SIMPLIFIED ANALYSIS OF HEAT CURVED STEEL GIRDERS

Antoine Gergess1 and Rajan Sen2

ABSTRACT

Heat curving is commonly used in the fabrication of curved structural steel bridge

girders. A two-dimensional superposition analysis known as the Duhamel Analogy was

used for numerical modeling in the development of the AASHTO code provisions. This

iterative analysis can take into consideration multiple heat /cool cycles, initial residual

stresses, temperature-dependent material properties and the non-linear temperature

distribution across the girder cross-section

This paper describes a simplified analysis based on the Duhamel Analogy that can

be carried out using “hand calculations”. Results obtained from this method are within

15% of that obtained using Duhamel Analogy or three-dimensional, non-linear, finite

element solution. The background, basis and steps required for the proposed analysis are

described and an illustrative numerical example presented. The proposed analysis may be

used to estimate curvatures or to determine the maximum fabrication temperature/

heating width for a single heat/cool cycle for steels such as high performance steel (HPS)

not covered by the current AASHTO provisions.

Key Words: Duhamel analogy, bridges, heat curving, HPS, thermal analysis, curvature,

stress, simplified

1
Assistant Professor, University of Balamand, Lebanon, formerly graduate student, Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620
2
Samuel and Julia Flom Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620

1
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 INTRODUCTION

Heat curving is widely used for fabricating curved, bridge steel girders. In this

process, flange tips along one side of the girder are subjected to repeated heat/cool

(natural cooling to ambient temperatures) cycles to achieve the desired curvature. The

width of the heated flange (ha) can vary and three types (Fig. 1) are recognized in

fabrication design aids.

Heated Width (ha)

ha = c/6 for Type I heat

ha = c/3 for Type II heat
ha = c/2 for Type III heat

2c

ha Heating Cooling

Longitudinal
axis

(a) I-Girder Prior to Heating (b) Convex Curvature (c) Concave (Reverse) Curvature
(Duhamel Analogy steps 1–5) (Duhamel Analogy steps 6–7)

Fig. 1. Girder Behavior during Heat Curving

Heat curving is subject to the AASHTO provisions (AASHTO 1993, 1996) that

are based on full-scale test results (Brockenbrough 1970). In the testing, six distinct

heat/cool cycles (see Table 1) were used to obtain a terminal radius of curvature of 121 m

(397 ft) in a 14.02 m (46 ft) long straight girder.

The complexity of the heat curving operation is reflected in its numerical analysis

in which the cumulative effect of each heat-cool cycle must be incorporated.

Additionally, residual stresses (during fabrication of the straight girder), temperature-

dependence of material properties, geometric non-linearity and both inelastic (during

2
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 heating) and elastic (during cooling) response of the heat curved girder must be taken into

consideration.

A two-dimensional thermal analysis known as the Duhamel Analogy (Manson

1966) was used to model the US Steel test girder (Brockenbrough 1970a). It was

subsequently used to develop heat curving design charts (Brockenbrough 1972, 1973) for

steel fabricators to determine the heating regime, i.e. the heating temperatures needed to

obtain desired curvatures under a specific heat /cool cycle. More recently, three-

dimensional finite element analyses were carried out to analyze heat curving (Gergess

2001). In the course of this study, a simplified analysis was developed to check the

intermediate results for a specific heat/cool cycle This analysis is suitable for “hand

calculations” and can be readily implemented in a spreadsheet program.

This paper describes the basis and limitations of the proposed simplified analysis.

Relevant background information on thermal analysis is included and an illustrative

numerical example presented in a step-by-step format. The accuracy of the results from

the simplified analysis is assessed by comparisons with solutions from the Duhamel

Analogy and three-dimensional finite element analysis.

TABLE 1. Heating Cycles for US Steel Test Girder (Brockenbrough 1970a)

HEATING HEATING HEATED RADIUS OF

CYCLE TEMPERATURE FLANGE WIDTH* CURVATURE
1 563F (295C) 1
/6 width ≈ 31/2 in. (8.9 cm) 1770 ft (539m)
2 405F (207C) 1
/6 width ≈ 31/2 in. (8.9 cm) 1770 ft (539m)
3 1011F (544C) 1
/6 width ≈ 31/2 in. (8.9 cm) 655 ft (200m)
4 950F (510C) 1
/6 width ≈ 31/2 in. (8.9 cm) 583 ft (178m)
5 689F (365C) ¼ width ≈ 51/4 in. (13.3 cm) 481 ft (147 m)
6 768F (409C) ¼ width ≈ 51/4 in. (13.3 cm) 397 ft (121m)
* heated flange width as noted by Brockenbrough (Brockenbrough 1970a)

3
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 DUHAMEL ANALOGY

The Duhamel Analogy is a two-dimensional, superposition-based, thermal load

analysis that can predict residual curvature in a heat curved girder. A brief review is

presented to provide the necessary background for the proposed simplified analysis. More

complete information may be found in Brockenbrough 1970a.

The basic steps in the Duhamel Analogy are illustrated in Fig. 2. In essence, a

heat curved girder is assumed to be restrained under thermal loading and the final stress

obtained by summation of thermal stresses, e.g. σt = EαT, and reaction-load induced

stresses, e.g. σ = F/A + My/I due to heating and cooling. The corresponding strains are

used to determine curvature. Superposition is valid because of the independence of

thermal and load-induced stresses, England and Tsang 1996.

The determination of thermal stresses requires information on the temperature

variation over the width of the flange. This variation is non-uniform since only one side

of the flange is heated (Fig. 1). Brockenbrough obtained the temperature distribution

from heat flow analysis in a semi-infinite thin plate for a moving-point heat source along

its edge (Myers & Vyehars, 1967). This led to a distribution (hx) that was constant over

the heated width and transitioned linearly over a width (c/6) to ambient temperature (T0)

outside the heated width as shown in Fig. 3a.

The steps required for analyzing a simply supported girder subjected to a single

heat /cool cycle are first outlined followed by the more general case involving multiple

heat /cool cycles (Table 1). Temperature distribution across the heated width (Fig. 2) (not

the flange width) is assumed to be uniform for illustrative purposes. The effect of heating

and cooling to ambient conditions are described separately for convenience.

4
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Step 1: Parameters
x ∆T= (T – T0) = n∆Ti
L
T
2c ha
NA
tf
Simply Supported Girder Flange Section Temperature Profile (rectangular
shape shown for illustration)
Step 2:
Thermal Stress c σt ha
σt = Eα∆Ti where E & α are calculated at Tn = T0 + Σn∆Ti

c
Step 3: F
End Reactions (applied in opposite direction) c ha
e
F F x
M M c

Free Body Diagram of Restrained Beam F = ∫σtdA & M = Fe = ∫σtxdA

Step 4: Axial & Bending Stresses

-Mc/I

c c
-F/A
x
c c -Mx/I
Mc/I
Axial Stress Bending Stress
Step 5A:Self Equilibrating Stresses - Elastic Step 5B: Inelastic
Fy
σt - F/A - Mc/I

c - F/A - M(c-ha)/I σt - F/A - M(c-ha)/I

c σ1
Fy
x1

c c x2
- F/A + Mc/I
σ2
x1, x2, σ1, σ2 determined from ∫σtdA & ∫σtxdA = 0
∆Ti)
Step 6: Cooling - Steps 1 – 5A repeated for (-∆
σt = -Eα∆Ti, E & α at Tn = T - Σn∆Ti Mc/I -σt + F/A + Mc/I

c σt ha c c c F/A + M(c-ha)/I -σt + F/A + M(c-ha)/I

F/A
x
c c c Mx/I c
F/A - Mc/I
-Mc/I
Thermal Stress Axial Stress Bending Stress Self-Equilibrating Stress

Fig. 2. Duhamel Analogy for a Flange Plate

5
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Single Cycle : Heating

The dependence of material properties of steel on temperature (see Table 2) necessitates

sub-dividing the heating temperature increase (∆T) into n increments (∆Ti, ∆T = n∆Ti).

As a result, a multi-step analysis (steps 2-5 are repeated n times) is required. Fig. 2 and

Table 2 illustrate the steps.

Step 1 Calculate Parameters (Fig. 3):

Ic.g = 4tfc3 (minor axis bending, web effect neglected)

A = 4tfc + (d – 2tf)tw

∆T = (T – T0) = n∆Ti, where n = number of increments

Ah (heated area) = 2hatf

Step 2 Calculate Fy, E, α for each temperature interval (Tn = T0 + Σn∆Ti).

See Table 2 for equations.

Calculate thermally induced stresses in the heated area (σt = Eα∆Ti)

assuming the girder to be fully restrained.

Step 3 Calculate end reactions F (axial force due to longitudinal constraint) and

M (flexural moment due to rotational constraint) by integrating the

thermal stress (σt) over the cross-sectional area of the flanges,

F= ∫ σ t dA and M =
(over h a )
∫ σ t xdA , x is the offset from the neutral axis.
(over h a )

Step 4 Calculate axial (F/A) and bending (Mx/I) stresses.

Step 5A Elastic:

Calculate self-equilibrating stresses (σe) by superposing thermal (from

step 2) and negative end reaction stresses (from step 3), Fig. 2, step 5A.

6
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Table 2. Duhamel Analogy versus Proposed Simplified Method

ITEM DUHAMEL ANALOGY SIMPLIFIED METHOD COMMENTS

∆Tmax 2ha based on equivalence of
∆T areas of heating profiles.
∆Tmax occurs at the tip of the
hx flange and dissipates linearly
TEMPERATURE 0.1∆T to unheated edge.
0.03∆T
-c ∆Tmax: 1.13∆T, Type I, ha=c/6
DISTRIBUTION -c 0 c 0 c 1.09∆T, Type II, ha=c/3
c/6 2ha
2 2 1.095∆T, Type III, ha=c/2
(Tmax = ∆Tmax + T0), T0 is
tf
ambient temperature.
tf
ha ha

∆T divided into n increments ∆Ti (∆T=n∆Ti) Tave = /3∆Tmax +T0

2
Steel property variation with
at each increment, Tn=T0+Σn∆Ti (n=1,2,3..) temperature calculated at Tave
 T − 100  (centroid of the triangular
 Fy   Fy   T − 100 
TEMPERATURE   = 1− n  100F < Tn < 800F   = 1 −  ave  100F < Tave < 800F shaped profile), compared to
 F'   5833   F'   5833  every increment in the
 y      y  
DEPENDENT Duhamel analogy.
MATERIAL (− 7.2E5 + 4200T − 2.75T )10 n
2 −6 100F<Tn<1200F (− 7.2E5 + 4200T ave
2
)
− 2.75Tave 10 −6 100F<Tave<1200F
Such simplification may be
inadvisable if dealing with
E  Tn − 100   Tave − 100  postbuckling of steel subjected
PROPERTIES
  = 1 −   100F < Tn < 700F E
5000 
  = 1 −   100F < Tave < 700F

to elevated temperatures (fire),
 E'     
E' 5000
  but is not critical in heat
curving where heat is applied
(− 5E5 + 1333T n
2
)
− 1.111Tn 10 −6 700F<Tn<1200F (− 5E5 + 1333T ave
2
)
− 1.111Tave 10 −6 700F<Tave<1200F for a brief period by a moving
source.
α = (6.1 + 0.0019T n )10 −6 100F<Tn<1200F α = (6.1 + 0.0019T )10 −6 100F<Tave<1200F
ave

MULTI-STEP ANALYSIS FOR SINGLE-STEP ANALYSIS FOR Single step analysis does not
incorporate residual stresses
EACH TEMPERATURE INCREMENT (∆Ti) ONE TEMPERATURE INCREMENT
ANALYSIS but provides curvature values
(∆Tmax) within 15% of results from
sophisticated analyses.

7
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Step 5B Inelastic:

Revise self-equilibrating stresses to account for yielding, Fy, e.g.

∫ σ edA and
(over 2c )
∫ σ exdA = 0 . Refer to Fig. 2, step 5B.
(over 2c )

At the end of this step, the girder develops a concave curvature (Fig. 1b) due to the temperature

increase (∆T). Self-equilibrating stresses (Fig. 2, Step 5) constitute the initial conditions for the

cooling cycle.

TYPE I: ha = c/2 hx = c/12 TYPE I: ∆Tmax = 1.13∆ ∆T

TYPE II: ha = c/3 hx = c/4 TYPE II: ∆Tmax = 1.09∆∆T
TYPE III: ha = c/2 hx = 5c/12 TYPE III: ∆Tmax = 1.095∆
∆T

∆Tmax

∆T
hx
0.1∆T
0.03∆T c
c c/6 0 -c 0 -c

h’a=2ha
tf tf
2c 2c

ha 2ha

d d
x x

tw tw
tf tf

(a) Brockenbrough Temperature Distribution: (b) Proposed Temperature Distribution:

∆T = (T – T0) ∆Tmax = (Tmax – T0)

Fig. 3. Temperature Variation Over Top & Bottom Flanges

8
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Single Cycle: Cooling

Step 6 Once again, because of the dependence of steel’s material properties on

temperature, a multi-step analysis is required for temperature decrements (-∆Ti).

The results from step 5B for the last heating increment, i.e. total temperature

increase ∆T, constitute the initial conditions for the 1st cooling decrement.

However, the cooling operation is elastic since reductions in stresses and strains

during unloading are reversible (Smith 1996). As a result, only steps 2 – 5A (not

5B) as defined for heating are repeated but for a temperature decrease (-∆T = T0 –

T). Temperature-dependent material properties (Fy, E and α) are calculated for the

corresponding temperature interval (Tn = T - Σn∆Ti), until ambient temperature

(T0) is reached. Refer to Fig. 2, step 6.

Step 7 After cooling to ambient temperature (T0, last decrement in step 6), there will be

permanent residual stresses, strains, and curvatures that define the girder

conditions after one heat/cool cycle. The residual curvature is of primary interest

and is determined from the strain variation (ε/x = 1/R).

Summary

During heating, steps 1 – 5 are repeated for each successive temperature increment ∆Ti,

with the results from step 5 for a specific increment constituting the initial conditions for the

following increment. For example, for a girder heated to a temperature T of 299C (570F) and

ambient temperature 21C (70F), the temperature increase (∆T = 299C – 21C = 278C (570F –70F

= 500F)) may be subdivided into say five intervals (∆Ti = 278/5 = 55.6C (100F)) and thermal

analysis (steps 1 – 5) carried out for each increment. Results from the fifth increment (last

interval), constitute the initial conditions for cooling (steps 6 – 7 performed for successive

9
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 cooling temperatures (-∆Ti = -55.6C (-100F)) until ambient temperature (T0 = 21C (70F) is

reached).

Multiple Heat /Cool Cycles

For multiple heat/cool cycles (Table 1), steps 1 - 7 are repeated for each heat/cool cycle

separately, with the results from step 7 for a specific cycle constituting the initial conditions for

the following cycle. If for example the girder from the previous paragraph (heated to 299C

(570F)) was cooled to ambient conditions, then heated to 354C (670F), the temperature increase

in the 2nd heating cycle (∆T = 354C – 21C = 333C (670F – 70F = 600F)) would be subdivided

into six intervals (∆Ti = 55.6C (100F)) and thermal analysis (steps 1 – 7) performed with the

results from the final step 7 (after cooling, previous paragraph) being the initial value. Such an

analysis was carried out by Brockenbrough (Brockenbrough 1970a) to compare experimental

results obtained from the US Steel study. However, was this not the case for fabrication aids

(Brockenbrough 1972, 1973) where only one heat/cool cycle was considered.

It should be noted that step 5B requires a trial and error numerical solution due to the

non-uniformity of the temperature profile and temperature-dependence of steel.

SIMPLIFIED ANALYSIS

As has been already stated, Brockenbrough’s analysis is multi-step primarily to account

for the dependence of material properties on temperature. In the proposed analysis, the essential

features of Brockenbrough’s analysis are retained. However, two important simplifying

assumptions were made so that the analysis can be completed in a single step without unduly

compromising the accuracy of the numerical solution. These assumptions are listed below and

are also summarized in Table 2:

10
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 1. Replace Brockenbrough’s non-uniform temperature distribution (Fig. 3a) by an

idealized triangular distribution (Fig. 3b).

2. Determine temperature dependent material properties for the entire temperature

change for an average temperature change at the centroid of the triangular

distribution (Table 2).

The idealized triangular distribution uses a heated width h’a = 2ha and a maximum

temperature (∆Tmax) to ensure equivalence with Brockenbrough’s analysis (refer to Appendix I

for details). The heated width (2ha) is kept the same for all three heat types (Fig. 3b) but the

maximum temperature is adjusted. Details are shown in Appendix I.

The simplifying assumptions allow development of closed-form equations for stresses

and strains for the total temperature variation (∆T = T – T0) thereby eliminating the need for a

multi-step solution.

CLOSED-FORM EQUATIONS

The steps outlined for the Duhamel Analogy (Fig. 2) are also used in the simplified

analysis. Closed-form equations required for calculation of thermal stresses using the proposed

triangular temperature distribution are presented. Average temperatures for the three different

heating widths (Fig. 3) are shown in Table 3.

∆T= T-T0)
Table 3. Average Temperature for Single Step Analysis - (∆

Temperature Type I Type II Type III

∆Tmax 1.13∆T 1.09∆T 1.095∆T
Tave 0.753∆T + T0 0.727∆T + T0 0.73∆T + T0

11
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 End Reactions

End reaction forces and moments are calculated by integrating the thermal stresses that
develop for the assumed triangular heat profile, as given by Eqs. (1) and (2):

(∆Tmax (2h a − c + x ) )
σt = Eα (see Fig. 4 for definition of x).
2h a

F = 2αh a t f E∆Tmax (1)

2h a
M = 2αh a t f E∆Tmax (c − ) (2)
3

Elastic self-equilibrating stress (σex) (refer to Fig. 4a):

σ ex = − F − Fe x (- compression, + tension) -c ≤ x ≤ (c – 2ha) (3)

A I c.g

σ ex = − F − Fe x + σ t (c – 2ha) < x ≤ c (4)

A I c.g

Inelastic self-equilibrating stress:

Yield initiates along the heated girder flange section (point of maximum stress at the tip

of the flange width, x = c), for temperature increase (∆Ty) calculated by equating Eq. 4 to (Fy) at

(x = c):

Fy
∆Ty = (5)
  2h 
 c c - a 
3
Eα − 2αEh a t f  1 +  
A I c.g 
 
 

The stress varies linearly with the heated zone (tension (+) at the heated flange tip (x = c),

compression (-) at the tip of the heated area (x = c – 2ha)) as shown in Fig. 4a.

The point of zero stress (x0) in the heated area is calculated by setting the self-

equilibrating stress in the heated zone (Eq.4) to zero:

12
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
  - c + 2h a 2h a t f 
 − 
2h a A 
x0 =   (6)
  2h a  
 c - 2h a t f 
 3  1 
 − 
I cg 2h a
 
 

Inelastic zones (Fig. 5a):

The distances x1, x2, x3 shown in Fig. 5a define the shape of the inelastic region and are

c c
determined to satisfy equilibrium ( ∫ σ ex dA = 0, ∫ σ ex xdA = 0, ). From these equations, the
-c -c

following expressions are derived (see Appendix II for symbols):

γ = 3+
[ ]
β 3 − 3β - α 4 (α 3 + α 5 ) − a α 3 (6 − 3α 3 ) + α 5 (3 − 3α 3 − α 5 )
≤ 2 − α4 (7)
4 − (1 + a )(α 3 + α 4 )

The offset to the plastic zone (x2 = α2c) is calculated as:

γ2
α2 = (8)
4 − (1 + a )(α 3 + α 4 )

The curvature (1/R) is obtained from strain variation is determined as:

1 εx
= (9)
R x - x NA

where εx is the strain (σx/E) at offset (x), and (xNA), is the offset of the centroid of the flange to

the neutral axis calculated as x NA = (-c + x 1 ) .

Strain variations in the elastic and inelastic ranges are shown in Figs. 4b and 5b

respectively:

13
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 ( F + Fe x)
A I c.g
εx = Elastic Analysis (10)
E

F' y  x + c − x1 
εx =   Inelastic Analysis (11)
E'  x2 

(1) During cooling, elastic analysis is performed for (-∆Tmax), e.g. Eqs. 1-4, 9 & 10 above are

used to predict the stresses, strains and curvatures during cooling.

(2) Residual stresses (σrx, Fig.6a) after unloading are listed in Appendix II. Residual

curvatures are finally calculated from strain variations (Fig. 6b):

 2h a 
F' y  x + c − x1  1 x (c - )
ε rx =   − 2α∆Tmax h a t f  + 3 (12)

E'  x2  A I c.g 
 

 2h 
 x(c - a ) 
1 2α∆Tmax h a t f 1 3
=-  +  (13)
Rc (x - x NA )  A I c.g 
 

where Rc is the radius of curvature calculated at the Neutral Axis (NA) and XNA is the distance to

I c.g
the Neutral Axis, x NA = - .
2h a
A(c - )
3

Residual curvature (1/Rr) at the centerline of the girder is:

1 1 1
= + (14)
Rr R Rc

14
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Axial Force: F
Bending Moment: M=Fe
Thermal Stress: σt
-F/A - Mc/Icg + σt
Heated Width
(F/A + Mc/Icg)/E c
c
- Compression
2ha

+ Tension

Flange Width (2c)

Flange Width (2c)
x x
-F/A + M(c-2ha)/Icg
CG 0
CG 0
xNA

NA NA

-F/A + Mc/Icg
-c -c (F/A - Mc/I )/E
cg

σex)
Self-Equilibrating Stress (σ Strain

(a) Stress Distribution due to Heating (b) Strain distribution due to Heating

Fig. 4. Stress and Strain Distribution – Elastic Range (Step 5A)

Axial Force: F
Bending Moment: M=Fe

Thermal Stress: σt

- Compression
Heated Width
Heated Width

c Fy + Tension c
2ha
2ha

x3
-F’y Flange Width (2c)
Flange Width (2c)

xo
x F’y/E x

0 0 x2
x2 CG CG
(1/R) = εy/x2
xNA
NA NA

x1 x1
F’y(x1/x2)
-c -c -F’ (x /x )/E
y 1 2
σex)
Self-Equilibrating Stress (σ Strain

(a) Stress distribution due to Heating (b) Strain distribution due to Heating

Fig. 5. Stress and Strain Distribution – Inelastic Range (Step 5B)

15
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Axial Force: F
Bending Moment: M=Fe
Thermal Stress: σt
- Compression
F/A + Mc/Icg - σt + Tension

Heated Width
Heated Width

c c -(F/A + Mc/Icg)/E

2ha
2ha

F/A + M(c - ha)/Icg

Flange Width (2c)

Flange Width (2c)
x x
(1/Rc) = εx/(x - xNA)
CG 0 CG 0

NA NA
xNA

F/A - Mc/Icg Residual

Unloading -c
-c (-F/A + Mc/Icg)/E
σex)
Self-Equilibrating Stress (σ Strain

(a) Stress distribution due to Heating (b) Strain distribution due to Heating

Fig. 6. Residual Stress and Strain Distribution –Inelastic Range (Steps 6 –7)

APPLICATION

Heat curving induces lateral deformations and curvatures. In the proposed analysis, a heat

curved girder subjected to a simplified triangular temperature profile (Fig. 3b) develops end

reactions (F) and (M) calculated from Eqs. 1 - 2.

For elastic conditions, (∆Tmax ≤ ∆Ty, ∆Ty being the temperature at which yielding

initiates, Eq. 5), the resulting self-equilibrating stresses in the heated and non-heated zone are

determined from Eqs. 3 and 4 respectively. The corresponding curvature may be obtained from

Eq. 9. For inelastic conditions (∆Tmax > ∆Ty), stresses during heating inside and outside the

heated area are calculated using coefficients listed in Appendix II that are functions of the plastic

zone depth. The corresponding strains and curvatures are given by Eqs. 9 & 11.

16
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 During cooling, the curvature direction is reversed and elastic stress-strain-curvature

relationships are used in the analysis. Residual stresses may be calculated using functions listed

in Appendix II. The curvature during cooling (1/Rc) is obtained from Eq.13 and corresponding

residual curvature (1/Rr) from Eq.14.

NUMERICAL EXAMPLE

The numerical example selected to illustrate the simplified method is taken from

experimental data obtained from US Steel’s pioneering full-scale test conducted in 1968. As this

example was also analyzed by Brockenbrough (1970a) using the Duhamel Analogy and by

Gergess (2001) finite elements, its selection is convenient from the standpoint of assessing the

accuracy of the simplified method.

Description

The symmetrical Grade 250 (Fy = 36 ksi) heat-curved I-girder was 14.02 m (46 ft) long

with 61 cm × 5.1 cm (24 in. × 2 in.) flanges and a 116.8 cm × 1.27 cm (46 in. × ½ in.) web. At its

ends, the bottom flanges were placed on mobile platforms that permitted longitudinal and lateral

movement. At the middle, the web was bolted to a rigid platform (Fig. 7). Curving was achieved

through six consecutive heat/cool cycles (Table 1).

Of the six heat/cool cycles, the 3rd and 6th cycles (referred to subsequently as runs 3 and

6) were of particular importance since: (1) run 3 had the largest heating temperature (544C

(1011F)) over a heated width of 8.9 cm (31/2 in.) and (2) run 6 had the largest heating width of

13.3 cm (51/4 in.) for a heating temperature of 409C (768F)). For an ambient temperature of 21C

(70F), temperature increases were 523C (941F) and 388C (698F) respectively. The measured

radius of curvature was 200 m (655 ft) after run 3, i.e. following runs 1 and 2 and 121 m (397 ft)

17
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 after run 6, i.e. following runs 3, 4 and 5. A summary of the results from the intermediate steps is

presented in Table 4.

tf = 5.1 cm L = 14.02 m
d = 116.8 cm

tw = 1.27 cm Web bolted to

Middle Platform

2c = 61 cm
End Support Middle Support
Mobile Platform Rigid Platform

CROSS-SECTION ELEVATION

Fig. 7. US Steel Test Girder (Not to Scale)

Solution: Steps 1–7 are followed to calculate the residual curvature for run 3 (run 6 results are

presented in Table 4). Note that the measured heated width (Table 1) did not accurately reflect

the 1/6 flange width for run 3 (Type II heat) and ¼ flange width for run 6 (Type III heat).

Brockenbrough 1970b, used actual values in the theoretical analysis e.g. 10.16 cm (4 in.) instead

of 8.9 cm (31/2 in.) for run 3 and 15.24 cm (6 in.) instead of 13.3 cm (51/4 in.) for run 6

(Brockenbrough 1970a) and that are also used here.

Step 1: Ic.g = 191,800cm4 (4608in4), A = 770.54cm2 (120in2), ∆Tmax = 1.09×(523C) = 570C (1026F)

Ah = 2hatf = 2×10.16×5.08 = 103cm2 (16in2) where ha = c/3 = (30.5)/3 = 10.16cm (4″)

Step 2: At T0: F’y=250MPa (36 ksi), E’=200GPa (29,000 ksi), α’ = 1.1E-5/C (6.29E-6/F)

At Tave = 2/3∆Tmax + T0 = 2/3(570C) + 21C = 401C (754F), Fy=218MPa (31.7 ksi), E=176GPa (25,550 ksi), α=1.39E-

5/C (7.49E-6/F) (see Table 2 for Equations).

σt = Eα∆Tx = 176×106×1.39E-5×(28.1x –264) = (68,744x – 645,850), (σt in N/m2, x in cm),

= ((24.6x – 84.6)), (σt in ksi, x in inches).

18
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Step 3:

Eq.1: F = 2αhatfE∆Tmax = 2×1.39E-5×(10.16/100)×(5.08/100)×176E6×570 =13,970kN (3,140 kips).

Eq.2: M = F(c – 2ha/3) = 13,970 × (30.48–2×10.16/3) = 331,030 kN-cm (29,300) k-in.

Step 4: σ = 13,970 + 331,030 x = (18.1 + 1.73x)kN/c m 2 , x (cm), ((26.2 + 6.36x)ksi, x(in.))

x
770.54 191,800

Step 5A (elastic):

Eqs.3 and 4: σ = − F − Fe x -c ≤ x < (c – 2ha); σ = − F − Fe x + σ (c – 2ha) < x ≤ c

tx
ex
A I c.g ex
A I c.g

13,970 331,030
σex = − − x = - (18.1 + 1.73x)kN/cm 2 , x (cm), (-(26.2 + 6.36x)ksi, x(in.))
770.54 191,800

-30.48 cm (-12″) ≤ x < 10.16cm (4″)

σex = - (18.1 + 1.73x) + (1.39E − 5 × 176E 2(29.1x − 295.5 − 21)) = (5.39x - 95.5) kN/cm 2 , x (cm), ((19.8x − 138.5)ksi, x (in.))

10.16 cm (4″) ≤ x < 30.48cm (12″)

Step 5B (inelastic): Eq.5:

Fy
∆Ty =
 
(c ) c - a
2h
 
3
Eα − 2αEh a t f  1 +  
A I c.g 
 
 

218,000
∆Ty =
  2(10.16)  
 30.48 30.48 - 
 3 
1.39E − 5 × 176 E6 − 2 × 1.39E − 5 × 176E 6 × 10.16 × 5.08 1 +
 770.54 191,800 
 
 

∆Ty = 187C (348F) < ∆Tmax = 570C (1026F), inelastic analysis required

Eq.6, point of zero stress:

 - c + 2h a 2ha t f   - 30.48 + 2(10.16) 2(10.16)(5.08) 

 −   −  = 17.4cm (6.85 in.)
 2h A  2(10.16) 770.54
 a  =  
x0 =
  2h a    2(10.16)  
 c - 2h a t f    30.48 - 2(10.16)(5.08) 
 3  1   3  1 
− −
 I cg 2h a   191800 2(10.16) 
   
   
 

Eq.7: γ = 3+
[
β 3 − 3β - α 4 (α 3 + α 5 ) − a α 3 (6 − 3α 3 ) + α 5 (3 − 3α 3 − α 5 ) ] Eq.8: α = γ2
2
4 − (1 + a )(α 3 + α 4 ) 4 − (1 + a )(α 3 + α 4 )

19
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 From Appendix II:

α0 = x0/c = 17.4/30.48 = 0.57; α4 = 2ha/c = 2(10.16)/30.48 = 0.67, a = Fy/F’y = 218/250 = 0.88

α3 = (1 – 0.57)(1+0.88) – (0.87)(0.67) = 0.22, α5 = (0.67 + 0.57 – 1)0.88 =0.21. β= 0.21 + 0.67 + 0.22 = 1.1

1.13 − 3(1.1) - 0.67(0.22 + 0.21) − 0.88[0.22(6 − 3(0.22)) + 0.21(3 − 3(0.22) − 0.21)]

γ = 3+
4 − (1 + 0.87)(0.22 + 0.67)

γ = 1.42 > (2 - α4) = 1.33, then use 1.33. α = 1.33 2 = 0.75, α1 = 1.33 – 0.75 = 0.58
2
4 − (1 + 0.88)(0.22 + 0.67)

Eq. 11, strain variation ε = F' y  x + c − x1  :

E'  
x
x2 

x2 = 0.75×30.48 = 22.9 cm (9 in.), x1 = 0.58×30.48 = 17.7 cm (7 in.)

xNA = (-c + x1) = (-30.48 + 17.7) = -12.78 cm (-5.03 in.).

@ x = (x1 + x2 –c) = (17.7 + 22.9 - 30.48) = 10.12 cm (3.98 in.), εx2 = 250,000/200,000,000 = 0.00124

Eq.9: 1 = ε x = 0.00124 = 5.41E-5 /cm, R = 184.6m (606 ft)

R x - x NA (10.12 - (-12.78))

Offset ∆ ≈ L2/8R = (14.022/8/184.6)100 = 13.3cm (5.24 in.)

 2h 
x (c - a ) 
Steps 6 and 7: Eq.13: 1 = 2α∆Tmax h a t f  1 3
R c - (x - x )  A + I

NA  c.g 
 

I c.g = 191,800 = -10.5 cm (-4.13 in.)

x NA = - -
2h a 2 × 10.16
A(c - ) 770.54(30.48 - )
3 3

@ x = (x1 + x2 –c) = (17.7 + 22.9 - 30.48) = 10.12 cm (3.98 in.)

 2(10.16) 
10.12(30.48 - )
(1/Rc) = 2(0.0000139)(570)(10.16)(5.08)  1 3 = -0.0000973
-  + 
(10.12 - (-10.5))  770.54 191,800 
 

Rc = -101.4m (-332.7 ft), ∆ ≈ L2/8R ≈ (14.022/8/(-101.4))(100) = -24.2cm (-9.54 in.)

Eq.14: 1 = 1 + 1
Rr R Rc

1 1 1 , Rr = -224.8m (-742 ft), ∆ = -10.9cm (-4.3 in.) compared to Rr = -200m (-655 ft), ∆ = -
= +
Rr 184.6 - 101.4

12.3cm (-4.85 in.) from US Steel test data.

20
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Table 4. Proposed Method, Steps 1 – 7 (Numerical Example)

STEP ITEM RUN 3 RUN 6

(TYPE II) (TYPE III)
Ic.g.=191800cm4 Ic.g.=191800cm4
(4608in4), (4608in4),
1 Ic.g = 4tfc3, A = 4tfc + (d – 2tf)tw
A=770.54cm2(120in2) A=770.54cm2(120in2)
Equivalent ∆Tmax = 1.13(T – T0) (Type I)
1 1.09(544C – 21C) = 1.095(409C – 21C) =
Temperature ∆Tmax = 1.09 (T – T0) (Type II)
cont’d 570C (1026F) 425C (764F)
Increase: (Fig. 3) ∆Tmax= 1.095(T – T0) (Type III)
1 Ah = 2hatf where ha = c/6 for Type I, c/3 for Type ha = 10.16 cm (4 in.) ha = 15.24 cm (6 in.)
cont’d II and C/2 for Type III heat 2
Ah = 103 cm (16 in ) 2
Ah = 155 cm2 (24 in2)

Material Grade 250: F’y = 250MPa (36 ksi)

Properties Grade 345: F’y = 345MPa (50 ksi)
2
At T0: HPS485W: F’y = 485MPa (70 ksi)
Grade 250 Grade 250
HPS690W:F’y = 690MPa (100ksi)
(A36) (A36)
E’ = 200GPa (29,000 ksi)
α’ = 1.1E-5/C(6.29E-6/F)

At average temperature: Tave = 2/3 ∆Tmax + T0 401C (754F) 304C (580F)

Temperature-Dependent Steel Properties:

 Fy   T − 100 
  = 1 −  ave  100F < Tave < 800F
 F'    Fy = 218MPa (31.7 ksi) Fy = 228MPa (33.2 ksi)
2  y  5833

cont’d E=176GPa (25,550 ksi) E=180GPa (26,354 ksi)
( 2
)
= − 7.2E5 + 4200Tave − 2.75Tave 10 −6 800F<Tave<1200F
α=1.39E-5/C(7.49E-6/F) α=1.36E-5/C(7.16E-6/F)

E  Tave − 100 

  = 1 −   100F < Tave < 700F

 
E'
 5000

( 2
)
= − 5E 5 + 1333 Tave − 1.111Tave 10 −6 700F<Tave<1200F

α = (6.1 + 0.0019T ave )10 −6 100F<Tave<1200F

2
cont’d Temperature (Tx) = (28.1x – 264), x (cm) (13.9x + 21), x (cm)
((128.3x – 443)), x (in.) ((63.7x + 70)), x (in.)
Thermal Stress: σt = Eα∆Tx (68,744x – 645,850), (34,027x + 51,408)

Where ∆Tx = (∆Tmax (2h a − c + x ) )

2 ((24.6x – 84.6)) ((12x + 13.2))
cont’d
2h a Pa, x(cm) (ksi, x(in.)) Pa, x(cm) (ksi, x(in.))

21
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 3 Equivalent forces: F = 2 α h a t f E ∆ Tmax (Eq.1) 13,970 kN (3140 kips) 15,390 kN (3460 kips

2h a 331,030kN-cm 312,420 kN-cm

M = 2αh a t f E∆Tmax (c − ) (Eq.2)
3 (29300 k-in.) (27680 k-in.)

4 Stress due to F and M: σ = F + Fe x -(18.1 + 1.73x), x(cm) (20 + 1.63x), x(cm)

x
A I c.g ((26.2+6.36x), x(in.)) ((28.8+6x), x(in.))

Equivalent stress: -(18.1 + 1.73x), x(cm) -(20 + 1.63x), x(cm)

5A -30.48cm≤x<10.16cm -30.48cm≤x<0
σ ex = − F − Fe x -c ≤ x < (c – 2ha) (Eq.3)
elastic A I c.g
(5.39x-95.5), x(cm) (1.94x-25.1), x(cm)
σ ex = − F − Fe x + σ tx (c – 2ha) < x ≤ c (Eq.4)
A I c.g 10.16cm≤x≤30.48cm 0≤x≤30.48cm

Fy
∆Ty = (Eq.5)
  2h a 
 c c - 3 
5B
in-   187C (348F) < ∆Tmax = 312C (590F) < ∆Tmax =
Eα − 2 αEh a t f  +
1
elastic 570C (1026F) 425C (764F)
A I c.g 
 
 
 - c + 2 h a 2h a t f 
 −  (Eq.6)
2h a A 
x0 =  
5B   2h a  
cont’d  c -  2h a t f  x0 = 17.4 cm (6.85 in.) x0 = 12.3 cm (4.84 in.)
 3  1 
 − 
I cg 2h a
 
 
γ = 3+
[
β 3 − 3β - α 4 (α 3 + α 5 ) − a α 3 (6 − 3α 3 ) + α 5 (3 − 3α 3 − α 5 ) ]
4 − (1 + a )(α 3 + α 4 )
γ = 1.42>1.33 use 1.33 γ = 1.123>1.0 use 1.0
= α0 , 1 = α 1
5B (Eq.7) x0 x
cont’d c c α0 = 0.57, α4 = 0.67 α0 = 0.4, α4 = 1.0

= α2 3 = α3, , x5 ,
x2 x 2h Fy a = 0.88, α3 = 0.22 a = 0.92, α3 = 0.225
a
= α4 = α5 = a
c c c c F' y
α5 = 0.21, β = 1.1 α5 = 0.372, β = 1.6
α 3 + α 4 + α 5 = β , α 3 = (1 − α 0 )(1 + a) − aα 4
5B γ2 (Eq.8)
α2 = 0.75 α2 =0.61
α2 =
cont’d 4 − (1 + a )(α 3 + α 4 ) x2 = 22.9cm (9 in.) x2 = 18.6 cm (7.32 in.)
5B α1 + α 2 = γ α1 = 0.58 α1 = 0.39
cont’d x1 = 17.7cm (7 in.) x1 = 11.9 cm (4.68 in.)
5B 1 ε x Eq.9, F' y  x + c − x 1  (Eq.11)
= εx=  
cont’d R x - xNA E'  x2 
R = 184.6 m (606 ft) R = 149 m (489 ft)
 2h a 
x (c - )  (Eq.13)
6 1 2 α ∆ T max h a t f  1 3 Rc = -101.4 m (-333 ft) Rc = -112 m (-366 ft)
=-  + 
Rc (x - x NA )  A I c.g 
 
7 1
=
1
+
1 (Eq.14) Rr = -224.8 m (-742 ft) Rr = -450 m (-1446 ft)
Rr R Rc

22
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 DISCUSSION

The numerical example illustrated the applicability of the proposed simplified method for

heat curving. Stresses, strains and curvatures during heating and cooling were calculated for the

US Steel test girder corresponding to specific heat /cool cycles (see Table 1) referred to as run 3

(Type II heat, ha = 10.16 cm (4 in.)) and run 6 (Type III heat, ha = 15.24 cm (6 in.)).

Table 5 compares results for residual curvature obtained from the simplified analysis with

those available results using the Duhamel Analogy and three-dimensional finite element analysis.

For Type II heat (see Fig. 3) the simplified method provides curvature values that are within 13%

of the measured values. The agreement is similar for Type III heat. In both cases, results are in

reasonable agreement with those obtained using more elaborate analyses.

Table 5. Numerical Example – Comparison of Radius of Curvature

Description Type II Heat – ha = c/3 Type III Heat – ha = c/2

Run 3: T = 544C (1011F) Run 6: T=409C (768F)
Test Data 200 m 121 m
(Brockenbrough 1970a) (655 ft) (397 ft)
2-D Duhamel Analogy 201 m
(Brockenbrough 1970b) (659 ft) Not Available
Ratio to Test Radius 1.01
3-D Finite Element Analysis 177 m 139 m
(Gergess 2001) (580 ft) (457 ft)
Ratio to Test Radius 0.89 1.15
Proposed Simplified 224.8 m 138 m
Method (742 ft) (453 ft)
Ratio to Test Radius 1.13 1.14

Heat curving is an art and regardless of the method of analysis, a final corrective heating

operation is required during fabrication to bring the girder to the desired curvature. Thus, the

accuracy of the numerical solution is not of paramount importance. Under the circumstances, the

simplified method is useful for the fabrication industry.

23
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 CONCLUSIONS

This paper presents a single-step analytical solution for heat curving based on the two-

dimensional Duhamel Analogy. It uses an equivalent, linear temperature distribution and

calculates temperature-dependent material properties at the centroid of a linearized profile (see

Fig. 3 and Table 2). These simplifying assumptions allowed the development of closed-form

equations for thermal stresses and strains from which curvature can be directly calculated.

A step-by-step procedure is presented and its application illustrated by a numerical

example that utilizes actual data from US Steel’s full-scale test conducted in 1968. Results show

good agreement and indicate that the proposed method may be conveniently used to predict

curvatures for specified conditions. Alternatively, the analysis may be used to determine the

maximum temperature required for heat curving an unstiffened symmetrical steel plate girder

section of various grades, including newly developed high performance steel (HPS, AASHTO

2000).

Although the closed form equations are complex, they can be readily incorporated in a

spreadsheet format with the main variables being the yield stress (Fy, function of the steel grade),

heating temperature (T), heated width (ha), and girder properties (flange thickness and width).

Such manual analyses serve to de-mystify heat curving and may be considered as a catalyst for

improving fabrication of curved steel girders in the future.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study is part of a doctoral dissertation that was funded by a Flom Fellowship,

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of South Florida, Tampa. The

authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution of Tampa Steel in this study.

24
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 SYMBOLS

a ratio of Fy to F’y
A total cross-sectional area of I-girder, cm2 (in2)
Ah heated area of the girder, cm2 (in2)
c half flange-width of I-girder, cm (in.)
d web depth of I-girder, cm (in.)
e eccentricity, cm (in.)
E’ modulus of elasticity at ambient temperature (T0), 200 GPa (29,000 ksi)
E modulus of elasticity at heating temperature (T)
F equivalent prestress force, kN (Kips)
Fy yield stress at temperature T, MPa (ksi)
F’y yield stress at ambient temperature, MPa (ksi)
ha heated width in Brockenbrough’s analysis cm (in.)
h’a heated width (=2ha) in proposed simplified analysis cm (in.)
Icg moment of inertia of flange sections, cm4 (in4)
L total length of I-girder, m (ft)
M equivalent moment (Fe), KN-m (kips-ft)
R radius of curvature during heating, meter (ft)
Rc radius of curvature during cooling, meter (ft)
Rr residual radius of curvature after cooling, meter (ft)
T heating temperature, C (F)
Tave average temperature from proposed profile (Tmax), C (F)
Tmax equivalent temperature for proposed profile, C (F)
Tx heating temperature at any point along flange width, C (F)
Ty heating temperature at which yielding occurs in un-heated area, C (F)
T0 ambient temperature 21C (70F)
tf flange thickness of I-girder, cm (in.)
tw web thickness of I-girder, cm (in.)

25
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 x offset from flange neutral axis, cm (in.)
xo distance from centerline to point of zero stress in heated area, cm (in.)
x1 depth of compressive stress elastic core in un-heated area, cm (in.)
x2 depth of tensile stress elastic core in un-heated area, cm (in.)
x3 depth of compressive stress plastic core in heated area, cm (in.)
xy distance from centerline to point of first yield in heated area, cm (in.)
α coefficient of thermal expansion at heating temperature , /C (/F)
∆ lateral offset (L2/8R), mm (in.)
∆T difference between heating temperature and ambient temperature, C (F)
∆Tmax difference between proposed temperature and ambient temperature, C (F)
∆Ty difference between yield temperature and ambient temperature, C (F)
εrx residual strain after cooling, mm/mm (in./in.)
εx strain during heating, cm/cm (in./in.)
εy yield strain, cm/cm (in./in.)
σ axial + flexural stress, kN/m2 (ksi)
σt thermal stress, MPa (ksi)
σe self-equilibrating stress, MPa (ksi)

26
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 APPENDIX I. EQUIVALENT TEMPERATURE PROFILE

US Steel’s Profile (Brockenbrough 1970a) Proposed Profile

∆T ∆Tmax
h*a = ha/2 for Type I Heat ΣA = ∆Tmax h’a/2
= 3ha/4 for Type II Heat
ΣAx = ∆Tmax (h’a/2)(c – h’a/3)
= 5ha/6 for Type III Heat
1 2
0.1∆T 4
0.03∆T 3 5 6
c -c c -c
0 0
h*a h’a
c/6

x x

HEAT TYPE I - ha = c/6 TYPE II - ha = c/3 TYPE III - ha = c/2

Section (A), (x), (Ax) (A), (x), (Ax) (A), (x), (Ax)
∆Tc/12, 0.958c, ∆Tc/4, 0.875c 5∆Tc/12, 0.792c
2 2
1 0.0798∆Tc 0.219∆Tc 0.33∆Tc2

0.9∆Tc/12, 0.861c 0.9∆Tc/12, 0.694c 0.9∆Tc/12, 0.528c

2 0.0646∆Tc2 0.0521∆Tc2 0.0396∆Tc2

0.1∆Tc/6, 0.834c 0.1∆Tc/6, 0.667c 0.1∆Tc/6, 0.5c

2 2
3 0.0139∆Tc 0.0111∆Tc 0.00833∆Tc2

0.07∆Tc/12, 0.695c 0.07∆Tc/12, 0.528c 0.07∆Tc/12, 0.361c

4 0.0041∆Tc2 0.0031∆Tc2 0.00211∆Tc2

0.03∆Tc/6, 0.667c 0.03∆Tc/6, 0.5c 0.03∆Tc/6, 0.333c

5 0.0033∆Tc2 0.0025∆Tc2 0.00166∆Tc2

0.03∆Tc/12, 0.528c 0.03∆Tc/12, 0.361c 0.03∆Tc/12, 0.194c

2 2
6 0.00132∆Tc 0.0009∆Tc 0.00049∆Tc2

Σ A;Σ
Σ Ax 0.188∆Tc; 0.167∆Tc2 0.355∆Tc; 0.288∆Tc2 0.522∆Tc; 0.382∆Tc2
*∆Tmax based on:

Σ A = ∆1Tmax h’a/2 ∆1Tmax = 1.128∆T ∆1Tmax = 1.065∆T ∆1Tmax = 1.044∆T

Σ Ax=∆2Tmax (h’a/2)(c – h’a/3) ∆2Tmax = 1.127∆T ∆2Tmax = 1.111∆T ∆2Tmax = 1.145∆T
Average: (∆1Tmax +∆2Tmax)/2 Average = 1.13∆T Average = 1.09∆T Average = 1.095∆T

*two ∆Tmax values are calculated: (1) based on Σ A = ∆1Tmax h’a/2, (2) based on Σ Ax = ∆2Tmax
(h’a/2)(c – h’a/3). Since h’a is selected as 2ha, the average between the two values is used.

27
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 APPENDIX II. COEFFICIENTS FOR HEAT CURVING

x0 x1 x2 x3 2h a x5
= α0 = α1 = α2 = α3 = α4 = α5
c c c c c c

Fy
=a α1 + α 2 = γ α3 + α4 + α5 = β α 3 = (1 − α 0 )(1 + a) − aα 4
F' y

α 5 = (α 4 + α 0 − 1)a

Inelastic Stress Functions:

σ x = Fy (c-x3) < x ≤ c

( x + 2h a − c) (c-2ha) < x ≤ (c-3)

σ x = (Fy + F' y ) − F' y
(2h a − x3 )

σ x = -F' y (x1+x2–c) < x ≤ (c-2ha)

( x - x1 + c) –c ≤ x ≤ (x1+x2-c)
σ x = -F'y
x2

Residual Stress Functions:

 2h 
x (c - a ) 
σ rx = Fy + 2α∆T Eh t  1 + 3 - α∆Tmax E ( x-c+2h a ) (c-x3) < x ≤ c
max a f   2h a
A I c.g 
 

 2h 
( x + 2h a − c) x (c - a )  ( x-c+ 2h a ) (c-2ha) < x ≤ (c-x3)
σ rx = ( Fy + F' y ) − F' y + 2α∆T Eh t  1 + 3

− α∆Tmax E
2h a
(2h a − x3 ) max a f
A I c.g 
 

 2h 
x (c - a ) 
σ r x = -F'y + 2α∆T Eh t  1 + 3 (x1+x2–c)<x≤(c-2ha)
max a f  
 A I c.g 
 

 2h a 
( x - x1 + c)  1 x (c - 3 )  –c ≤ x ≤ (x1+x2-c)
σ rx = -F' y + 2α∆Tmax Eh a t f  + 
A I c.g
x2

 

28
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 APPENDIX III. REFERENCES

AASHTO (1999). “Guide for Highway Bridge Fabrication With HPS 70W Steel” AASHTO
Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures, San Diego, CA, May 20.

AASHTO (1996). “Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges”, 16th Edition, Washington,
DC.

AASHTO (1993). “Guide Specifications for Horizontally Curved Highway Bridges, 1980:
As Revised by Interim Specifications for Bridges 1981, 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986 and
1993”. Washington, DC.

Brockenbrough, R.L. (1970a). “Theoretical Stresses and Strains from Heat-Curving”. ASCE,
Journal of Structural Division, July, vol. 96, no. ST7, pp. 1421-1444.

Brockenbrough, R.L. (1970b). “Experimental Stresses and Strains from Heat-Curving”.

ASCE, Journal of Structural Division, July, vol. 96, no. ST7, pp. 1305-1331.

Brockenbrough, R.L. (1972). “Fabrication Aids for Continuously Heat-Curved Girders”.

United States Steel Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, April.

Brockenbrough, R.L. (1973). “Fabrication Aids for Girders Curved with V-Heats”. United
States Steel Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, January.

Brockenbrough R.L., Merrit F.S. (1999). “Structural Steel Designer’s Handbook”, 3rd
Edition, McGraw-Hill, NY, NY.

England G.L. and Tsang C.M. (1996). “Thermally Induced Problems in Civil Engineering
Structures”, Elsevier Science B.V., NY, NY.

Gergess A. (2001). “Cold Bending and Heat Curving of Structural Steel I-Girders”, Ph.D
Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of South
Florida, Tampa, FL, August 2001.

Manson, S.S. (1966). “Thermal Stress and Low Cycle Fatigue”, McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
New York, N.Y.

Myers P.S., Vyehars O.A., and Borman G.L. (1967). “Fundamentals of Heat Flow in
Welding”, Welding Research Council Bulletin 123, July 1967.

Smith J.C. (1996). “Structural Steel Design”. LRFD Approach, 2nd Edition, John Wiley &
Sons, NY, NY.

29
TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.