CBDG Design Guide

Analysis
The analysis of the bridge structure is the start of the design and detailing process. This may start with preliminary analysis as part of the concept design before developing to the detailed analysis where the structural behaviour is modelled as accurately as possible. From simple 2D frame models to complex 3D models of dynamic structure, from analysis of local load and stress distribution to full solid models of the complete structure, analysis requires an understanding of both the manner that the software programmes work and the way loads distribute through the bridge. The following sections provide the designer with guidance on the analysis of concrete bridges, including the approach the designer should take to ensure reliable results.

Purpose
The rationale behind the analysis that is undertaken is that it should provide sufficient information in respect of the element forces for the design of the structure. In general terms, for concrete structures, this will be moments, shears and torsions in beams and moments and shears in slabs. It should be noted that since the element designs will generally be undertaken in accordance with specific code requirements the output from the analysis must be compatible with these requirements.

Designers Perspective
Analysing concrete bridges is straightforward using the range of software tools currently available to the engineer, while at the same time simple hand calculations are frequently all that are needed. For simple line-beams or frame models, the use of standard coefficients such as those given in the Reinforced Concrete Designers Handbook is often all that is needed. For more complex structures with 3D behaviour more sophisticated tools are required. It is often said by non-engineers that the advent of sophisticated structural analysis computer software must have made life much easier for the bridge designer. In many ways the reverse is true as the number of options available requires the designer to make some important decisions before embarking on any structural analysis. Where inappropriate methods are used the likelihood is that the designer will not obtain the output needed for the design. On the other hand over-complex methods will be unnecessarily time consuming and result in data overload. Therefore the designer must ask some basic questions at the outset of any analysis. Can this structure be idealised by considering longitudinal and transverse effects separately or does the transverse behaviour contribute significantly to the distribution of forces in the longitudinal members? If the answer is yes then 2D analysis in each direction may be appropriate and will save the time and effort associated with 3D analysis. For example, a straight bridge using prestressed concrete box girders can usually be analysed using separate 2D models for the longitudinal and transverse designs, whereas a beam and slab bridge would normally require a 3D grillage type analysis in order to adequately idealise the distribution of forces. What output is needed for the design? Ultimately the aim of the analysis is to provide a set of forces or stresses that allows the designer to determine the member strength requirements in accordance with the design code being followed. For example, when designing a voided slab bridge it is appropriate to use a grillage or plate model that will produce forces in the orthogonal directions rather than a solid model producing stress output. However a solid model may be appropriate when the designer wishes to understand complex stress distributions at tendon anchorages. Analysis Page 1

CBDG Design Guide

Will it be sufficient to assume that the structure is symmetrical about either axis in terms of geometry and loading? Boundary conditions can often be applied within an analysis to idealise symmetry. This will make the analysis more efficient to undertake in terms preparation of input data, computing time and processing of output data. Will the construction sequence be important in determining the force distribution within the structure? If the answer to this question is yes then it will be necessary to undertake some sort of stage-by-stage analysis to determine the build up of forces. Staged analysis is also necessary if the time dependant creep and shrinkage characteristics of concrete are likely to be significant in the final force distribution due to self-weight and prestressing. For example, in its simplest form the staged analysis of a prestressed beam and slab bridge would result in the individual beams being analysed for the self weight and the composite beam/slab for any subsequent loading. Having answered these questions the designer is in a position to determine the optimum method of analysis for the problem in hand. In general terms the simpler the analysis the more efficient it will be provided that the designer appreciates the consequences of the idealisations made on the output generated. It is said in many areas of life that Preparation Prevents Poor Performance. This is also true in the field of structural analysis where it is so easy for the designer to dive into an analysis package without proper forethought. A logical and systematic approach to the preparation of data for structural analysis will help to prevent the GIGO syndrome, that is Garbage in Garbage out. In other words the quality of the input data will to a large extent determine the reliability of the output. Many software analysis packages now possess wizards that lead the designer through a logical process of data input, however it is often better to have done the preparation work beforehand. The following sequence is usual: Geometry (nodes and elements or beams) Section Properties (including for differing elastic moduli and/or cracked sections) Material Properties (long term/short term or full time-dependant properties for concrete) Releases (specified releases of element degrees of freedom to represent structure articulation) Supports (sufficient to prevent a mechanism and may include spring supports to represent foundation or bearing stiffness) Loading (usually prescribed by the design code being followed) Envelopes and Design Combinations Construction Sequence (if stage-by-stage analysis is required)

When an analysis has been completed there is often a temptation for designers to take the output provided at face value. This trap should be avoided. Mistakes made at the input stage will produce erroneous output (remember GIGO) and some basic checks are required to ensure that the force output is sufficiently reliable for use in design. The following are the most basic checks recommended: Reactions v Loading For each loadcase the designer should verify that the sum of the reactions equals the total load input for each orthogonal (x,y,z) direction. Deflected shape A review of the deflected shape of the structure under self-weight will help to identify any unintended discontinuities within the element mesh. Incorrect input associated with section property or support definition can also be identified by this simple check. First Mode Check Where an eigenvalue analysis has been undertaken either for buckling or dynamic reasons it is usually relatively simple to check the first mode eigenvalue using the stiffness over contributing mass relationship.

On a more general level the competent bridge designer should have a good idea of the magnitude and distribution of forces he is expecting within any given structure. If the analysis output does not match with this expectation then further investigation is required to understand and possibly correct the source of this difference. When the above checks have been completed the designer can be reasonably confident that the results provided by his structural analysis can be used in the design. Some further interpretation of the raw output data is often required in order to generate the forces required to design particular elements. For example in a concrete box girder shear stresses within the webs are derived both from vertical shear and torsion acting on the section. In this case the designer must combine coexistent torsional and shear stresses before determining shear reinforcement requirements. It can therefore be seen that even after the analysis has been completed the designer must interpret the data correctly within the subsequent design. Concrete, either reinforce or prestressed, is known as a forgiving and robust material. It will readily redistribute the stresses and forces within the structure by creep or cracking to achieve a balanced situation. Of course many engineers and clients have concerns when they see cracks in concrete, but seem to forget that it is usually designed to crack, and in the case of reinforced concrete the reinforcement does not fully work until the concrete has cracked. However, concrete within a structural analysis is usually modelled as uncracked, and this is sufficiently accurate for most situations. Analysis Page 2

CBDG Design Guide

[Comment on existing text: Perhaps we need more about stage-by-stage analysis as it is so important on concrete bridges and also on the dynamic modelling of bridges?]

Recommended Sources of Reference for Bridge Deck Analysis

Bridge Deck Behaviour Edmund Hambly Concrete Bridge Design to BS 5400 Les Clark Concrete Box-Girder Bridges Schlaich & Scheef, IABSE Prestressed Concrete Bridges: Design and Construction Nigel Hewson Bridge Launching Marco Rosignoli HECB/BI/7 User Guide for Slab and Pseudo-Slab Bridge Decks FIP Handbook on Practical Design Examples of the design of concrete structures Integral Abutments for Prestressed Beam Bridges B A Nicholson

Practical guidance is on the modelling requirements for analysis can be obtained from the user manuals and examples provided by software suppliers. Commonly used suppliers include: Bestech Lusas SAP Adapt Sofistik TDV Integer Staad

Other guidance outside of the above publications follows: Bridge deck analysis should be appropriate to the form of structure. The advances made in computer software and hardware over the years mean that what were previously considered to be daunting sizes of models are now for more practical. Traditionally the use of grillages has been employed to analyse beam & slab, solid and voided slabs and also box structures. The preferred modelling would now be: Beam and slab Solid/voided slab Superstructure Boxes Grillage elements Plate elements Shell elements

Combinations of elements with compatible degrees of freedom is feasible in many software packages and this is likely to be of benefit in the 3D modelling that is often necessary for integral bridges. It is generally the case in UK that the method of modelling and the derivation of section properties will be included within the Approval for Principle document that is provided to the Technical Approval Authority. The documents referred to below provide more detailed information on modelling but a number of aspects worth remembering are: 1 2 3 4 5 Concrete is not a homogeneous material and it is assumed to crack in tension. Structures have a finite thickness which is not a constituent part of the model. Loads that we apply to a model are only applied to nodes within that model. Supports have finite dimensions, even we may only define them at nodes in a model. The sequence of construction can affect the distribution of forces within a structure.

What is the significance of the above aspects?

Analysis

Page 3

CBDG Design Guide

1 When we determine the properties of elements it is usual to determine these based upon the gross concrete section, ie the bending stiffness is equal to EI. In the situation where we have a prestressed beam longitudinally and reinforced concrete transversely it may be appropriate to consider an uncracked section longitudinally and a cracked section transversely. When considering the load effect for the design of reinforcement remember that any peak effects from the output are applicable to only a limited width of the structure if considering a slab. Point loads induce rapid changes in shear force and may influence the apparent design forces if this is not taken into consideration. At support locations some load may be applied directly through a support and this will again influence the apparent design shear forces. The inclusion of point supports dictates that reactions and so major changes in shear force can only occur at that point and some engineering judgement should be applied in the vicinity of supports to prevent uneconomic overdesign. If a structure is constructed in more than one stage then the change of supports and/or element stiffnesses will affect the distribution of forces within the structure compared with one cast in a single stage. This will require that each stage will require consideration with the forces in that stage being subject to the later effects. The time dependent effects of creep and shrinkage may also need to be considered, with an overall envelope of design load effects being determined for all elements.

2 3

4 5

Indeed aspects 2, 3 and 4 taken together all lead to a need for an understanding of the difference between our model and the real structure for both design and assessment. Any computer analysis should be verified by an overall check on anticipated forces and deflections base upon simple hand calculations. This may highlight any major inaccuracies in the modelling.

Commentary on References
Bridge Deck Behaviour Edmund Hambly

A bit dated now in terms of modelling but good general reference

Concrete Bridge Design to BS 5400 Les Clark

Useful section on analysis that supplements Hambly

HECB/BI/7 User Guide for Slab and Pseudo-Slab Bridge Decks

Probably out of print and largely superfluous in terms of computing because of its age, but has methods for deriving transverse stiffness of voided decks.
FIP Handbook on Practical Design Examples of the design of concrete structures

As it says has examples

Integral Abutments for Prestressed Beam Bridges B A Nicholson

Background to the analysis, but the forces and pressures are now out of date.

Analysis

Page 4