Office of Research and Special Studies
Wade L. Gramling~ P.E. - Chief
Istvan Janauschek, P.E. - Research Coordinator
Project 72-4:
by
Ernesto S. deCastro
Celal N. Kostem
Dennis R. Mertz
David A. VanHorn
Prepared in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation and the U. S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration. The contents of this report
reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the
facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The
contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or
policies o.f the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation,
The U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, or the Reinforced Concrete Research
Council. This report does not constitute a standard,
specification or regulation.
LEHIGH UNIVERSITY
Office of Research
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
August 1979
Fritz Engineering Laboratory Report No. 387.3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ABSTRACT
The
span lengths, number of beams, and number of design lanes, and empirical expressions are developed to facilitate computation of
lateral load distribution factors for interior and exterior beams.
The proposed skew distribution factors are actually based upon appropriate modifications to the distribution factors for right bridges.
In general, the skew correction factor reduces the distribution
factor for interior beams and increases the distribution factor for
exterior beams.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.
2.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
General
1.2
1.3
Previous Studies
1.4
Analytical Approach
1.4.1
1.4.2
10
12
2.1
Introduction
12
2.2
12
2.3
13
2.4
15
2.4.1
16
2.4.2
17
2.4.3
19
Skew Bridge
3.
21
3.1
21
Introduction
3.3
21
3.2.1
22
3.2.2
24
3.2.3
26
27
3.3.1
27
3.3.2
28
ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
29
3.3.4
30
S/L
3.4
30
3.4.1
31
3.4.2
31
3.4.3
32
Equations
4.
3.5
Design Recommendations
34
3.6
Summary
36
37
BRIDGES
4.1
Introduction
37
4.2
Method of Analysis
38
4.2.1
General
38
4.2.2
Assumptions
39
4.2.3
Modeling Procedure
39
4.3
4.4
41
4.3.1
41
4.3.2
42
43
4.4.1
43
4.4.2
Distribution Factors
44
4.4.3
46
Equations
4.5
Design Recommendations
47
4.6
Summary
49
iii
5.
50
6.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
52
7.
TABLES
53
8.
FIGURES
64
9.
REFERENCES
114
10.
APPENDICES
121
122
ELASTIC PLATES
A.l
A.2
A.3
A.4
122
A.l.l
Methods of Solutions
122
A.l.2
122
124
A.2.1
124
A.2.2
126
A.2.3
129
131
A.3.1
Methods of Solutions
131
A.3.2
133
136
Bending
A.4.1
137
A.4.2
139
Field
A.4.3
142
Matrix
A.4.4
A.5
Summary
146
148
iv
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page
APPENDIX Al - Q8Sll ELEMENT STIFFNESS MATRIX
181
185
10.
B.l
General
187
B.2
188
B.3
197
B.4
201
B.S
Application of Loads
203
207
NOMENCLATURE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
187
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
1.
1.1
INTRODUCTION
General
The structural behavior of prestressed concrete beam-slab
bridges of this type indicated the need for refinement of the specification provisions governing live load distribution for right
bridges (Refs. 7,8,16,21,22,31,57), and for development of similar
specification provisions for skew bridges (Ref. 51).
The overall research program was initially directed towards
the study of prestressed concrete spread box-beam superstructures and
resulted in the development of new specification provisions governing
the lateral distribution of live loads for right bridges of this
type (Refs. 2,38).
I
I
I
I
report very little work had been done on skewed bridges, and virtually
no work had been done on skewed beam-slab bridges with prestressed
concrete I-beams or with prestressed
1.2
con~rete
The design
recommendations are based upon empirical expressions which were formulated utilizing the results of analytical experiments, and which
cover interior and exterior beams for both I-beam and box-beam superstructures.
The two basic beam-slab bridge sections utilized in this
study are shown in Fig. 1.
Figure lb shows a
As shown in
Fig. 2, the beams are equally spaced, and are parallel to the direction of traffic.
The vehicle
This
-2-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
It is
(1) the effects of curbs and parapets on the load distribution behavior of right I-beam bridges, (2) the effects of midspan or
multiple diaphragms and (3) the extension of the overall study to
include continuous bridges.
1.3
Previous Studies
Lateral load distribution in bridges has been the subject of
numerous previous
investigation~.
A detailed description
-3-
Sanders and Elleby discussed various methods of load distribution analysis employed by previous investigators, and their corresponding results (Ref. 49).
In this method,
In this
to field tested beam-slab type highway bridges constructed with prestressed concrete I-beams.
The analytical
modeling technique for the above approach is given by Kostem (Ref. 29).
-4-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The finite element approach, utilizing plate and eccentrically attached stiffener elements as applied to highway bridges, was
reported by deCastro and Kostem (Ref. 13).
Distribution
bution factor equations were obtained for the interior beams and
exterior beams of right bridges.
Very little experimental data is available on skewed beamslab bridges (Ref. 63).
60 skew composite bridge with steel !-beams indicated that the skew
caused a general reduction in the beam strains of about 17 percent
(Ref. 25).
-5-
The work by Chen, Newmark and Siess (Ref. 9) and the work by
Gustafson and Wright (Ref. 23) contributed significantly to the analytical study of skewed beam-slab structures.
Chen, Newmark and Siess used the finite difference method to
analyze skewed bridges.
2.
3.
4.
5.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10
-6-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
bridges.
I-beams were analyzed and the behavior due to the skew as well as
the effects of midspan diaphragms, were illustrated.
The parallelo-
gram plate elements which were used did not satisfy slope compatibility requirements at element boundaries, and, therefore, relative
accuracy could not be ascertained.
sk~w
bridges, and skew bridges with only edge beams, and are not directly
applicable to this particular study.
1.4
Analytical Approach
The finite element method was chosen as the analytical basis
-7-
structures.
can easily be applied anywhere on the bridge structure, and beam and
slab moments can be readily computed at critical sections.
There are two basic approaches to the
~inite
element method
of analysis: (1) the stiffness approach, and (2) the flexibility approach.
study.
The basic concepts and steps necessary for a finite element
analysis are discussed in general terms in this section, and in more
specific terms in Refs. 5,17,18,33,58,64,65.
analytical procedure to the elements used in beam-slab bridge superstructures is discussed in subsequent chapters of this report.
1.4.1
-8-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The
-9-
tion relationship is expressed conveniently by the stiffness properties of the finite element.
Once the element properties have been defined, the analysis
of stresses and deflections becomes a standard structural problem.
As
in any structural analysis, the requirements of equilibrium, compatibility and the force displacement relationship must be satisfied by
the solution.
It should be noted
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
live load distribution factor equation for which the interior and
exterior beams of beam-slab bridges
~ust
be designed.
The expres-
sions are different for different types of bridges, and are functions
of the center-to-center spacing of the beams only.
In 1973
AASHTO
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The application
-11-
2.
2.1
Introduction
The finite element procedures necessary for the analysis of
As
2.2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
56,64).
A finite element analysis technique for skewed plates is presented in Appendix A.
Because of the
2.3
model, (3) plate and stiffeners model, and (4) folded plate model.
Each method has limitations imposed on it because of the associated
modeling scheme (Refs. 58,59).
-13-
The equivalent plate model idealizes the behavior of stiffened plates by plate bending action.
of the stiffeners are "smeared" throughout the plate, and the resuiting structure is analyzed as a plate problem.
In the equivalent grid model the structure is idealized as
a grillage of beam elements.
nection between longitudinal stiffeners, the slab is modeled by transverse beam elements at sufficient intervals.
feners are used, and the actual stresses are derived directly from
the analysis.
is used for I-beam bridges and the folded plate model is used for
box-beam bridges.
The analysis of stiffened plate structures can be formulated
by combining the classi"c~l plate and beam theories (Ref. 58).
The
-14-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
This assumption
The method
should also be readily adaptable to a variety of structural configurations and loading considerations.
2.4
were used to analyze various structures and the results of such analyses
were compared with available solutions and with field test data.
Gen-
-15-
2.4.1
The structure is a
The plate-to-beam
skew), and
includes two plate elements between the beams and eight plate elements
along the span.
-16-
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.
to
can be noted.
2.
to 45
skew
The
For the same width and span, the skew bridge transfers the
and the beam slab dimensions were comparable to those of the Bartonsville Bridge (Ref. 7).
The difference between composite and non-composite analysis
is shown in Fig.
9~
the figure:
1.
The increase
The reduction and the. rate of reduction in moment coefficients for the interior beam seems to be almost the
same for both composite and non-composite analyses.
-18-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.4.3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
is located on U. S. 41A over Elk River, and has a span of 50 ft. and
The bridge
the AASHO road test series (Ref. 24) can be analyzed using the method
previously discussed.
The vehicle is
-19-
as indicated by the field test data and the finite element analyses
are listed in the second column of Table 3.
3.
4.
The design moments for each beam can also be computed and
compared to the 1953 AASHO provisions.
The distribution
The com-
parison shows that the distribution factor for the center beams is
overestimated by the AASHO specification provision, and that the
distribution factor for the exterior beams is substantially underestimated.
-20-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.
3.1
Introduction
In the design of beam-slab highway bridges, the live load
The applicable
distribution factor is given by AASHTO in the Standard Specifications for highway bridges for right bridges (Section 1.4.2 and Ref. 3).
However, as discussed in Section 1.1, load distribution factors are
not given for skew bridges.
This chapter presents the lateral load distribution analysis
of skewed beam-slab bridges with prestressed concrete I-beams.
Skew
Distribution factors
3..2
The moment
I
in a particular beam produced by one design vehicle placed anywhere
on the bridge is expressed in terms of the moment coefficient.
This
A plot
of moment coefficients against the lateral position of the load represents the moment influence line of the beam under consideration.
3.2.1
This
The same
ficients for the beam at the specified positions of the trucks gives
the distribution factor for the particular beam.
-22-
Thus,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D. F.
(3.1)
D.F.
(3.2)
= 0,
12 ft. lane
leftmost boundary of the lane from the leftmost curb (Fig. 13a).
a new value of x, e.g. x =1, and the truck is repositioned again within
the lane so as to obtain the highest moment coefficient for this new
lane position.
obtained in the above process is used in the distribution factor calculation in Eq. 3.2.
is repeated for all lanes until all trucks are positioned in each lane
in such a manner that the sum of the moment coefficients is a maximum.
The lanes are then moved to a new position on the bridge and the
-23
procedure of positioning
The
factor calculations are also computed at the section under the drive
wheels.
For skew bridges, however, the position of the load that produces the maximum response in a beam, and the location of the beam
section where the maximum moment occurs are not known.
Moreover, for
the same beam, the location of the maximum moment section can differ
for different lane positions of the truck.
which produces the maximum moment response, and the location of the
maximum moment section in a beam of a skew bridge, are different from
those of a right bridge.
lowing example.
The structure is a five-beam bridge, 24 ft. wide and 60 ft.
long, with a
~elative
The beams
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
are equally spaced at 6ft., and the slab is 7-1/2 in. throughout.
The HS20-44 truck loads are placed one at a time at five positions
across the width of the bridge, so that the.distance of the centroid
of each truck from its consecutive position is 4.5 ft.
~ane
In each of the
2.33 ft.
~onsecutive
carried out for each beam of the bridge at skew angles of 90 (right
bridge), 45, and 30 (Figs. 14 through 18).
truck is always with the front wheels towards the right (Fig. 3).
The
90 , 45 , and 30
midspan for all angles of skew, the positions of the truck differ for
each case.
15 and 16).
and the location of the maximum beam moment section are shown in Figs.
17 and 18.
Based on these
results, one would expect the critical load position and the location
of the maximum beam moment section, to be different for another skew
bridge with a different number of beams, spacing or span length.
-25-
Section 3.2.2 caused by the HS20-44 truck loads are determined for
load centroids located at midspan.
beam section d/2 from midspan and in the direction of the obtuse angle
corner at the supports.
The larger
difference occurs at larger skews and at lane loads away from beam C.
It is also of interest to compare the moments in beam C resulting
from loads on lanes 1 and 5.
is produced yith the truck going in the direction of the acute angle
corner of the support, i.e., lane 5 (Figs. 16.and 19).
The above investigation indicates that placing the load centroid at midspan will aproximately produce the maximum moment response
in a beam without significant loss in accuracy.
-26-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
moment for the lateral load distribution study can be computed at the
beam section at d/2 from midspan and in the direction of the obtuse
angle corner.
It should be noted, however, that in general the distance
from the midspan of the beam to the section of maximum moment will not
be d/2 for other bridges.
bridges analyzed in Section 3.4 shows that the moment at d/2, if different from the maximum moment, can be in error by 2% for the shorter
bridges and by less than 1% for the longer bridges.
However, such
3.3
bridges and to determine the important parameters that must be considered in load distribution studies, an analytical investigation was
carried out for two basic bridge widths.
Fig. 20.
varied and the moment percentages were computed for each case.
-27-
The
of the bridge section as close as possible to each other in accordance with the 1973 AASHTO Specification (Ref. 3).
Beginning with
four beams, the number of beams was increased to five and then to
six to establish two new sets of bridges with constant span lengths.
Consequently, the beam spacing changed from 8 ft. to 6 ft. and
4.75 ft., respectively.
were 90
to 45 .
-28-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.3.3
posi~ioned
For these
configurations, one rear wheel and one front wheel were off of the
bridge so that load distribution comparison with longer bridges was
not practical.
In beam C, the amount of reduction in the distribution factor
was marginal from 90 to 45 skew for the lengths considered.
However,
3.3.4
24 ft. wide bridges with five beams and at skew angles of 90, 45,
and 30 are shown in Fig. 23.
tigated were 30ft., 60ft., and 120ft. for the 24ft. wide bridges;
and 42ft., 59 ft., and 101ft. for the 42ft. wide bridges.
These
dimensions correspond toW /L ratio of 0.80, 0.40, and 0.20 for the
c
24ft. wide bridges and 1.0, 0.70, and 0.42 for the 42ft. wide
bridges.
The two figures indicate that at a high S/L ratio there is a
larger decrease in the distribution factor as the skew angle decreases.
3.4
right bridges
These
In this section,
-30-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.4.1
Table 4.
The basic widths considered were 24, 48, and 72ft., curb-
to-curb.
Different lengths
Detailed descrip-
distribution factors were computed for all interior and exterior beams.
In determining distribution factors, consideration was given to the
maximum number of design lanes that could be placed on a given bridge
width.
for each bridge were selected and are listed in Tables 5 and 6
respectively.
Similar plots are presented for the 48 ft. wide bridges with
six, nine, and eleven beams in Fig. 26, and for the 72 ft. wide
bridges with nine, twelve, and sixteen beams in Fig. 27.
In addition
1.
2.
At
large spacing and short spans the lateral distribution of the load is
small and hence the distribution factor is small.
spacing, the distribution factor is also small.
At narrow beam
Consequently, the
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
to have good correlation with the percent reduction were the spacingto-length ratio S/L and the bridge width-to-span ratio W /L in come
bination with the square of the cotangent of the skew angle.
A regres-
PCTR
where PCTR
c)
(45 ~ + 2 W
L
cot
beam spacing
wc = curb-to-curb
L
= span
length
= skew
angle
width
-33-
(3. 3)
PCTR(EXT)
where PCTR(EXT)
= reduction
= 50
~t- 0.12~
cot $
(3. 4)
4'-6" <
< 9'-0"
.
30 s k ew, and very s h ort span.
spac1ng,
equation for interior beams are shown in Figs. 31, 32, and 33 for the
bridges investigated.
3.5
Design Recommendations
From the results of this study, the following simplified pro-
cedures are recommended for the determination of the live load distribution factors in prestressed concrete I-beam bridges with skew:
-34-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.
= DF 90
(1.0 -
pi~)
= distribution
where DF
(3.5)
90
= distribution
2.
DF(EXT)
= DF90(EXT)
where DF(EXT)
( l.O-
PCTR(EXT)\
100
(3.6)
DF 0(EXT)
9
= distribution
= amplification
or reduction factor as
-35-
3.6
Summary
The load distribution behavior of skewed I-beam bridges under
were computed for the interior and exterior beams of bridges constructed with prestressed concrete I-beams.
0
made:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The bridge width-to-span ratio and beam spacing-to. span ratio, and the skew angle significantly affect
the amount of reduction.
-36-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. 4.
4.1
Introduction
The design and construction of spread box-beam bridges (Fig.
box-be~m
Extensive field
Lehigh University (Refs. 16,21,22,31,51,57), however, with the exception of Ref. 51, all of these investigations have been for right
bridges.
The field investigations confirmed the need for a realistic
procedure for determining live load distribution for spread box-beam
bridges with and without skew.
Motarjemi and VanHorn (Ref. 38) provided a new specification provision for lateral load distribution for right bridges with prestressed
concrete spread box-beams (Ref. 2).
The
first term is the distribution factor for an identical right (no skew)
-37-
bridge.
requ~red
skew mod-
4.2
Method of Analysis
4.2.1
General
The analysis of spread box-beam bridges is a complex problem
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Assumptions
The beam-slab bridge configuration utilized in this in-
vestigation consisted of a concrete deck of constant thickness, supported on equally spaced prismatic box-beams (Fig. lb).
compositely with the simply supported beams.
Although the
was assumed to respond to service loads as a linear elastic, homogeneous, isotropic material.
Boundary conditions for the finite element model were
specified in the global coordinate system, and consequently support
nodes were not cOnstrained to rotat-e about the skewed line of support.
The effect of such an assumption on maximum beam moments was discussed in Section 2.4.2 and was found to be of negligible concern.
4.2.3
Modeling Procedure
The pre-processor PRESAP Modeling Procedure which creates
the input required by program SAPIV, was used to model the bridge
-39-
structures.
Consequently, a
from the ends of the bridges toward midspan were long and narrow with
relatively poor aspect ratios (up to 18.0).
single elements, while two elements were used to model the deck
between each beam.
with plate bending elements, which exhibit plane stress and flexural
response (Ref. 4).
-40-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The
neutral axis for each beam was obtained by locating the point of
zero stress for each stress distribution.
width of the slab for each beam was the center-to-center beam spacing,
the bending moment for each beam was computed about its neutral axis.
The lateral load distribution factor was then obtained by dividing
the resulting moment in each beam by the maximum simple-span moment
which would be produced in a similar beam by one line of wheel loads.
4.3
4.3.1
All reported
between the two values is only 3% and is quite acceptable for the
purposes of this investigation.
4.3.2
In the
Motarjemi analysis, the 54 ft. roadway was divided into four traffic
lanes, each 13 ft.-6 in. in width.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The current
4.4
4.4.1
The general
behavior of skewed, spread box-beam bridges was modeled in this investigation by 72 bridges of different widths, number of beams, span
length, and skew angle.
The box-beam bridges selected for this study are listed in
Table 9.
0
0
0
0
at skew angles of 90 , 60 , 45 , and 30 .
The
A uniform thickness of 7-1/2 inches was used for the deck slab.
Curbs, parapets and diaphragms were not considered.
A 48/48 prestressed
concrete box-beam (Ref. 43) (48" wide and 48" high) was used for all
beams in all bridges.
for all bridge. configurations and for all elements of each bridge.
Two general loading schemes were utilized to determine distribution factors for both interior and exterior box-beams.
Five load
each lane in such a manner that all drive axles fell on the bridge's
skew midspan.
Distribution Factors
The maximum distribution factors for the 18 bridges listed in
Table 9 with skews of 90, 60, 45, and 30 are listed in Table 10
-44-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Distribution
of a skewed, spread box-beam bridge provides a better lateral distribution of the loads and consequently results in better participation
of all beams in the overall response of the structure.
The larger reduction in the distribution factors at shorter
span lengths for the interior beams can be attributed to the fact
that, at large skews, some of the design vehicle's wheels were either
off of the bridge or very close to the supports.
The observed
For
In
two-lane bridges maximum moments were achieved when the bridge was
fully loaded with two design vehicles.
-45-
governing load condition was found to occur when either three or four
vehicles were on the span.
a maximum moment for shorter, less skewed bridges, whereas the four
vehicle condition governed for longer, more skewed bridges.
The
critical load pattern for a six-lane bridge followed the same trend as
that of a four-lane bridge with the exception that either four or five
design vehicles resulted in maximum moments in exterior box-beams.
4.4.3
where PR
skewed bridge
= the
beams are listed in Tables 12 and 13 for the various bridges analyzed
in this study.
-46-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PR = K(~)
L
PR
= K(~)
L
(__)
PR = K(E_)
L
(cot )
(4.2)
(cot )
(4.3)
y
(cot )
(4. 4)
These equations consider various combinations of the critical parameters of span length (L), beam spacing (S), and curb-to-curb
width (W ).
c
However,
it was also observed that Eq. 4.3, which has a simpler form, adequately approximated the experimental data.
that the influence of bridge aspect ratio was less significant than
that of spacing to length (S/L) ratio or skew angle.
4.5
Design Recommendations
Distribution factors for skewed, spread box-beam bridges
-47-
Interior Box-Beams
w ) 1/10
PR
PR
s r'2
= 33.0 ( L
29.0 (
1/2
t) (coq)
3/2
(4.5)
or
(cot ~)
(4.6)
Exterior Box-Beams
Lc (f)
(II )1/3
PR
19.5
PR
30.0
or
(t)
112
1/5
(cot )
413
(cot )
(4. 7)
(4.8)
4.7 more accurately represent the experimental data; however, Eqs. 4.6
and 4.8 have a much simpler form, can be readily adopted for design
application, and provide an adequate approximation of overall bridge
behavior.
72 I
-48-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.6
Suliiiilary
The load distribution behavior of skewed, spread box-beam
bution factors were computed for the interior and exterior beams of
bridges constructed with prestressed concrete box-beams.
0
The skew
The following
2.
This behavior is
The bridge
width~to-span
I
I
I
Load distri-
-49-
5.
This report describes the development of skew-effect correction factors which are to be applied to the live-load distribution
factors in beam-slab highway bridge superstructures supported by prestressed concrete I-beams or box-beams.
Initially, an analytical procedure utilizing the finite
element method was developed to evaluate the response of skewedbridge superstructures to design-vehicle loading.
The analytical
The design
-50-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The
-51-
6.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was conducted in the Department of Civil Engineering and Fritz Engineering Laboratory, under the auspices of the
Lehigh University Office of Research, as a part of the research
investigation entitled "Development and Refinement of Load Distribution Provisions for Prestressed Concrete Beam-Slab Bridges" sponsored by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation; the U. S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; and
the Reinforced Concrete Research Council.
The basic research planning and administrative coordination
in this investigation were in cooperation with the following individuals representing the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation:
B. F. Kotalik, Chief Bridge Engineer; H. P. Koretzky, and Hans
Streibel, all from the Bridge Division; and Istvan Januaschek,
Research Coordinator; from the Office of Research and Special
Studies.
The following members of the staff at Lehigh University
made significant contributions:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 1
s.s. 1
..
Moment Coefficients
XL X P
Beam
Skew S.S.
xP
2
s.s. 1
Skew S.S.
0.00232
0.0233
0.0614
0.0600
0.0437
0.0439
0. 0371
0.0412
0.0922
0.0918
0.1085
0 . 028
0.0437
0.0439
0.2545
0.2254
0.00232
0.0233
0.0385
0.0706
1simply supported.
2simply supported and constrained to rotate about
skew line of support, ~ = 45.
TABLE 1
Exterior Girders
Field Test
60
40
Analytical Results
59
41
Ref. 6
-53-
TABLE 3
MOMENT PERCENTAGES
I: Beam Moment
Bridge
2B
Truck Moment
Interior
Center
Exterior
Field Test
(Ref. 24)
89.30
34.0
32.0
34.0
Finite Element
93.57
32.6
34.0
33.2
92.13
33.2
33.8
33.0
Field Test
(Ref. 24)
92.10
33.8
.33.4
29.2
Finite Element
(composite)
94.50
32.7
34.3
33.0
Finite Element
83.95
33.2
33.8
33.0
(composite)
Finite Element
(non- composite)
3B
(non-composite~
-154-
~--~---
~-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 4
LIST OF BRIDGES ANALYZED
Bridge
No.
Width
Number
of Beams
Spacing
~in.2
~ft.2
Length
Beam Size
S/L
AASHO-VI
.0400
~ft.2
24.00
57.60
120.00
24.00
57.60
72.00
24/42
.0667
24.00
57.60
38.40
20/30
.1250
24.00
72.00
120.00
24.00
72.00
60.00
20/39
.1000
24.00
72.00
42.00
20/30
.1429
. 24.00
96.00
120.00
AASHO-VI
.0667
24.00
96.00
64.00
24/45
.1250
9
10
24.00
48.00
40.00
120.00
20/30
11
96.00
57.60
AASHO-VI
.2000
.0400
11
48.00
11
57.60
84.00
24/48
.0571
12
48.00
11
57.60
48.00
20/30
.1000
13
48.00
72.00
105.00
28/63
.0571
14
48.00
72.00
60.00
20/39
.1000
15
48.00 .
72.00
42.00
20/30
.1429
16
48.00
115.20
96.00
AASHO-VI
.1000
17
48.00
115.20
57.60
24/45
.1667
18
48.00
115.20
48.00
20/33
.2000
19
72.00
16
57.60
120.00
ASSHO-VI
.0400
20
72.00
16
57.60
57.60
20/36
.0833
21
22
72.00
72.00
16
14
57.60
66.50
38.40
110.80
AASHO-I
AASHO-VI
.1250
.0500
23
72.00
14
66.50
66.50
24/42
.0833
24
72.00
14
66.50
38.80
AASHO-I
.1429
25
72.00
12
78.50
114.50
AASHO-VI
.0571
26
72.00
12
78.50
65.50
24/42
.1000
27
72.00
12
78.50
39.30
20/30
.1667
28
72.00
108.00
108.00
AASHO-VI
.0833
29
72.00
108.00
54.00
24/42
.1667
30
72.00
108.00
45.00
24/36
.2000
-55-
.AASHO-VI
.0500
'IABLE 5
MAXIMUM DISTRIBUTION FACTORS - INTERIOR BEAMS
Bridge
No.
. '**!:ILL
2
.84
.81
77
.66 .
.96
.94
.93
.86
.96
.92
.88
.82
1.05
.99
.92
78
1.17
1.07
.95
.76
1.23
1.20
1.18
1.08
1.30
1.24
1.17
.99
1.32
1.23
1.14
.88
10
.94
.91
.87
79
11
.94
.90
~87
75
12
13
1.03
1.17
3
4
.98
1.13
3
4
.94
1.09
3
4
.87
2
4
14
1.20
1.14
1.08
.89
15
1.24
1.13
1.07
.83
16
1.84
1. 79
1.74
1.59
17
1.83
1.77
1.70
1.45
18
1.86
1.72
1.58
1.24
19
.94
.92
.90
.84
20
.95
5
4
.91
.87
75
21
.97
.91
.96
.72
22
1.07
1.05
1.04
.98
23
1.07
1.04
1.01
.89
24
1.09
1.02
.96
77
25
1.23
1.21
1.19
1.11
26
1.24
1.20
1.16
1.03
27
1.30
1.21
1.12
.89
28
1. 72
1.68
1.65
1.51
29
1.74
1.68
1.61
1.33
30
l. 77
1.68
1. 60
1.23
.81
79
.77
.71
Number of Lanes
**Number of Loaded Lanes
-56-
.97
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
.I
I
II
TABLE 6
Bridge
No.
1
30
.72
.67
67
.67
.64
3
4
5
.56
.57
.57
.58
.80
.81
.82
.83
75
.77
.78
.73
.73
.73
.72
.62
1.01
1.02
1.02
1.01
.95
.95
.94
.88
.87
.87
.86
~74
10
.71
.72
.73
.73
11
.68
68
68
.65
12
62
. 61
.61
.59
13
.83
.83
.84
.83
14
78
.76
.76
15
.74
.71
.62
16
.72
1.10
1.10
1.11
1.09
17
1.02
1.01
1.00
.92
18
1.08
1.03
.99
.85
19
f>
70
.71
.72
.72
20
.65
.64
63
.58
21
.61
.60
60
.53
22
.78
78
.79
2"
23
74
.73
~67
24
.68
.72
.66
.67
.58.
25
.88
.89
.91
.91
26
.83
.85
.86
.so
27
2
1
.74
.75
.75
.63
28
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.09
29
.97
.96
. 95
.86
30"
2 .
. 95
. 2
.93
.91
.80
Number of Lanes
**Number of Loaded Lanes
-57-
70
78
I
I
I
TABLE 7
BROOKVILLE BRIDGE COMPARISON
-1
Percentage of Total Moment Taken by Each Girder (Fig. 38)
Girder
A
Field Test
44%
31%
15%
10%
Model
47%
32%
14%
7%
Method
TABLE 8
MOTARJEMI COMPARISON
Load Distribution Factors as Reported by Motarjemi and by
Model Analysis
S/L
Motarjemi
Model
1/4
1.08
1.16
1/5
1.12
1.20
1/6
1.13
1.21
1/8
1.15
1.23
1/10
1.15
1.24
-58-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ll
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 9
LIST OF SPREAD
Bridge
No.
Width
Number
of Beams
~ft.2
BOX-B~
Spacing
Length
~in.}
~ft. 2
Beam Size
S/L
24.00
122.50
40.83
3-48/48
.2500
24.00
122.50
71.46
3-48/48
.1430
24.00
122.50
122.50
3-48/48
.0830
24.00
81.67
34.03
4-48/48
.2000
24.00
81.67
47.64
4-48/48
.1430
24.00
81.67
102.08
4-48/48
.0670
48.00
133.25
44.42
5-48/48
.2500
48.00
133.25
88.83
5-48/48
.1250
48.00
133.25
5-48/48
.1000
10
11
48.00
48.00
7
7
88.83
88.83
37.01
59.22
7-48/48
7-48/48
.2000
.1250
12
48.00
88.83
111.03
7-48/48
.0670
13
72.00
117.29
39.10
8-48/48
.2500
14
72.00
117.29
78.19
8-48/48
.1250
15
72.00
117.29
97.74
8-48/48
.1000
16
72.00
102.62
42.75
9-48/48
.2000
17
72.00
102.62
68.42
9-48/48
.1250
18
72.00
9_
102.62
128.25
9-48/48
.0670
I.
I
I
I
BRIDGES
-59-
11.04
TABLE 10
MAXIMUM DISTRIBUTION FACTOR - INTERIOR BEAMS
Bridge
Number
90
60
45
30
1. 73
1.62
1.45
1.12
1.63
1.56
1.46
1. 22
1.51
1.47
1.40
1.23
1.17
1.07
0.96
0.79
1.13
1.07
0.98
0.80
1.07
1.04
0.99
0.86
1.92
1.82
1.66
1.32
1.87
1.80
1.69
1.42
1.85
1. 79
1.69
1.43
10
1.39
1.27
1.12
0.86
11
1.32
1.25
1.16
0.95
12
1.27
1.22
1.16
0.98
13
1.72
1.61
' 1.46
1.18
14
1.67
1.60
1.51
1.25
15
1.66
1.61
1.52
1.27
16
1.55
1.46
. 1. 33
1.04
17
1.51
1.44
1.35
1.12
18
1.47
1.42
1.35
1.14
-60-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 11
MAXIMUM DISTRIBUTION FACTOR - EXTERIOR BEAMS
Bridge
90
NL
Number
60
NLL
DF
NLL
DF
45
NLL
DF
30
NLL
DF
1.30
1.21
1.12
0.93
1. 34
1.28
1. 22
1.08
1. 36
1. 32
1.27
1.16
1.01
0.94
0.87
0.72
1.03
0.98
0.91
0.79
1.05
1.02
0.99
0.90
1.45
1.34
1.22
1.01
1.48
1.40
1. 34
1.17
1.50
1.43
1.37
1.21
10
1.09
1.01
0.91
0.75
11
1.13
1.05
0.98
0.85
12
1.15
1.09
1.05
0.93
13
1.32
1.22
1.11
0.92
14
1.39
1.31
1. 22
1.05
15
1.40
1.32
1.24
1.08
16
1.22
1.13
1.03
0.86
17
1. 26
1.19
1.10
0.95
18
1.29
1.22
1.15
1.00
-61-
TABLE 12
MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE REDUCTION - INTERIOR BEAMS
Bridge
Number
90
60
45
30
0.00
6.36
16.18
35.26
4.29
10.43
25.15
2.65
7.28
18.54
8.55
17.95
32.48
5.31
13.27
29.20
2.80
7.48
19.63
5.21
13.54
31.25
3.74
9.63
24.06
3.24
8.65
22.70
10
8.63
19.42
38.13
11
5.30
12.12
28.03
12
3.94
8.66
22.83
13
6.40
15.12
31.40
14
4.19
9.58
25.15
15
3.01
8.43
23.49
16
5.81
14.20
32.90
17
4.64
10.60
25.83
3.40
8.16
22.45
18
0.00
-62-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 13
MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE REDUCTION - EXTERIOR BEAMS
Bridge
Number
90
60
45
30
0.00
6.92
13.85
28.46
4.48
8.96
19.40
2.94
6.62
14.71
6.93
13.86
28.71
4.85
11.65
23.30
2.86
5. 71
14.29
7.59
15.86
30.34
5.41
9.46
20.95
.4.67
8.67
19.33
10
7.34
16.51
31.19
11
7.08
13.27
24.78
12
5.22
8.70
19.13
13
7.58
15.91
30.30
14
5.76
12.23
24.46
15
5. 71
11.43
22.86
16
7.38
15.57
29.51
17
5.56
12.70
24.60
5.43
10.85
22.48
18
0.00
-63-
8
(a)
I
0"1
.p.
D.
'
D
8
(b)
D
c
D
D
Fig. 1
rfl
D
E
,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~---------- ~----------
-----------t---------I
--------.--1---------I
----~----t-----~---Js
~---__._
---- t- --------- _
~
-1
o Right Bridge
1-
Skewct
-------~--------
-------------.
.
_,
b Skew Bridge
.
'
~
1-
..
,.
c
-~.
2.S
s
-1-
~
.I
Section
-,65-
0
I
~~
14' (min)
14
~
~
Axle Loads:
.I
--EZm-~
8k
32k
32 k
0
20.4
1-
- -'i'I~.
-C\1 -qr~
r-..:
10
I
1'-
lO
fQ5229..
13.0
. ~i
~-wJ
I
EX&":3
EXZ9 .
RXXSJ.
32.3k
Test. Vehicle
10.3 k
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
...
...
... .....
------
..
...
...
...
.. ..
. I
I
. I
0\
00
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - s
~
-1-
D -+-
li---+--+---+--Q---t---t---t---tl
k----+--r--+--Q---t---t----t---1!
E _.__ 4---L--...1---"---o---"----"--....._---r
Support Line
Support Line
L --------------~~
o Location Of Max. Beam Moment Response
()\
-o
I
30
Support Line
s
s
b
Support Line
Fig. 6
Location of the Maximum Beam Moment Response in a ~0 Skew Bridge (Right Bridge)
and a 30 Skew Bridge - Concentrated Load at Midspan of Beam C
s
B
s
E
.
I
Support Line
-...j
0
I
c
0
Fig. 7
I
I
I
0.12
III
I
I
I
I
I
I
-1.
t= 0.1
O.t I
s:.::..::_
(/) 0.09
....
.z
' w 0.08
' '
...... """'-.
-u..
u.. 0.07
w
0
0 0.06
--
-c......
Beam C
-........
.....
zw 0.05 -=-=-~<~.
::~:::--~-P':I..
. . ~--- . . . . _,.
I
.
o---...._.~-==-==-~
~ 0.04
"'--~
-~
0.03
0.02
--
-----.., . .,_,_. . -
0.01
90
75
_,...,____
60
SKEW
AN~LE,
~-Beam 8-
Beam A
. --o- . ..-. .
45
30
degrees
I
~--
1
I
I
I
Fig. 8
-71-.
---a.--
0.12
0.11
0.1 Oqr------..;..--~
Beam C
Lr-"-_
. (J)
1-
fti-
0.09
0.08
-tt 0.07
.. w
( .)
o
(.) 0.06
--
~ 0.05 ~-------5---
~0.04
Beam 8
0.03
0.02
Beam A
.o- -o-----
0.01
60
75
90
.-
45
30
.- 0.1
e~=O.
GKT = 0.
EI
~ = 0.5
GKT = 0.035
EI .
Fig . 9
-72-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-f'C\1
'
25.0
e Load Points
50.0
11
Fig. 10
-73-
...,,_
..:-
\.
0
"1\
L-
12
1-
<.&>
11
Center Beam
I{)
Exterior Beam
"'
4'- 2 = 50 -0
Plan
-~f.
-f-
Interior Beom
11
=o
-0
-
I{)
I{)
-I
and Discretization
.......
.p..
Beam Properties
$lora ol
ez t zo:r
Clro.
e.!."
I
2B
JB
L.A
Fig.
Bridge
11
Beam
Ix (In 4 >
Size
w/Coverplate
wl8 x50
wl8x60
1040
1176
1.00 r-
ro--o
f--
0::
f2
0.75
r--
--
(.)
~
2
0
._
- -
0.50 -
:J
-.I
V1
C1)
en
cr
.~
._
(/)
0
0..
(J)
0.25 -
.Q'l
(/)
Q)
C1)
C1)
(/)
(/)
0
0..
(.)
I
E c0
(.)
(.)
0..
-0
(/)
C\J
C\J
t()
C1)
u;
0
0..
c
0
en en en en
INTERIOR
Fig. 12
0
0..
C1)
r<>
C1)
0'
(/)
Q)
C1)
.~
(/)
(/)
0
0..
0
0..
(.)
I
E c0
0
u z
Q)
(/)
0
0..
C\J
t()
CENTER
(/)
0
0.
t()
- - -
c
.Q'
(/)
Q)
C1)
C1)
(/)
G>
en en en en
C\J
(.)
E c0
0
(.) z
(.)
0
0..
(/)
C1)
(/)
0
0.
(.)
c
0
(.)
0
0..
(.)
I
en m m en
C\J
C\J
t()
t()
EXTERIOR
Distribution Factors for Interior, Center and Exterior Br~dge Beams AASHO Test Bridge
121- Q II
X (varies,)
Lane V/idth
X1(varie,s) 6'-o"
2'-o" ~- x 1s 4'-o"
(a)
One Lane
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
X(varied
Lane 2
Lane I
x,
x2
Lane 3
x3
r r
I
(b)
Two Lanes
4
Fig. 13.
-76-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--1
t--d/2
: 9i
I
5/L=O.I
II 9l lI
T!
I
t n l
<P
=90
I
:
L/2
~ I
I
'ct.
5/L =0.1
<P
l:
= 45
.. I
1-
o.
Fig. 14
-77-
-I
r-- d/2
_....
A
!
I
C)
I
II "'{
I
I
I
I
S/L=O.I
cf> = 90
j
I
>
I
I
I
I
I
I
L/2
(typi eel)
(typical)
L.
o
Fig. 15
-78-
...t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-- r-:- d/2
I
I
I
I
I
I
S/L=O.I
I
I
C)
</>
=90
:
I
> II
I
L/2
~~-----------~-- ~
A
S/L=O.I
</> =45
',',, ,'b.',
' '
l:
L/2
-1 i
A
S/L=O.I
</>
= 30
L
o
Fig. 16
-79-
_,
I
I
~ t--d/2
I
I
I
I
I
<?
S/L=O.I
I
I
I
'I
lI
'
4>
= 90
I ol
D
E
y:
-~ft.
L/2
A
'
S/L=O.I
4> = 45
''b
1~:~-----._L/_2_
__,_-..~I <t
...I
S/L= 0.1
cp
l:
0
Fig. 17
<t
= 30
Response - Beam D
-80-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-.-:
I
I
'
I
I
<
S/L =0.1
~ =90
D
E
r----d/2
I
I
I
L/2
>!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A
S/L=O.I
tp = 45
L/2
L
..I
L/2
0
Fig. 18
-81-
I
I
I
I
I
5~------------------------------------~
a Load Position Producing Max. Moment Response
en
~
:;:
I
c:
..
3~~-------4--~~---+--~~---r------~
8
)(
(/)
~ 2~~------~~------~--------~~------~
w
~
.,
<C
Ol
0~~-------+--------~--------~-------;
-Q 5 ~A~------~B------~C--------D~----~E
Span = 60'
Fig. 19
Spacing = 6'
-82-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
50~--------~~----~--------~------~
~Load Position 3
~~
~~
~~
~~
40~----~~~--------+---------~------~
Load Position I
~
0
(,!)
<(
t-
LLJ
(.)
et:
0..
t-
LLJ
~
:E
-5
0
----,------
I------
cp = 90
:l
4> = 60
4> = 30
g 8 g 8 g
'"'' 3
Span=
Fig. 20
so
Spacing = s
-83-
1.6
. - - - - - - - - - - a,'5.5
N8=4
S =8'-on
NB=5
s =6'-o"
4.75/i
NB=6 s =4'-9!'
- - - - . 5.5
0.6
60
SKE'wV ANGLE
-84--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:.1.
A
30
60
120
0::
t(.)
<t
I
c
8 .A
30' span
60'
120'
-., lL.
t-
:J
C-60
- - - - 8-60
CD
0::
8-120
t-
.-
-- -
- __:;5.5_
A-120
(J)
A-60
<t
A-30
60
45
SKEW ANGLE
Fig. 22
-85-
SPAN' L
120'
30'
60'
1.8
0:::
.....
~~~~=~~IWc
1.6
(.)
1-
<t
LL
.I
-.....
:::>
al
a::
.....
C/)
Wc=24'
S/5.5
N8=5
<t
2 Lanes
=6'
Vs
S/L
Fig.
23
-86-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.
I
I
I
SPAN
101'- o"
. 58'-11"
42'2"
~}c
1- L
.. 1
Wc=42'
45
NB=6
3 Lanes
s =8 -5
1
~6 ~12
1110
~ Ya Y7
lt.
5
S/L
Fig.
24
-87-
11
1.60
1.50
0::
0
...,_
tt
0
I
00
00
I
1::::>
90 {Right Bridge)
o 45 Skew Bridge
o 60 Skew Bridge.
A 30 Skew Bridge
We= 24ft.
1.40
1.30
1.20
NB=4
s =a= o"
1.10
m 1.00
a::
1-
en 0.90
NB=6 11
5=4"10
NB=5
S=G'-0"
0.80
0.70
0.60
;
':.
Fig. 25
.Ya Y7
'16
v4
S;L RATIO.
y3
--------- ---------!
We= 48ft.
1.80
90 Right Bridge
1.70
0::
._
c 60 Skew Bridge
1.60
o 45 Skew Bridge
1.50
CX>
1.0
30 Skew Bridge
NB = 6
~ 1.40
z 1.30
s:: 9~7
11
._0
:::> 1.20
._0:::
1.10
(f)
1.0
0.90
0.80
0.70
V3o Y2o
Yt5
., '.-
Fig,
26
1.80
1.70
tr
0
"()
"'"'"'-0
1.60
o 60
A
1.30
0
.__
1.20
~
go (Rloht Bridoe l
Skew Bridoe
o 45 Skew Brtdoe
a:: 1.50
~
(.) 1.40
(t
z
Wc=72ft.
::>
Skew Brldoe
N8=9
s = 9'-0"
m
~
.__
en
30
N8=12
S= 6'-7"
{
0.70
Fig. 27
N8=14
S= 5'-7"
Y3o Y2o ~s
1
Va Y1
Y6
. Ys
.y4
S;L RATIO
v3
------~------------
1.20
o Right Bridge
o 45 Skew
A 30 Skew
we= 24ft.
1.10
a:: 1.00
l()
1.0
I-'
0
l-
0.90
:::>
ro 0.70
a::
l-
~ 0.60
0.50
0.40
NB=4
s=a-o"
0.80
}s
NB=5
= s-o"
NB=G 11
S= 4'-10
Y3o Y2o ~5
Ya y1 Ys
y4
S;L RATIO
Fig. 28
1;
\JVc =48ft.
1.10
Right Bridge
o 45 Skew
A
30 Skew
N8=6
t; 0.90
ll
s = 9'-7
11
z 0.80
1-
ffi
0.70
n::
\0
N
1-
(f)
0.60
OAQL----,L-~
1 --1 ~------~,,~,~~~--~~L-~~~------~~~~----------~
1
v30 ~Q Yrs
8 11
6
5
4
S;L RATIO
.
'
Fig. 29
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Wc=72ft.
Right Bridge
o 45 Skew
A30 Skew
1.20
1.10
0::
0
l-
~ 0.90
NB=9
S =9-o"
tJ:
z 0.80
0
l-
:J
m 0.70
\.0
w
I
0::
1(f)
0.60
NB= 12
. s = 6'-7"
NB=I6
S= 4 1-10 ..
NB= 14 11
1
S=5 -7
0.50
0.40
Ya
IJ7
lfs
Ys
1;4
S/L RATIO
,.;
1.60
We= 24ft.
1.50
1.40
0::
0
t-
lt
1.30
1.20
NB=4
z
0 1.10
I
'-'>
-1:'-
s=a'-o ..
r:::>
en 1.00
0:::
~0.90
0
s= 6'-o".
0.80
0.70
----
900.
- - - - - 60
11
o.soL----L--L-~------~~~a--~~~--~~~s----~------~74------------~v3
5/L RATIO
Fig.
31 Analytically Developed DLstribution Factors for Interior Beams 24 ft. Wide Bridges
----------------------
----...... --------------. __
1.80
1.70
0::
We= 48ft.
1.60
1.50
NB=6
s =9'7"
ft
z 1.40
0
:J
1:
1.0
VI
0::
r-
(/)
1.30
1.20
------------
. ~-~-
1.10
1.00
NB=9
s=6'-o"
----
goo
--~---60
--45
------30
0.90
0.80
Fig. 32
1.80 -----~-----~--~~-~---:------,
We= 72ft.
..
1.70
_.,..,.,..
---------------- --------
-------.--
1.60
...............
a:: 1.50
. NB=9
S =g-on
t;
1.40
--------
-----------
lt
1.30
z
0
...... 1.20
I
\.0
"'
.I
~-
.--
:J
m 1.10
a::
~
0
'
.........,_ ___ - - - -
NB=I6 11
5=4'-10
NB=I2
S= 6'-7".
IJa
goo
--.~---60
~.:~.t ~I ~~;.:"r..
070.
---
V7
Is
51L RATIO
---
45
------30
lA5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I.
1.20
,
"'
....
1.00 <t
a::
0
~c =0.20
~ =0.04
__.
..
j
.......:
0::
...
o
(.)
~
z
...I
',
"-......
0.80 to-
{:c
0
~
:::>
(J)
......
'
=1.86
-f-=0.20
co 0.60
a:
...-
........::
1~
.I
0.40
.
90
75
60
45
30
(IJ
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(/)
t)
U')
3:
(/)
{/)
I~
Fig. 34
Interior Beam
-97-
ir
1.20,.------------------.
~
a:=
1.00
a:= .
. 0
1-
u
~ 0.80
....
"v
=0.20
1-
::>
(I)
cr:: 0.60
1-
(/)
0:40 90
75
. 60
45
Exterior
I
Fig. 35
30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------------------
I
1.0
1.0
Fig. 36
1-'
0
0
\_Indicates Location
Of Computed Stress
Fig. 37
- - - - - - -- - - .. - - - - - - - -
/)
:;-:~
...........
!';--
: .~
. .....I ,
...
I~
Do
3'1
1
_.._
[].
. t . : . ., .
1'6"
2
I
'I
... :
I
1-'
0
1-'
I
- .,1-:'i
l'-3"t'-611
~~:
:b. ..... : . :
I~
.
~
3Spo. (II)
c
4
5~
4'-o'
2'-o"
""'' ..
a-to"
Jil
.. . .
=26'- 6
6~
D
' '4
11
....
. ...
'
2'-o' '1'-6~'
I
Fig. 38
Parapet
Curb
2.0
11.
10
DF4>
1.8
= DF90
(1-
12
't2
T)
I
I
I
I
(cot)
I~)
I
1.6
I
I
I
--eLL.
1.4
0:::
<I:
IJ...
1.2
-- ---- .
.-----
---- -- --
-- . - -
:::J
(!)
0:::
-~30
---- --
60
- - - - - - 45
1.0
-a
(f)
0.8
- - NB=3
0.6
- - - NB=4
0.4~----~------~------~-------~------~-------~
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
S/L
Fig. 39
0.25
= 24
ft.
0.30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.0
------.
1.8
60
-45
l.6
-a 1.4
goo
1.1...
0:
tu
goo
<t
60
45
-..--- ---
------
30
--------~----
30
1.1..
z 1.2
0
------ -
t-
::>
IIl
0:
t- 1.0
-(f)a
--
0.8
0.6
-~--
NB=5
NB=7
0.4
0
0.05
Fig. 40
0.10
0.15
S/L
0.20
0.25
= 48 ft.
0.30
2.0
1.8
1.6
--aLL.
0
-a::
goo--
60- - - - -
1.4
45.---.- -
(.)
<l:
-.t
0
I-
LL.
--
30 ...... .......
1.2
...................
... - - - -
.......
..._,
::>
.......
I-
-soo
--.
"'-
....... ......
.........
30
CD
-a::
goo
-____ ....
0
I-
---
__ ...
1.0
CJ)
-0
0.8
NB=8
----
0.6
0.4
0.05
0
Fig. 41
0.10
0.15
S/L
0.20
NB=9
0:25
0.30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.0
goo
1.8
60
1.6
45
-&-
LL..
1.4
0:::
u
<t
LL..
2
0
60
1.2
::>
I-
------ - -- --
---
--
45 - - - - - - -
.....
CD
0:::
.
goo._.-
30
1.0
en
30
--
,_,
___
0.8
0.6
N8=5
---0.4
0
0.05
0.10
0.15
S/L
Fig. 43
0.20
N8=7
0.25
-
0.30
= 48
ft.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.0
1.8
- ---
--
-- --. --
goo
-g.
goo
lL..
1.4
a:::
45
u
<t
30
0
1lL.
60
45
30
1-
.-
... __
1.2
0
1-
CD
-a:::
_..,..
.....,
60
___ _.
.-- --
.---__ ___ ----
1.6
1.0
(f)
0.8
0.6
----
NB=8
NB=9
0.4.
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
S/L
Fig. 44
-107-
wc
72 ft.
wc 1/3
1.5
P.R. = 19.5
(L)
DF,; = DF90 ( 1-
1.4
I~~
s 1/5
4/3
(T) {cot <f>)
)
... ,; =goo
1.3
--aLL..
Cl
60
1.2
~
(.)
<t
LL..
z 1.1
0
=90 ...__-
:::::>
CD
-~
~
--.-_._
60.
1.0
45 ......_......_
en
-Cl
...... ......
..................
-- -
.....
.....................
0.9
30'
......
.........
''
...... .......
0.8
......
......
30
'
NB=3
----
......
NB= 4
......
o.1 '--___._______..._____,____
0.50
0. I 0
0. 15
0.20
0.25
S/L
Fig. 45
= 24 ft.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0.30
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.5
1.4
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
60
1.3
--eIJ..
45
1.2
a::
0
1-
goo._
<t
lJ..
1.1
---
............. .......
60 - -
0
1:::>
45 .... ......
Cil
.........
' '
a:: 1.0
1C/)
.......
..... ..........
......
............
'
......
30 ~
0.9
..........
........
...........
..... ...
' ' ~,
''
0.8
NB-=5
N8=7
~
0.1~----~------~----~------~----~------~
0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
S/L
Fig. 46
= 48
ft.
0.30
1.5
1.4
goo
1.3
goo...._
-9-
IJ...
0
60
.............
...............
1.2
a::
........ .....
....
<(
I.J
....
::>
.....
.....
'e
30'
(1)
....
.......... ~
a::
............. ......
45 ......
IJ...
.....
......
''
1.0
C/)
........
...... ......
........
..........
60
"'
''
45
'
''
NB=S
----
.....
0.9
0.8
'
..............
''
NB=9
''
30
'
0.7
0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
S/L
Fig. 47
-llO-
72 ft.
0.30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.5
1.4
1/2
cot
(1-,~)
1.3
-; =goo
1.2
60
--e-
LL.
-a
a::
0
t-
(.)
<(
LL
45
1.1
-;=goo
t::>
co
a:
60
CJ')
45
t- 1.0
._
__
---
.--_-- ---
....... .
....... ......
.......
30 .....
0.9
, ......
........
.......
0.8
......
......
..........
...... ......
---- -,
'-.
30
.....
...... .....
NB=3
----
NB=4
0.7
0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
S/L
Fig. 48
= 24
ft.
1.5
goo
1.4
1.3
-9-
lJ..
Q
1.2
0:::
0.,.._
gooe- _ _
(.)
<t
lJ..
1.1
60 .-.......__ .....
.,.._.
45 ............
-- ..... -- -
1.0
30
(/)
-Q
0.9
..... .....
..... .....
.............
........
..... ........
:::>
IIl
0:::
.,.._
45
..... .....
' '
''
''
''
..... ,,
..... .....
.... .....
.....~
' '
'
.......
NB=5
0.05
0
Fig. 49
0.10
.... .....
0.8
0.7
30
0.15
S/L
0.20
---0.25
NB=7
wc = 48
0.30
ft.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.5
1.4
goo
1.3
goo
-&-
LL...
0
60'
1.2
45'
0::
0
1-
<t
30
LL..
z 1.1
0
1::::>
CD
0::
1-
e.....
-0
(/')
.......
'
''
1.0
-- --.... -
...... ......
......
........
''--.
............
.............
......
""'
,.
''
'
''
--....
............
...... ......
'
......
''
60
45
30
' '
....
0.9
0.8
----
NB=8
NB=9
0.7
0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
S/L
Fig.
so
wc =
72 ft.
9.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10.
11.
Dawe, D. J.
PARALLELOGRAM ELEMEl.'tTS IN THE SOLUTION OF RHOI-.IBIC
CANTILEVER PlATE PROBLEMS, Journal of Strain Analysis,
Vol. l, No. 3, pp. 223-230, 1966.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Felippa, C. A.
REFINED FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF LINEAR AND NONLINEAR
TWO-DI}ffiNSIONAL STRUCTURES, SESM Report 66-22, Department
of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley,
October 1966.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Jensen, V. P.
ANALYSIS OF SKEW SlABS, University of Illinois
Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin, No. 332,
Urbana, Illinois, 1941.
27.
Jumppanem,. P .
BENDING OF PARALLELOGRAM PlATES, Acta Polytechnica
Scandinavica, Civil Engineering and Building Construction
Series No. 61, Helsinki, 1970.
28.
29.
Kostem, C. N.
ANALYTICAL MODELL~G OF BEAM SlAB BRIDGES, Proce~dings
of the International Symposium on Folded Plates and
Spatial Panel Structures, Udine, Italy, September 1974.
30.
31.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
32.
33.
Meek, J. L.
MATRIX STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS, McGraw Hill, New York, 1971.
.34.
Melosh, R. J.
BASIS FOR THE DERIVATION OF MA.TRICES FOR THE DIRECT
STIFFNESS METHOD, AIAA Journal, Vol. 1, No. 7, July 1963.
35.
36.
37.
Morley, L. S. D.
SKEW PlATES AND STRUCTURES, Pergamon Press, McMillan
Company, New York, 1963.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
Pickett~
45.
Przemieniecki, J. S.
THEORY OF }fATRIX STRUCTURAL
New York, 1968.
G.
APPLICATION OF THE FOURIER METHOD TO THE SOLUTION OF
CERtaiN BOUNDARY PROBLEMS IN THE THEORY OF ELASTICITY,
Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 11~ p. 176, 1944.
ANALYSIS~
McGraw Hill,
46.
47.
Robinson, K. E.
THE EFFECT OF SKEW ON THE BEHAVIOR OF SIMPLY SUPPORTED
BRIDGE SLABS, Cement and.Concrete Association, Technical
Report TRB/271, July 1957.
48.
49.
50.
.
Sandhu, S. R.
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF AN ISOTROPI.'C PlATE USING
Q-19 ELEMENT, PART II, INSTEUCTION FOB.. USERS AND
FORTRAN LISTING, Ohio State University and Air Force
Flight Dynamics Laboratory, Wright Patterson Air
Force Base, Ohio, October 1974.
51.
Schaffer, T. and
STRUCTURAL
BOX-GIRDER
BROOKVILLE
Report No.
II
VanHorn, D. A.
RESPONSE OF A 45 SKEW PRESTRESSED CONCRETE
BRIDGE SUBJECTED TO VEHICUlAR LOADING BRIDGE, Fritz Engineering Laboratory
315.5, October 1967.
-118-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
VanHorn, D. A.
STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR CHARACTERISTICS OF PRESTRESSED
CONCRETE BOX-BEAM BRIDGES, Fritz Engineering Laboratory
Report No. 315.8, December 1969.
58.
59.
William, K. J.
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF CELLUlAR STRUCTURES> Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1969
62.
-119-
63.
64.
65.
66.
-120-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10.
APPENDICES
A2.
-121-
APPENDIX A
FINITE ELEMENT
A.l
Ske~y
AN~YSIS
I
I
I
I
skew~late
case of. the skew plate when the skew angle is 90.
rectangular~oblique
Hemp, Favre, Lardy and Theodorescu; and solutions in the polar coordinate system have been obtained by Coker and Filon, Williams, and
Mansfield.
been obtained by Green and Zerna (Ref. 20) and Pickett (Ref. 44).
and N
xy
Stresses a , a
X
and
1"
xy
..
1I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
{v}=
~.1)
{:}
~ny
Th~
strain
relationship:
au
ax
e:
XX
{e:} =
e:
yy
av
ay
(A. 2)
au+ av
ay
ax
Yxy
where e:xx, e:yy' Yxy are the well known components of strain.
The usual stress-strain relationship ({cr} T [D] {e:})
for the general orthotropic case is given by Ref. 64:
cr
n\,1
e:
0\,1
.::...
T
. xy
where
'.:.
-_...,_--:: n = _.1..
E.
2
m=~
-123-
(A.3)
m(l
- n"' 2)
2
in which E
and E
direction, v
.
'J
= v,
and m
= 2 ( 1 + v)'
quadrilate~al
clockwise with the node at the centroid being the fifth node.
.
The
= -1
and
..
global3coord~ates
and the local coordinates can be expressed in matrix form by the following expressions: .
-124-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CJ
where
(A.4)
~X
=14
~~ i )
(1 +
+ nni)
(1
~i
1.
where,
It
It
:.]
(A. 5)
.,
'
v
!
-125-
It
u
It
(A.5a)
and,
1
= - (1 - I;) (1 - n)
4
=.!. (1
4
I;) (1 - n)
(A.Sc)
1
= - (1
3
4
I;) (1
+ n)
(A.Sd)
..
(1+ n)
(A. Se)
= (1 - 1',;2) (1 - n 2 )
(A. Sf)
1
=- (1 - I;)
. 4
(A. Sb)
and with the additional strain degree of freedom, the strain components
can be written (Ref. 59)
e:
XX:
e:
YY
yxy
where
I
(A.6)
3fi
(A.6a)
=ax
.,
3fi
V=3y
(A6-:-b)
Eqs. A.6a and A.6hcan be written with the help of the chain rule
(Ref. 45):
-126-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' a
ai .~ an
-=
ax
ax
Ez
az;
an
a f.
l.
an
afi
ay = ax
az;
an kaz;
ax
an
ax
an
an
3 i
(A. 7)
Ez
ar;
afi
ax
an az;
ax
h
az;
an
(A. 8)
matrix is obtained by the application of the static condensation procedure on the interior node as described in Refs. 17 an-1 18.
The element
is known as Q8Dll.
The explicit integration of the stiffness matrix integral is
a lengthy process and difficult.
In the
s~
of the
I
I
I
I
I
Thus, a function /_
..~
:: ..: .
-1
f(<;)d<;
.
E wj f(a.)
J
j=1
-127-
(A. 9)
where W. are the weight coefficients and a. are the values of the
J
I =
J J
(,,~) d' dn
(A.lO)
-1 -1
I-
=~
~ W. W. f (a., b )
i=l j=l J l.
J 1
(A.ll)
~ifferent
I
I
I
I
values_of n are
I
I
I
I
ot' .int"ern.k-1
::.'
been shown to give more flexible and better results among the 8
degree of freedom family. ~isplacement models (Ref. 59).
-128-
nodes
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Q8Dll element has been testea and compared with other
finite elements by William (Ref. 59).
ties and dimensions are shown in Fig. A.S. The skew angle is 90 and
the exact solution can be found from the theory of elasticity.
The
results. are tabulated in Tables Al and A2. It can be noted that uni~ ;
.: -
-129-
solution
~s
The
Since the
exact solution is that of constant strain, the analytical results verified the analytical model.
The third example is a skew plate under in-plane concentrated
loads.
A4.
r .,! -.
.: ' Q8D8 refers to the quadrilateral element with only four nodes
'
The Q8Dl1(2)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
"
A8b
Figs~
The
results are tabulated in Table AS. The advantage of the element over
the standard Q8D8 is made obvious in this example.
It should be emphasized that this example is the most severe
case the element will be subjected to.
element to the beam slab problem, the element will represent the
in-plane behavior of the deck slab.
As
are the reasons for the choice of another element to represent the
in-plane behavior of webs for box-beam bridges in Chapter 4.
... . :-~
A.3
-131-
F?f the
I
simple cases, the problem is solved by direct integration of the differential equation under associated boundary
conditions~
Subsequently, a number of
or by the
studies have been concerned with investigations of the methods of solution, the most common being the series solutions and the method of
finite difference (Ref. 26).
Solutions by polynomials
A series of thir-
teen skew slab models of different side to length ratio were investigated.
The slab models tested were all simple span structures and made
of gypsum plaster.
Within the past decade, the finite element technique has been
employed successfully to analyze plates of arbitrary shape (Refs. 5,10,
18).
Based on
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dawe (Ref. 11) developed the stiffness matrices for parallelogram elements.
mon being those by Zienkiewicz and Cheung (Ref. 64) and by Clough and
Tocher (Ref. 10).
obtained by Felippa and Clough (Ref. 18) , and Bogner et al. (Ref. 5)
with the use of refined and higher order elements.
A.j.2
Fig. A9.
~o
The reference
Forces, dis-
placements and the adopted sign conventions are shown in the positive
directions in Fig. A9.
2.
3.
4.
fac~s
of the element
-133-
I
From the above assumptions, the displacement equations may be
written as:
U(z) = u - z
(A.12a)
V(z) = v- z
(A.l2b)
where U(z) and V(z) are the displacement components of the point at
distance z from the reference plane; and u, v, and w are the displacemeut components of the point on the reference plane.
Equations A.12a and A. 2b can be differentiated to obtain the
relationship of the strains to displacements:
a 2w
au
z-
ax 3:x2
3 2w
av
z
ay az 2
Yxy
(A.13)
a2wau + av - 2 z
axay
ay
ax
and y
:xy
aX = c11
ay = c21
a 2w
au
z
ax ax 2
au .
3 2w
z
ax ax~
+C
( av 12
+C
22
-134-
ay
za'w
-ay2
(A.14a)
av
za- w
- )
3y 3y2
(A.14b)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
where C
11
, C
12
rj
33
, C , C
21
33
dU
.
Cly
dV _
dX
Zz 3 w
dXdY
(A.l4c)
Eq. A.3.
The stress resultants per unit of the plate shown in Fig. A.9b
are found by integrating over the thickness.
f
f
. I
Thus,
M
X
""
Y ..
a:
t/ a
-t/2
t/2
z
~t/2. cry
t/.2 a
-t/2
rj
Using Eq.A.l4
z dz
(A.l5a)
dz
(A.l5b)
zdz
(A.l5c)
xy
;
i:'
M.
Y.
xy
fo~:
11
21
12
dX 2
a~
22
a2v
-135-
33
(A.l6)
3y2
a>w
3x3y
where
D
11
12
12
= D
Cl
53
t3
11
21
c
D
I
I
I
I
33
t3
l2
12
t'
a-
12
= [D]{}
A.4
sented.
The element
has been tested \mder a variety of boundary conditions and the results
compare favorably with the theory of elasticity solutions (Ref. 18).
The quadrilateral element is a confoDming element formed from
four triangular elements whiCh satisfy deflection and slope continuity
along the boundaries.
LCCT~12
-136-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The
tions.
elem~nt
A.4.1
= 1,
(A.l8)
I
I
I
I
I
in the
-137-;_
where x and y
1
~..y
y1
1;;1
?;;
?;;
y!
y2
(A.l9)
2
!
1;;1
1
2A
=-
1;;2
2A
2A
?;;
1
2
b"
1
1
a
a
(A. 20)
y
3
1; , ?;; )
2
s
with respect to
the x, andy axes and a normal n. can be obtained by the chain rule
l.
(Ref. 33):
3f
ax
3
3y
=1-
2A
= 2A
( 3
3?;;
+ 2L b +
1
()?;;
3. b )
3?;;
'
3f
3
)
+ 3?;;s a3
31;;1 a1 +~a2
1
( 3
-138-
(A. 22)
(A. 23)
I
I
I
I
1I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
formula~ion
of the
and A.4. 3.
A.4.2
(A.24)
where wi, exi and eyi are the transverse displacement, rotation about
the
x-axis~
e ,
~
Each sub-
element has three displacement components at each node and one rotation
component at the. midpoint of the outer side (Fig. Al3). Point 0 is
located at the centroid of the complete triangular element.
Indepen-
-139-
{r(1)}
T
=
{w
eX2 eY2
ey3
{r( 2 )}T =
{w 9
{r( 3 )}T =
{w 8
X3
Xl
Yl
eX3 eY3
eX1 eY1
eX2 eY2
exo eyo es }
exo eyo e6 l
(A. 25b)
exo eyo e7 }
(A. 25c)
(A. 25a)
= [~]
{v.}
.
1. ..
The explicit expression for ~(i) for i=l has been derived and presented
by Felippa in Ref~ 18:
r,; 2 (3 - 2r,; )
1
1
6ll ( ) r,; r,; r,;
3
1 2 3
(a(1)~
3
- a(1)~ )
2
3
1
6A( )
3
(b ( 1) ll ( 1)
3
3
1;
1;
l,;
l,;
l,;
1 2 3
r,;
1 2 3
- b(l)~)
1
l,;
123
~ ~
r,;2 (b(l)~
(a(1)ll(l) - a (1))
1
3
3
r,; 2 (3 - 2r,; )
3
~ b ( 1)) ' ~
2.
-140-
1 2 3
(A. 27)
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
di
. Ai =R.- .
i
where,
and,
lli
=1
- . Ai
I.
(1)
(2)
r
=
w(3.)
I
I
I
I
I
I
(A. 28)
r
th~
0
0
.o
-141-
(Fig. Al5). The normal slopes are computed from Eq. A..21 and evaluated
I
I
I
I
at nodes 7, 8 and 9.
I-
Transverse displacement of two adjacent subeiements are identical along the juncture line.
slopes differ.
w
w
(1)
(2)
(A. 29)
(3)
"'(i)
ready reference.
A.4.3
lowing th~ procedure outlined in Ref. 65 Uogether with the displacement function given in Eq. A.2&~
From Eq. A.l6
{} is defined to be:
-142-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
.. {E:} =
(A.30)
and
(A. 31)
a2$(i)
- 2 ~ax=-=a-y-
The nodal values of the curvature can be obtained by evaluating Eq. A.30 .at the nodes.
Thus
.(A.32)
-143-
[~(i)]
is the matrix
B
[~E]
. {E (i)} =
such that
[~ (i)] {E (i)}
c
E
where
[~ (i)]
E
(A. 33)
Iz;
z;l
z;
o.
z;
2.
z;
1
z;
2.
o.
z;
z;
z;
1
be evaluated:
(A. 34)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The
the plate with completely fixed supports, (2) concentrated load at the
center of the plate with simple supports, and (3) uniform load throughout the plate with simple supports.
In
all sides of which are equal, and whose skew angle is varied (Fig. A21,
inset).
Rotation
about the skew supports is allowed except at the corners which are completely fixed.
-145-
The change
For example 9
It
Since
eIt
is expressed nON
The partially constrained elements are assembled to a quadrilateral element such that there are no midside nodes at the exterior
edges (Fig. A15). The resulting general quadrilateral has nineteen
degrees of freedom and more commonly known as Q-19.
The ele-
Several example problems are presented to illustrate the application of the quadrilateral element to plate bending problems.
Dif-
'._;:
pare the accuracy and convergence of the solution with tests and other
reported solutions.
-146-
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
in the
pr~ncipal
Fig. K..22. For comparison, the finite difference and series solutions
from Ref. 37 are also shown.
.
moment
especial!~
can be observed.
The third example is a 45 skew plate which is simply supported on two sides. The plate is subjected to a concentr:a_ted load P at
the center.
tion for this problem are illustrated in Fig. A23. The theoretical results for the deflection and principal moments using finite difference,
finite element and experimental values are listed in Table
AS.
The fi-
nite element results are comparable with the numerical values of the experiment. In most cases, the finite element results are between the experimental and the finite
differenc~
Fig. A24 with the properties and dimensions indicated. Points A, B, and
E are specifically selected for comparison of moments.
Point A is at
midspan and near the edge, point B is at the center pf the slab and
, .i
point E near the obtuse corner of the support (Fig. A24). Three disc:retizations have been tried as shown in Figs. A24 and
A2~.
Different
at points A, B, and E
be~ween
-147-
AlOli~ts
The
quest~onable
gradient.
The final example is a skew plate supported on two sides with
varying angle of skew but with constant width to span ratio.
The de-
flections and moments at the center of the plate using the finite difference solution and the finite element procedure are shown in Figs. A26
ane A27. Good correlation is observed between finite difference and finite element except at the 60 skew where the available value of the
width to span ratio is 0.52 instead of 0.50.
A. 5 . Summary
developme~t
of the analysis
technique with the use of the finite element method of analysis was
illustrated for the in-plane and the plate bending elements.
Numerical
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE Al
IN-PLA~~ DISPLACE~ffiNTS AND STRESSES IN
A SQUARE PLATE UNDER UNIFORH EDGE LOADING (Fig. ASa)
Node
.I
9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
2
Quant~ty
. 1
Q8Dll
2
CST
(Ref. 52)
Exact
1. 66667
1. 66667
1. 66667
0.
0.
0.
crX
1.0
0.99995
1.0
cry
o.
0.00149
o.
,.xy
0.
0.00161
o.
3.33333
3.33333
3.33333
0.25
0.25
0.25
crX
1.0
0.99368
1.0
cry
0.
0.00065
0.
'~"xy
o.
0.00015
o.
..
:-
-149-
'~"xy
'
stresses in ksi.
TABLE A2
IN-PLANE DISPLACEMENTS AND STRESSES IN
A SQUARE PLATE UNDER IN-PLANE SHEAR (Fig. A5b)
Quantity
2
CST
(Ref. 52)
Q8Dll
.
'
i
. '~. '
(j
(j
xy
0.00083
0.
0.
0.00093
0.
0.13333
0.13284
0.13333
0.13333
0.13196
0.13333
'T
...
Exact
0.1022
10
-3
0.1138
10
~3
0.1023
1stresses ~n
. ks~.
.
r.
-150-.
10
-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE A3
.DISPIACEHENTS AND STRESSES IN A SKEH PlATE
UNDER UNIFORN EDGE LOADING (Fig. A6)
v - Displacements(in.)
u - Displacements(in.)
Node
CST
Q8Dll
Node
Q8Dll
.
CST
'
'
0.
0.
-0.000306
0.
0.
0.
o.
0.
0.000306
0.
0.000301 .
0.001667
0.001657
0.000657
0.000647
0.0001667
0.001658
0.000962
0.000960
0.001667
0.001694
0.001268
0.001241
0.003333
0.003314.
0.001619
0.001605
0.003333
0.003339
0.001924
0.001889
0.003333 .
0.003371
0.002230
0.002163
cr
Node
cr
Stresses (ksi)
Q8Dll
CST
Node
-0.000308
Stresses(ksi)
Q8D11
CST
1.0
0.995
0.
o.
1.0
0.995
0.
0.
1.0
1.005
0.
0.
1.0
0.995
0.
0.
1.0
1.002
0.
0.
1.0
1.011
o.
0.
1.0
1.002
0.
0.
1.0
1.008
0.
1.0
1.007
o.
o.
-151-
0.
TABLE A4
MIDSPAN DISPLACE}lliNT OF A SKEW PlATE
UNDER IN-PLANE CONCENTRATED LOAD(Fig. A7)'
Finite Element Analysis
.,
Displacement x
1
Q8D8
2
CST
10- ft~-
11.40
19.58
Q8Dll(3)
30.44
Q8Dll(2)
51.49
LSE l
54.51
Refs. 59, 60
Ref. 52
TABLE AS
STRESS AND DEFLECTION IN A
SIMPLY-SUPPORTED BEA1.'1 WITH INCLINED FACES (Fig. AS)
NOfu~L
Vertical Displacement
at A x P/Et
.Q8D8
Nesh
Q8Dll
Ref. 53
Normal Stress
at B x P/dt
Q8D8
9.44
14.34
15.21
1.55
10.09
13.58
17.27
1.67
Ref. 53
Q8Dll
'
1. 73
- 2.54
. 2.52.
2.96
From Ref. 53
-152-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE A6
. CENTER DEFLECTION OF A SQUARE PlATE
~TI.TH
FIXED SUPPORTS
2
Multiplier PL /D
2 X 2
Source
4 X 4
8 X 8
-.00551
ACM
.00592
.00613
.00580
Q19
.00521
.00515
.00546
...
-.-
:"
16 X 16
---
.00568
--
(Ref. 55).
EXACT
10 X 10
.00560
. -
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
TABLE A7
CENTER DEFLECTION OF A SQUARE PlATE WITH STI!PLE SUPPORTS
2
Multiplier PL /D
2 X 2
Source
8 X 8
ACM
. 0.01378
.,
.'
Q19
'
.. :
0.01233
0.01i33
0.01106
0.01145
10
--
16 X 16
0.01167
.
- 0'.00975
...
EXACT
10
(Ref. 55)
0.01160
-153-
0.01150
0.01159
TABLE AS
RHOMBIC PlATE UNDER CONCENTRATED LOAD
Tt.J'O SIDES SlllPLY SUPPORTED, cp = 45 (Fig. A23)
w
;
Method
max.
2
x ;J?a /D
A"f!
M.
m1.n.
A~.
Finite Difference(l)
0.0117
0.331
0.199
0.0117
0.370
0.257
0.0099
0.354
0.254
0.0107
0.363
0.253
Finite Difference(l)
Experiment ( 1)
Finite Element
1
Ref. 37
3
Et
=-~--
12(1-'})
-154-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE A9
MOMENTS IN A SKEW PlATE UNDER UNIFORM LOAD
Multiplier x 10
Pt
I.
Discretization
Ref. 48
0.906
0.897
0.270
0.285
0.286
0.980
0.975
0.981
~I
0.068
0.058
0.056
0.976
0.964
0.965
0.968
0.019
0.010
0.010
0.012
0.188
0.205
0.207
0.206
1.01.
1.01
1.01
1.01
M:rr
0.027
0.032
0.032
0.030
0.210
0.487*
0.368
0.309
-0.213
-0.160*
-0.245
-0.202
0.131
0.336*
0.195
0.248
0.238
0.631*
0.425
0.410
M:ri
-0.238
-0.303*
-0.302
. -0.302
.y
xy
*At
.. (3)
M1
u
M1
uv
xy
(1)
(2)
0.896
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Moment
1
Mu' Muv are in the direction of the skew.
..
-155-
- .:.,
., ,_
.:~-
.'-.
..
------------
u2
?1 = -1
-156-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE AlO
MOI-lENTS IN A
SKE~.J'
Multiplier x 10
Pt
Homent
(in-lb)
Ref. 48
M1
u
0.453
0.457
..
,.
0.684
0.667
0.658
0.643
0.262
0.240
0.231
0.221
0.122
0.106
0.108
0.104
0.068
0.143
0.122
0.104
0.100
0.082
0.117
0.094
0.068
0.115
0.113
0.130
xy
y
xy
u'
0.461
(3) :,
0.125
1M
(2)
0.125
(1)
0.134
M
uv
Discretization
in
-157-
-.
j
__
(a)
_'
j
(b)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
Stresses
/ '-
dx
~-
/-
.. ,
]dz
7
o-x +do-x
_____.
Txy + dTxy
Uy . do-y
..
-:
',
t.
:
~_,
-x
Nxy
+ dNx
I-
I
I
I
......
:"
.I
I
I
I
-x
Nxy + dNxy
y
...
Ny..+ dNy
Nyx + dNyx.
z
0
F;l,.@~
A.2
In-Plane Stresses
~d
Forces
-159-
,.. .
..
.A
.;
~A~
'
c=11 = 0.577
t: -1] : - 0.577\._-.~ \
.
'
..
t =-'7} =0.577
---------\.
t ='1 =-0.577
i= 2
i =I
Fig. A4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
.. ,
6
1.875k
~---------~~-----------~
----- ---I .
--,
E =3000 ksi
I
I
I
13.75k . Zl = 0.15
1
I
..
t :: 0.75 in
-.
q =1.0 K/in
I
I
I
I
J. __ - 4
_.JJ.875k
...,.
.25xlo-3
a.
Normal Loads
511
511
y
.596
5".
~.
_25 k
I
I
.25k
_......
I
I
I
.25"
I
I
E =3000 ksi
I
/ .
I -;__.--5
I- -----a ~-1I r.:: ~k
I
I
I o.o
I
I
I
I
1____ 4
........
Fig. AS
6_:> _,.. -
----~---
Zl
= 0.15
=0.75
Tp ~ 0.75 K/in
----7 r.25k.J426
-...;-
6.5k .
.25~
b. Shear Loads
Rectangular Plate Under Uniform In-Plane Edge Loadings
.
.
-161-
I
20
E =3000 ksi
a.
11
u = 0.15
5"
5"
b.
Fi_g. A6
.!
-162-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
y
~=lOOK
60'
E =432,000 KSF
.. =.15
t =1.0
(CST)
(Q8DII)
I.
I
I
I
Fig. A7
-163-
4d
0.6 d
A
__
,...
2d
1-
a.
b.
2 x 5 Discretization
c.
Fig. A8
'
d ..
I
.. ..
-..,~
.I
4 x 5 Discretization
-164-
1-!~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
1I
, _I
I
I.
_ _,....._ _ _ _ X, U
Bx
z,w
Mid-Plane
Reference surfoce
y
4,
a.
Displacements
Mxy--.....:4.....--
~Ox+
...... .
'
;,
M~+"{}Myx
dQx
\.
b.
Fig.
A~
Stress Resultants
-165-
-.
I
I
(x3 'Y3)
02
a
I
bl .
b2
...
Cx2, Y2)
03
ex, ,yJ)
Fig. AlO
Projected Dimensions
'
'
.......
Fig. All
Intrinsic Dimensions
-166-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(0,0,1)
~i
=Aj/A
I.
I
I
I
2 '
(0,1,0)
t:Y3
~I
w3
.. ..- Bx3
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
ry2
2
Wz
-167-
tr:!lr
Bx2
I
I
!Byo
...... Bxo
0
.,
(j)
{~)
{I)
Fig. Al4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Fig. Al5
Asse~bled
T=iangular
-168-
Ele~ents
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a)
Case I
Concentrated load at center
Fixed supports
. i
Case 2
Concentrated load at ceter
Simply supported
Case 3
Uniform load, simply supported
-t
Uniform load
Skew angle
varied
Support On 4 Sides
0
.,
Case I
Uniform load
Skew angle cp varied
Case 2
Concentrated load at center
. cp = 45
Simple Supports On 2 Sides
Lq,
Case
Uniform load
cp = 30 , bllcp = 0.40
.I
Case 3
Uniform load
b/Lcp = 0.5,4;> varied
/
'
.i
Fig. Al6
I
I
I
-----+.
I
I-
b. 2x2
o. Square Plate
,,
I
;
!
I
-- .....__
~-~---r-
c. 4x4
d. 8x8
j
I
I
I
.._..... _ --
--
...__-
T_
f. 16x 16
e. IOxiO
'Fig. 'Ai7
-170-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---------------------WK
- - - ACM
20
1-
~ I~
I
t-'
-....!
t-'
I
.<{
...1
0::
: /
"
--M
----
From Ref. 58
-----
-- 300 400
1
0~~------~------~~========~=======3~~~~~~
-----t
----- __
-10
0::
0::
I
/M
w
0~
20
Fig. Al8
--------
100 - - - - - - 200
z
0
p --~
__,_.,....,..
........
I
Percent Error in Central Deflection Versus Number of Degrees of Freedom Fixed Supports with Concentrated Load at_ Center
0/
0
20
10
I
1:-'
"'-J
N
I
-to
NUMBER OF DEGREES OF FREEDOM
-20
Fig. Al9 .
Percent. Error in Central Deflection Versus Number of Degrees of Freedom Simple Supports with Concentrated Load. at Center.
4.0
Fini1e Element
v=0.3
0
0"
X
._
LU
<t
.J
0.
3.0
._:I:
LL.
0::
._w
z
~
z
.0-_
(.)
.J
LL.
-vij
It)
75
45
60
SKEW
30
15
ANGLE cp
-174-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I.
C\1
I
Q
)(
C\1
0
0"
I
I
I
I
t-
l-
)(
w
t-
<t
~.,.
...J
Cl.
:X:
t-
Lr..
0::
w
tz
w
(.)
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
t-
<t
::E
t-
::E
.
..
..
-\
90
71
=0.3
..... _
75
60
45
30
Hp
late~
-175-
15
.I
Support Line
X
12"
E=30,000 ksi
16.97"
=0.30
t =0.25
71
(\J
II
lO
co
I~ @2.121
11
=16.97
11
...
Fig. A23 Skew Steel Plate, Two Sides Simply Supported Concentrated Load at Center
-176-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ...
'~~~----~~--~-----1~
\
pcf> /2-----:o--..
--~----------~-,~~L-~----------------~~--;
1-'
.......
.......
E =1.0665
v =0.215
x 106 lb/in 2
t =3.47
b= 40.0 in
Fig._ A24
ic~>
=100 in
=60
ix =86.66 in
~
.....
. Discretization Scheme 2
Discre1ization Scheme 3
Fig.
_A2~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
=0.2
0
---
--
Lcp
... I
)()
en
2
(.)
..J
Supports
ll..
0
0:::
w
z 0.1
w
(.)
oL-~~~~~--~~--~~----~----
. 9Q.
75
60
45
SKEW ANGLE
Fig. A26
30
-179-
15
0.4
c.\1
.c
cr
Supports
)( 0.3
t-
w
~
::E 0.2
::::>
::E
X
<t
::E
0.1
0
90
75
60
45
SKEW ANGLE
Fig. A27
30
cp
15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX Al
-,
derivat~on
:}
x.l.
(A.36)
0
~
v.
l.
0
1
(A. 37)
~
uo
v
where
1
=- (1
1
+ ,,.)(1
+ Tl'Tl)
1
1
2
= (1 .. ' )(1 ..
Tl )
-181-
0~
--l.
ox
[Vv}
o92
ox
0~
_,.l.
oy
u.
l.
o\
o~.
l
0~1.
0~
oy
ox
oy
v.
l.
oY
0~
:a
(A. 38)
0
0
Ox
v.l.
[Vv}.
[V~]
(A. 38a)
0
.v
_l..
ax
e:x
ot
_a
Ox
1
Yxy
u.
l.
ota
o~
e:y
dy
0
0
(A.39)
-182-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.
E:x
=
<y /
v.1.
[. J
(A. 39a)
0
Yxy
Ct
ve
(A. 40)
k.
-k
ev
ee
~}T = (F Ul..
.Fuo
v.1.
Vl.
Yxy
(A. 40a)
v }
(A.40b)
(A. 40c)
[k
ev
[k ee J
= [kve JT =
=I
I[~ e ][D](V~]
[2 e ](D][~ e ] dV
-183-
dV
(A.40d)
(A. 40e)
[k] = [k ]T [k ]-l [k ]
ev
ee
ev
-184-
(A.41)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1-
APPENDIX A2
The following is
where
{
= (_"'l (3 - 2'1 )
+ 6~3' 1'2'3
='1
(b2 '
+b
~ -2b )'
3 3
~)
t wa
= ' 2 (3
+3(b ~ -b
3 3
)C +(3b
2
-b A -2b ~ ) ' ]
2 2
3 3 3
- b
(3)
~ ev~
~
(3)
~8A..
3 3
1 1
3 3
1 1
3 3
..!
4A
= 3L
e6
(3)
~ 84
2
4A
= - [' (3, ' ) ]
3L
4A
2 3
= -3L ['3
3
(3,1 - ' 3 ) ]
5-6-4 to 6-4-5.
-186-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF SKEWED STIFFENED PLATES
B.l
General
The type of structure discussed in this appendix is illustrated
in Fig. 4.
In
Since the plane of reference for the plate elements has been
-187-
and 9
B.2
is neglected.
In order to satisfy compatibility of displacement along the
juncture of the plate and the stiffener elements, the displacement
functions of the plate along the juncture must be the same as for the
stiffener element.
vary linearly along the boundary, the twist of the beam along this
boundary is assumed to be linear.
The geometry of the beam element can be described in terms of
non-dimensional coordinates:
s1 =
L L
(B.la)
X
s2 =-L
(B.lb)
-188-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The linear displacement function for u.and the cubic displacement function for w can then be written as
u
= al
= a 3 1;3l
l;
I;; l;
(B. 2)
a l;
1;3
'+ 2
1;2
1 2
a l; 1;
6
(B. 3)
1 2
In matrix notation:
1';1
=
0
where {a}
= {a
(B. 4)
a
3
The coefficients a
'+
a }
5
and a
a
3
'+
and a can
6
where ui and
chain rule,
(B. 6)
-189-
ui
a.
wi
.0
eyi
-3/L
1/L
a.
0.
wk
eyk
3/L
:...1/L
(B. 7)
It
(X
a.
u.
w.~
1.
uk
wk
-L
eyk
=
a
Hence,
yi
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(B. 8)
a
a.
-190-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
where
f
f
f
f
f
Sl
53
sa.
52
ss
0
f
{ rs}
(B.9)
56
51
= l;1
(B. 9a)
52
= l; 2
(B.9b)
53
= l;31 +
3 r,;2z;
54
= l;2.l;
1 2.
= l;3 +
3 l; l;2.
ss
s&
(B. 9c)
:1 2
(B. 9d)
(B. 9e)
1 2
=- z; z;2. L
(B. 9f)
1 2
du
= -ax'
and
2
a
w
C = - --ax2
vature respectively, at any point along the reference axis of the stiffener element, then
"x
c
~=
J
3
_2L
ax
a.2. 3
ax 2
3
ax
_ll
{ rs}
32.4
3x
32.6
32.
3x
3x
s
2
(B .11)
-191-
~)
ax
2
2
za
+ az;; z;
~)
(B.l2)
1 2
u.l.
e:
-1/1
1/1
w.l.
eyi
ci
-6/1
-4/1
6/1
(B .13)
2/1
~
6/1 2
2/1
-6/1 2
4/1
wk
eyk
where
[~
{e:c}
] . {r }
s
(B .13a)
= e:x' c
node i and k
[~
] = Normal
-192-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
(B .14)
U(z) = u - z. aw
ax
B.l4, from which the stress-strain relation for the beam becomes
(B .15)
"I-
I
I
I
where
cr
= stress
reference axis
I
I
N ...
s
(J
-i:/2
!t/2
s = -t/2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t/2
(J
(B .16)
z dA
expresse~
dA
ss
= Es
M
s
(B.l7)
3u
ax
(B .18)
ss
-193-
.
-ax
a~
where
= first
= moment
au
ax
aw
--ax 2
Thus
(B .19)
ci
{E}s
or
{e:}
ck
(B. 20)
[~] . {Ec}
where
l;
l;l
<iw
du
= normal strain and curvature ax and ---along the
dx2
.(D)
:: J
(B. 21)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
and [D]
J[~ e: ]T.
s
[D]
s (~ e:] dx
A
s
....!.
2
s .
Is
ss
Is
6
E L
s
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
[~E]S
sS.
2
Is
6
(B.22)
Is
3
dx
......
....!.
121 s
6I s
3-
A
s
L
--
-L
2.
0.
4I s
ss
-L. -L
A
s
L
c:
ss
--L
l2I s
-L3- -L
. 1
6I
L2
2I s
L
(B.23)
ss
L
12Is
Symmetric:
6Is
6I s
L
4Is
L
-1.95-
It has been shown that for rectangular and stocky beam cross-
<P
by the relation:
'I
where
~x
<P 1
= shear
s.v.
~;
=GK
(B. 24)
'
I
I
I
modulus
exi
. {}
I
I
I
I
I
I
= [z; 1
z; ]
-196-
eyl..
Thus
(B.25)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
{ '} =
I
I
I
I
[ -
(B.26)
(B. 27)
[~f) = [1]
.
t
(B. 28)
[~
c t
[- ~
1
L
. (B.29)
I
I
-I
[<P ]T
c t
-~~t
=-L
B.3
'
. c
-1 -1
-1 1
I
.I
I
I
In the following,
-197-
lie on
I o
l
---;---:---k1
(B. 31)
krr
where k
nents and k!I is a 3 X 3 matrix associated with theW, eX, eX displacement and rotation components.
For the whole plate element with nodes 1, 2, 3 and 4,
F
.!;..
"" I'
' ..:, i
F
F
.::-;..~
- ':.
r
1
r
2
[kij]
r
It
1
2
(B. 32)
3
It
f'
M .}
Yl.
w.l.
for i = 1, 2; 3, or 4.
-198-
(B. 33)
(B. 34)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
ele~
and Eq.B.30
-s s L2
u.
vi
-61 L
0 -121
s
-61 L
F .
121 s
Fzi
Gk .
-~2
E
Mxi
:1.
w.
:1.
Gk
.. s
-~~2
E
exi
21 L2
eyi
S L2
41 L2
Myi
,: _.._:
A L2 0
Y:L
from
Ss L2 ._A L2 0
Fxi
H~ce,
-s s L2
61 L
s
=
Fxk
A L2 0
s
Fyk
61 L
s
wk
exk
41 s L2
eyk
Fzk
121.
Symmetric
Gk~ 2
Mxk
Myk
(B. 35)
Defini~g
-199-
12 E I
r = ---=S;__;;_S
~B.36)
GAL
s s
As L2 0
.o
12I
(l+r)
-As L2 0
-6I s L
(l+r)
-121
s
0 (l,:l"f)
Gk .
---::-42
E ...
. E
[k]
= -i-
s CL
......
'.-
.
-.
.. J..
-200-
0
Gk
--~2
E
-6I
- sL
_(l+r)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
The beam stiffness matrix is given for the beam element whose
longitudinal a.'<:is is parallel to the x-axis.
t~
struc-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
dom at the nodes and therefore can be assembled directly to the system
stiffness matrix following the procedure specified in Ref. 64.
~pplication
B.4
of Boundary Conditions
th~
cor-
For example,
the u displacement of a node may be specified to displace in the direction of a line at an angle
-201-
~y
For
be
I
I
I
I
It
[k']
where
[k]
[T]
(B. 38)
= the
= the
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
It should be noted further that the applied nodal forces and the
.:: ~ :~ _1:
:'l-=
J . .:
r~0.L:
(T)=
where
... ,.
cos w
sin w
-sin w
cos w
-o
-cos 6
sin
-sin (!
cos
(B. 39)"
e
e
e = the
eX
rotates'
. -
measured clockwise.
-202-
---- -
----
-- -- ---------- ---- ..
....
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
:B:-5
Application of Loads
The components of the force vector as defined by Eq. B.33 are
For uniformly distributed loads, the force vector can be computed from
(Ref. 17).
'....
~;
'
(B. 40)
...
th~.
discretization can be made such that the load will be directly: . op _a_
-~
node; and hence the loads can be applied directly to the global force
vector.
For
,
;~
....
forces at! the nodes become the applied nodal forces for cthe assemled
f)
structure:
,:
The stiffness equation for the Q-19 element gives the force
displaceme~t
--203-
nod~
(Fig. B2).
(B. 4-J,)
where 0 refers to the supported nodes and, where the subscripts E and I
refer to the external nodes and the internal node respectively.
The
.:(B. 42)
When the
The
'
-204-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.,
j
~..
'
.~;
...
.. ' .
.::..
Fig. Bl
~}
rf[
v/. . .
-
l,~
..
-206-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
iO.
I.
-:
A.
','""
.~~~~~ndices:
',,""'
~.,- .
\ .
...
.,.,
(A]
= Area
= Area
A.l.
_~-:-~;.;~.~ .,i
of a triangular element
,1 '.
~,
element
= Cross section area of stiffener element
A
s
= Matrix
[:s]
of differentiated displacement
functions
c
C
,C
ll
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I
,C
12
,C
21
(D]
33
displac~ments
..
_1
(D]_S
..
-- ---~
- -~-~
element
= Distribution
D. F.
factor
-. -.-M ;~
= Distribution
..
-~
E, E , E
1
'
= General
elasticity
'i.
elasticity
{Fe J
= Statically
to
- ... ,_
-- J
di~tributed
-207-
loads
= Applied
':'
external nodes
=
{F ' }
F . ,F . ,F . ,M . ,M .
X~
y~
Z~
X~
y~
= Components
{F.}
~
= General
G, G
moduli
Stiffener element shear modulus
H '
= Stiffener
(~I)stiffener/(EI)slab
= Integrand
I
I
expression
ll
,J
,J
12
,J
22
2~
[K]
= Components
of Jacobian matrix
= Global
stiffness matrix
= Bridge
dimension
= Matrix
[M}
= Generalized
M , N
M ,M ,M
X
of displacement functions
= Cartesian
,M ,M
.1
2
.
.. . J
.
: _t.
'
~~;
..
N ,N :,N . ,N ,N
x y xy 1 2
M M
u' uv
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_I
I
I.
= Percent
PCTR
= Percent
PCTR(EXT)
PCTR(BOX)
(R]
ss
spacing
B~am
,.
(T]
= Transformation
u, v
= In-plane
l.".
matrix
strain function
= Bridge
= Weight
wc
B.
a, b
,.
i
\~
a. ,b.
= Projected
1.
1.
. "j
2A/ J,i
e
.,_!';~. ;.
; .=-_;_
~~
= In-plane
,,.
-209-
displacement function
"
...
= Stiffener
= normal
= Node
i,j,k,.t
[k].
= Element
stiffness matrix
= Partitioned
ev' ve' ee
= Submatrices
[k]
[k]~
= Stiffener
=
[k ' J
= Length
m
= Ratio
modulus E
= Order
of interpolation function;
E /E
1
ratio~
l
P(x,y), q
in a triangular element
(r}
= Global
displacement vector
-210-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
{r (i)}
{r }
{r }
= External
element
{r0 }
element
.s
u,v,w
= Displacement components
= Components of the element
nodal
displacements
= Nodal
= Nodal
x,y,z
'
= Cartesian coordinates
= Cartesian
C.
.:.
coordinates of node i
,,
= Matrix
.:
of interpolation or shape
...
functions
= In~erpolation
'
.at,_,;P,e :n<?des
-211-
= Strain
= Twist
']
= Interpolation
functions associated
= Curvature
interpolation functions
= Strain
variation of strains
[i (i)]
e:
= Triangular
= Stiffener
describing the
va~iation
of twist
= Linear
sh~pe
.
. ,
with nodes i
-212-
functions associated
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D.
{a}
=Generalized coordinates
eXX ,e yy
of nodal strains
= Normal
strains
= Local
coordinates
-= Non-dimensional
,I
I
I
= Rotations
nodal coordinates
axes
= Nodal rotations
..'
I.
= 1-
t...1
= Poisson's
\I ;v
I
I
I
I
I
I.
= Vector
ratio
{a}
= Stress field
aXX ,ayy
= Normal stresses
.,.
= Shear
xy
,_
i.. .
l;
.-
i-
stresses
.,
.,:
= Skew angle,
angle of twist
= Interpolation
functions in terms of
= Angle
rotates
= Local
E.
derivative at node i
Element Designation
ACM
= Adini,
element
CST
= Constant
element
LCCT-12
= Linear
= Linear
= Linear
strain equilateral
= Melosh
= Pappenfuss
Q-19
= Quadrilateral
= Basic
= Basic
= Wegmuller
element
-214-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I