Unterweger H.

; page - 1 -

MODELLING OF BRIDGE DECKS INCLUDING CROSS SECTION

DISTORTION USING SIMPLIFIED SPATIAL BEAM METHODS

Harald Unterweger
Institute of Steel Structures, Technical University Graz, Austria

Keywords: Steel Bridges, Composite Bridges, Global Analysis, Bridge Deck Modelling

Abstract: Nowadays exact modelling of a complete steel or composite bridge structure - using
finite elements - is possible, because of the rapid development of computer power. Neverthe-
less this leads in general to nonacceptable costs in practical work, due to the fact of the enor-
mous amount of traffic load cases in complex structures and the often changes of the geometric
proportions during the design process. Moreover the design procedures for members are based
on nominal stresses without secondary stresses. Therefore simple universal methods for mo-
delling the whole bridge structure are necessary, which can be combined with local finite ele-
ment models if necessary. The paper gives some examples for global modelling of bridge
decks under traffic loads, including complex structures and behaviour. The stresses are com-
pared with results of more refinded calculations, using the finite element method.

1 INTRODUCTION
The main problem in the structural analysis of steel and composite bridges is the mo-
delling of the bridge deck, consisting of an immense number of plates, stiffeners, cross beams
and diaphragms acting together. The current design procedure in practice, shown in figure 1, is
therefore a combination of different models on two different levels. On the one hand a global
model consisting of the whole structure including its bearings and foundations if relevant and
on the other hand local models for individual parts of the structure.
P P CG
1 2 3 4 CG

m CB
CB m
5 6 results
A2 model A3 2
teff shear lag
1 4
t* M
m beff M - glob
T
5 6
3 5
P P
P P 2 m
CG
CG buckling M2 - loc
2 3 4
m CG 5
A2 A3 fatigue M3 - loc
M1 - loc
5
Fig. 1 Typical Bridge Modelling; combination of global (M-glob) and local models (Mi-loc).
Unterweger H. ; page - 2 -

In the global model the individual components can be summed up by global elements
provided that they have an equivalent stiffness (e.g. longitudinal stiffeners of the slab
smeared; beam elements representing a main girder consisting of flanges and web). The
results of the global analysis are longitudinal and shear stresses of the deck cross section,
which also act on the local models. They are the basis of the design of the individual members.
In practice the knowledge of the stresses in the edges (1 to 6 in Fig. 1) is sufficient. If plastic
member resistances are taken into account (e.g. for the webs of girders) the stresses are
summed up by internal forces for each individual girder.
Local models involve only parts of the bridge. Due to their limited size the individual
components are modelled in detail and all the relevant effects, which are not visible in the glo-
bal model, can be treated. The boundary conditions and actions must consider the global beha-
viour of the structure. Therefore the interaction of data between local and global models is
necessary.
In general local models in practice can be devided into three groups:
local models for calculation of additional forces and stresses of the components, e.g. local
bending of the bridge slab due to traffic loads
local models to determine the stress distribution in a component in detail, e.g. introduction of
concentrated forces in the plates and stiffeners, e.g. surrounding of bearings or cable anchor-
ages of stayed bridges
local models for determining the reduced resistances of components due to stability effects,
e.g. buckling of webs, lateral torsional buckling of girder flanges
local models for design check of complex behaviour, including simple design formulas based
on nominal stresses of the global model, e.g. buckling of webs, fatigue verification of details

2 POSSIBLE CONCEPTS OF THE FUTURE

2.1 Global detailed model
Due to the stormy developments in computer technology a detailed model using finite
elements of the whole structure is possible. Because of the following aspects this procedure is
not necessarily more reliable than the simplified procedure with additional local models:
the load models used in bridge design are also more or less estimations and simplifications
of the reality, e.g. exact predictions of traffic loads in 100 years (lifetime of the structure) are
hardly not possible; simplified temperature fields
correct selection of imperfections (geometric imperfections, residual stresses) for plate ele-
ments, which are important for stability effects, because they have a wide scatter in reality
for a realistic determination of the stress fields all the individual components (e.g. stiffeners)
in the regions of introduction of single loads (e.g. cross bracings) must be modelled in detail
finding out the relevant load combination, especially the traffic load configuration - for all the
individual elements - is very complex
dealing with secondary (geometric) stresses, usual neglected due to ductile behaviour of the
elements, is not familiar for the designer
non compatibility with current simplified procedures for plate buckling and fatigue, based on
nominal stresses (elimination of secondary stresses necessary)
enormous amount of data and computing time
results hardly to verify and difficulties to find errors, due to the great complexity
However for special studies a detailed global model - at least in a limited region (sub-
model technique) - seems useful, as for instance:
limited study of sensible parts of a bridge, especially for limited accidental load cases, where
nonlinear behaviour is important
assessment of existing structures. For a limited amount of components, esecially if compared
Unterweger H. ; page - 3 -

and calibrated with tests and measurements

studies with regard to the evaluation and reasons of damages
calibration of simplified models with selected load cases

2.2 Integration of local and global models

A combination of one or more global simple models with local models seems the best
strategy for economic and confident solutions in the design process. The main advantages are:
this concept corresponds with the engeneering concept of the design process; starting with
simple global models with reduced elements, which include only the relevant loading pathes.
Therefore changes of the geometry of the structure, e.g. stiffness and number of cross frames
are easy to do. Afterwards more detailed local models are used, e.g. for the determination of
quantity and situation of stiffeners
enormous saving of data, because of the regular pattern of constructional details over the
length of the bridge. Therefore the local models of a part of a bridge are with little changes re-
levant for the whole structure, e.g. modelling local bending of the slab due to traffic load
The accuracy of the concept mainly depends of the interaction of the global and local
models. That means:
correct modelling of the stiffnesses of the local components in the global model
correct boundary conditions and global stresses for the local models
Especially the interaction of data between different models should be the main soft-
ware developments of the future.
Following this concept means that also in the future the engineer makes the decisions
of the individual models and the degree of detailing; but the time consuming and often faulty
manual process of data change between the individual models is done by the computer.

2.3 Suggested solution

Based on the proceedings in practical bridge design a general concept for all types of
bridge decks is actually developed by the author. The main features are:
application of conventional software for spatial beams including shear deformations with
additional moduls for automatic preprocessing of traffic load configurations and auto-
matic superposition of load cases (e.g. [1])
linear elastic analysis due to the enormous amount of traffic load cases, which allow
superposition of individual load cases. Second order effects (e.g. arches, truss chords)
can be approximately taken into account if the minimum axial forces of a first calculation
are taken into account in the stiffness of the elements
CB
CG CG

main girder 1 distortion of bridge deck

local bending (deformation cross bracing)
1 CB

warping slab - global

(open sections) bending effects

Fig. 2 Global analysis of bridge decks - effects which must be considered.
Unterweger H. ; page - 4 -

The main demand for modelling the global behaviour of a bridge deck is that the fol-
lowing effects can be taken into account (figure 2):
local bending of directly loaded main girders, because of the distances between cross
bracings
distortion of the bridge deck due to deformation of the cross bracings
global slab bending effects
warping of the bridge deck, which leads to restraint forces in the bearings
The basic idea in global modelling is, that the structural detailing also depends on the
type of action (figure 3). It is easier to make a suitable model only for one type of action - limi-
ted to the relevant loading paths - than for all types of action. For secondary actions, like tem-
peratur gradient or slab weight the whole bridge deck acts as one beam.

system
CG
CG
m CB
x x m
a b c CB

action 1 Model - G1
Gslab Gslab Gslab beam elements (Ib)
action 2 y
V
y b
T
My 1 beam (I )
b
Model -- G2
Model G2

action 3 traffic cross bracing a c a c
beam a,c (Ib) dia=V/ sin
As, Ib cross girders Ib
P beam b (Ib, It) V
m
y
a
P
Mya Myb Myc b
MT
cross bracing (Ib, As) c

Fig. 3 Global Modelling of the bridge deck; different degree of detailing for different actions.

For traffic loads every girder is modelled as a single beam. For the determination of the
bending stiffness of the girders (Ib) the effective with of the deck plate (bottom plate) must be
estimated, because it also depends on load configuration. In practice a constant value for all
types of traffic load configurations - including shear lag and plate buckling effects if relevant -
is used. Neglecting shear lag effects the effective with on either side of the girder is in general
equal to half the distance to the next girder. The minimum value for the effective with is one
third of the distance to the next girder in case of pure torsion of a box girder (model with two
single girders), following folded plate theory.
The torsion stiffness of box girders (It) can be either modelled by a torsional beam in
the center of the box or by split up equally (0,5 It) to the outer girders (in cases of two or three
girders), as suggested in [2].
Unterweger H. ; page - 5 -

The cross bracings and diaphragms are modelled by using beams including shear
deformation (Ib, As). A comparison study on different bridge decks with exact FE - calcula-
tions showed that they are suitable to consider their deformation behaviour. Based on these
studies the shear stiffnesses of the global elements representing the diaphragms are determined
as shown in example 1.
Important for practical work is, that for one type of action - especially traffic loads -
only one global model is used, because automatic superposition of the individual load cases
than can be used (more complicate if traffic loads are split in bending and torsional part with
different models, as suggested in the literature).
The level of accuracy and degree of detailing of a model for one type of action should
be evaluated for every component in an engeneering view. That means that if the calculated
stresses of that model are only a little part of the design stresses the model error can be higher
(e.g. stresses due to temperature are 13 % of the design stresses of a component ; if the model
error for temperature stresses is 50 % this means only an error of 7 % of the design stresses,
which may be tolerable due to the uncertanties in the load model).

3 GLOBAL BRIDGE DECK MODELLING EXAMPLES

The aim of the three selected examples is to show the great efficiency of simple global
models based on spatial beams. The main results for traffic loads are presented and compared
with more exact solutions (FE - models with software package ABAQUS [5] ).

3.1 Example 1: Railway box girder bridge with deformable cross bracings
Example 1 (figure 4) is a single span railway box girder bridge under live loads on one
track (simplified load configuration as investigated in [3] ). The load case L can be devided into
a symmetrical and antimetrical part. The behaviour under the symmetrical part (L1) is very
simple, leading to bendig of the whole bridge deck, and is not shown in the following. The
antimetrical load part (L2) was used for a study, where the number of cross bracings (one or
three) and their stiffnesses was varied. The shear stiffness of the bracings is expressed in form
of an equivalent thickness of a fully plate.
2,0 2,0 132 [kN/m] 132 kN/ m
track 2 a b f2 c load case L
66 kN/ m
CB
beff =2,0 3,4 m CB L1
40,0 m symmetry
6,0 m 44 kN/ m
1u
2 z 1 beam element L2
Ib= , As antimetry
b c b
model 2 3,0 MT = 264 kNm/ m
z
1
central beam It
main girder Ib
Fig. 4 Example 1: Single span railway box girder bridge under torsional live loads; system,
load cases and simple beam model.
Unterweger H. ; page - 6 -

The simple model for global analysis is a grillage. It consists of the two main girders
with bending stiffness Ib based on an effective with of deck and bottom plate of one third of the
girder distance (following folded plate theory). A third beam between the girders has only a
torsional stiffness It and represents the torsional stiffness of the whole box section (St. Venant).
The cross bracings connecting the girders are modelled by using beam elements with shear
deformation. The determination of the axial forces in the diagonals is shown in figure 5. Due to
the fact that the shear force in the equivalent beam element is twice as in reality, the equivalent
shear area, as recommended in the literature for truss elements, must also be doubled. The FE-
calculations confirmed this assumption.

P Mt = P a P

TMt
Q*m
3,4 TMt = P a / 2 a b
d Q* = P - TMt b = P / 2
b
TMt
Nd = Q*/ sin =( P / 2 ) / sin
Nd

2 Ad 1
a
P P Q = P
global model
Q= P Nd = Q*/ sin = ( Q / 2 ) / sin
Mtr a
E --- b A d
A s = 2 b -----------------------------
-
2 1 2
3
Mtl
Gd
z As conventional value
Fig. 5 Cross bracing of a box girder bridge; Determination of axial forces in the diagonal
members (only due to Mt ) and equivalent beam element for global analysis.
a.)
a.) b.) b.)
su [kN/cm2 ] su [kN/cm2 ]
-2
-0.4 -1.5
-1
0 -0.5
0
0.4
0.5
0.8 1
1.5
1.2 2
a b c a b c
exact / t* = 2 cm model / t* = 2 cm
exact / t* = 0,5 cm model / t* = 0,5 cm
exact / t* = 0,3 cm model / t* = 0,3 cm

Fig. 6 Example 1 - Normal stresses at the bottom of girder 1 due to load case L2 for system
with a.) three cross bracings; b.) one cross bracing.
Unterweger H. ; page - 7 -

cross calcu- w 1c [mm] cross bracing - 1u - load case V

bracings lation load case axial forces [kN] [kN / cm2]
(axis b, c) model L2 / L
shear stif.1.) 2.) axis b axis c axis b axis f2 axis c
t* = 2 cm model 1 1,80 / 38,9 276 306 6,62 8,50 8,59
exact 1,95 / 39,0 286 318 6,44 8,24 8,31
[%] - 7,7 / - 0,3 - 3,5 % - 3,8 % 2,8 % 3,2 % 3,4 %
t* = 0,5 cm model 1 2,10 / 39,2 267 312 6,72 8,58 8,65
exact 2,17 / 39,2 279 322 6,50 8,28 8,34
[%] - 3,2 / - 0,2 - 4,3 % - 3,1 % 3,4 % 3,6 % 3,7 %
t* = 0,3 cm model 1 2,35 / 39,4 260 314 6,81 8,65 8,71
exact 2,31 / 39,4 275 325 6,57 8,32 8,38
[%] 1,7 / 0,1 - 5,5 % -3,4 % 3,7 % 4,0 % 3,9 %
t* = 0,1 cm model 1 3,54 / 40,6 240 310 7,15 9,01 9,08
exact 2,97 / 40,0 260 328 6,77 8,53 8,56
[%] 19,2 / 1,5 - 7,7 % - 5,5 % 5,6 % 5,6 % 6,1 %
1.) equivalent thickness of a diaphragm, t* = 2 cm in axis a.
2.) midspan vertical deflection of main beam for load case L2 and L respectively.
Table 1 Example 1- cross bracings in axis b and c with different shear stiffnesses;
comparison of the main results.

cross calcu- w 1b cross bracing 1u - load case V

bracings lation axis b [mm] force [kN / cm2]
(axis c) model load case axis c [kN]
shear stif. L2 / L axis b axis f2 axis c
t* = 2 cm model 1 3,30 / 30,0 675 8,06 8,49 7,12
exact 3,38 / 30,1 690 7,89 8,23 6,86
[%] - 2,4 / - 0,3 - 2,2 % 2,2 % 3,2 % 3,8 %
t* = 0,5 cm model 1 4,03 / 30,7 655 8,23 8,73 7,44
exact 3,65 / 30,4 680 7,95 8,32 6,99
[%] 10,4 / 1,3 - 3,7 % 3,5 % 4,9 % 6,4 %
Table 2 Example 1- only cross bracing in axis c with different shear stiffness;
comparison of the main results.

Some of the results of the simple grillage model in comparison with the refined FE-
calculations, using shell elements for the plates of the structure, are presented in the following.
In figure 6 the longitudinal normal stresses at the bottom of the girder (in axis 1u) due to the
antimetrical load case are shown (bending and warping effects). The differencies seem high,
but in addition with the symmetrical load case - shown in table 1 and 2 - the resulting stresses
Unterweger H. ; page - 8 -

of the simple model only differ from the exact values by 3 - 5 %. A similar tendency can be
seen for the maximum vertical deflections of the girder (in axis 1) at midspan (for 3 cross bra-
cings) and at axis b (for 1 cross bracing). The differencies in an extent of 2 - 10 % for the anti-
metrical load part L2 disappear for load case L (< 1 %). The comparison of the axial forces in
the diagonals of the bracings of the simple model are also in accordance with the refined model
(differencies in general 3 - 5 %).
These results show that the simple beam model gives sufficient accuracy, also for cross
bracings with high shear deformation.

3.3 Example 2: Plate girder bridge; Restraint forces due to warping of the cross section
Example 2 (figure 7) deals with a highway composite plate girder bridge under one-
sided traffic loads, investigated in [4]. Due to warping of the open section nonnegligible hori-
contal restraint forces on the fixed bearings are introduced.

8,0 m 45 m
DIN traffic loads Ah
(for MG 1 in m) 1
0,2
2,0 m 2
6,0 m Ah
FL m LL
MG 1 2 moveable bearings
system
DIN traffic loads
A1 A2
Model 1
A1 beff 2 beams
1
My y Ah = 0 x
V 1 beam (Iy) 2
1
2 beams (Iy) Model 2
A1 A2 y
2 beams + 1 CG 1
My y My
2
V V beam IT = M
1 2 no warping hM MT
Ah = MT / hM Ah
1 beam (Iz)
2 beams (Iy) V Mz Model 3
A2 pin I =
A1 M IT = 0 space frame
1
hM My y My hM
V V Ix = 2
1 z 2 beam Iz
Model 3- t
space frame including torsional stiffness
Fig. 7 Example 2: Highway composite plate girder bridge; Different global models for the
effect of horicontal restraint forces at the bearings due to nonsymmetric traffic loads.
Unterweger H. ; page - 9 -

To take this effect into account a more detailed model of the bridge deck, is necessary.
In figure 7 three different models with increasing accuracy are shown
model 1, a plane grillage - as used for example 1 - is not suitable to calculate the restraint
forces at the bearings.
model 2 is a plane grillage - as in model 1 - with an additional crossgirder at the fixed bear-
ings, having an infinite torsional stiffness. This cross girder represents the fixed bearings, pre-
venting warping deformation. Knowing the height of the shear centre, the restraint forces can
be calculated using the torsional moments of the cross girder.
model 3 is a spatial grillage consisting of the two main girders with vertical bending stiffness
(Iy) and a third beam in axis of the shear centre, representing the horicontal stiffness of the
bridge deck Iz. At the bearings cross frames connect this three beams. With this model the
essential deformation behaviour of the bridge deck due to the restraint forces can be repre-
sented.
model 3- t includes also the torsional stiffness of the bridge deck. Every main girder gets half
of the torsional stiffness (0,5 It) and additional cross girders across the bridge length are nec-
essary.
In figure 8 and table 3 the main results for the investigated traffic load case for all four
models are presented and compared; on the one hand the horicontal restraint forces at the fixed
bearings and on the other hand the bending moments of the main girder 1.

horicontal main girder 1

bearing force moments My
model
(in axis FL)
AH [%] Mm [%] MFL [%]
[kN] [kN / m]
mod. 1 0 0 10240 100 0 0
mod. 2 1173 121 8663 84,6 -3155 30,8
mod. 3 1070 111 8799 85,9 -2881 28,1
mod. 3 - t 966 100 8570 83,7 -2600 25,4

Table 3 Example 2 - Comparison of the main results for the individual models.

My [ kNm ]
-4000
-2000
0
Modell 1 , LF
2000
4000 M0 Modell 2 , LF
6000 Modell 3 , lF
8000
10000 Modell 3- T ,
12000 LL m FL

Fig. 8 Example 2 - bending moments of the main girder 1 for the individual models.
Unterweger H. ; page - 10 -

From the engineering point of view for the design of the girders also model 1 seems
sufficient, but for the design of the bearings the very high horicontal forces of about 1000 kN
cannot be neglected. Model 3, including the horicontal bending stiffness of the bridge deck,
gives realistic results and also allows considering the finite stiffness of bearings and piers. The
simple model 2 overestimates the restraint forces and is suitable for a first estimation of this
effect, but cannot consider finite stiffness of the bearings.
The very high horicontal restraint forces on the fixed bearings due to nonsymmetric
vertical traffic loads diminish mostly in the case of box girders, due to the small warping defor-
mations.

3.4 Example 3: Central arch highway bridge

Example 3 shows a very complex structure (figure 9), firstly studied due to a fatigue
failure of the horicontal bracing [6, 7] and afterwards verified for the new traffic loads of
Eurocode. It is a central arch highway bridge in Salzburg / Austria with non parallel bearings
on the two abutments. The bridge deck consists of two main girders (3,7 m high) forming a box
section and two secondary outside girders with reduced heights (1,2 m), supported by deform-
able cross bracings. The bridge deck also acts as a tie rod for the arch. The high deformation of
the cross bracings leads also to nonnegligible global bending effects of the cross girders.

cross bracings
c
a
z
b
d
6 10,3 06
133,5 m
z 1,57
detail A
horicontal
1,64 bracing
horicontal
bracing 15,0

11,2
0,75 12,5 3,0 12,5 m 0,75

1,20
3,70
1,95 7,2 11,2 7,2 1,95
c a b d
Fig. 9 Example 3: Central arch highway bridge in Salzburg / Austria.
Unterweger H. ; page - 11 -

To limit the computational effort a detailed FE- model (figure 10) deals for calibration
of a simple spatial beam model, for selected simplified load cases. The beam model, shown in
figure 10 and 11, consists of the four main girders with vertical bending stiffness Ibz and cross
section area A and a central beam with torsional stiffness It and reduced horicontal bending
stiffness of the whole bridge deck Iby. The different heights of the neutral axis between inner
and outer girders are taken into account using rigid vertical excenters (figure 11). The cross
girders, including the girders at the cross bracings, are modelled as beams, supported by the
main gir-ders with their horicontal stiffnesses (Ib), considering an effective with of the deck
plate. The determination of the equivalent stiffness of the cross bracing elements, neglecting
the bending stiffness of the cross girder, is shown in figure 11. The high deformation of the
diagonals connecting the inner girders with the arch hangers - only under symmetric loads - are
modelled seperatly using a spring element (or equivalent short strut element with reduced
area). Using this refined beam model for the cross bracings including the cross beams with
their bending stiffnesses leads to accurate predictions of the global bending effects of the cross
girders compared with the detailed FE - model.

y 4 6
2 It, Iby, Ibz
z
x Ibz, Iby

Iby, Ibz, It dI
b Ibz bz
z It, Iby
a Ibz beam model
c Ibz
0 2 4 cross girder Ib
cross bracing elements Ib, As
& cross girder Ib

FE - model

Fig. 10 Example 3 - overview of simple beam model and refined FE - model.

In the following only some limited results of member stresses, for simple beam model
and refined FE - model, are shown. To show the global load bearing behaviour the results in
general are presented in form of influence lines for different members. In figure 12 the axial
force of a diagonal of the horicontal bracing is investigated. In the beam model the diagonal
force corresponds with the torsional moment of the central beam (formula of Bredt). The
results show a very good agreement between simple beam model and FE - model. Due to the
Unterweger H. ; page - 12 -

nonparallel bearing axes the alternative model of replacing the torsional stiffness of the central
beam by adding half of this value to the inner box girder beams leads to nonsufficient results.

a.) P = 1,0 Pv = 1,0

v cross girder Pv = 1,0 Pv = 1,0
waa Aeff wcs was Aeff, Ib = 0
wca d c d
c
a b a b
z z
cross bracing cross bracing
antimetric load symmetric load
z
wa
equivalent global element
wc
As= 48 cm2 As= 97 cm2 It
Ib Ib
arch hanger
b.)
Pv = 1,0 Pv = 1,0
Aeff, Ib = 0 wz
wz

spring cz

equivalent global element

a cross bracing b
hanger loading z
arch hanger global model
cross girder Ib A, Ib cross bracing & girder
c.)
spring cz I b
Ib

rigid Ib Ib
c Aeff Aeff It d
a b
z
Fig. 11 Example 3 - determination of equivalent stiffnesses of the cross bracing; a.) global
elements with effective shear area for cross bracing; b.) equivalent spring due to
deformation of hanger arch action; c.) review of all global elements.

In figure 13 the influence lines of the axial force of the outer strut of the cross bracing,
supporting the outer main girder, is shown. These results also indicate the bending behaviour
of the outer main girder. For comparison also the results with nondeformable cross bracings
are shown.
In figure 14 the vertical deformations of the cross section near midspan for simplified
traffic loads on main girder b and a & b respectively are shown. The results of the simple model
seem sufficient. Therefore also the global bending moments of the cross girders are predicta-
ble.
Unterweger H. ; page - 13 -

a
Nd = i P Nd
z

P b

d
i
FE - calculation

Fig. 12 Example 3; Influence lines in main girder axes of axial force in the diagonal of the
horicontal bracing in the area between axis 2 and 3.

b
6
d

rigid cross bracing FE - calculation

Fig. 13 Example 3; Influence lines in axis d of the axial force in the outer strut of the cross
bracing in axis 6.

Summing up, it may be said that the simple spatial beam model shows for nearly all
members sufficient accuracy and permits an automatic calculation of the enormous amount of
traffic load cases, non practicable with the realistic FE - model.
Unterweger H. ; page - 14 -

beam model

46 mm
43 beam model

Fig. 14 Example 3; vertical deformations of the bridge deck near midspan (axis 6) due to
vertical single loads on girder b and a & b (in axes 1 - 12) respectively.

4. CONCLUSIONS
The main effort of this paper was to show that also complex bridge deck behaviour can
be modelled using simple spatial beams with equivalent stiffnesses.
The degree of detailing of the global model also depends on the type of action. It seems
useful to work with different global models for the different type of actions (e.g. traffic loads,
temperature, wind), which show only the relevant loading pathes of the structure. For estima-
tion of the accuracy of the individual global models their portion on the overall design stresses
of the individual members should be taken into account. That means that for nonrelevant
actions the model error can be higher.
The deformation of cross bracings can be taken into account using beam elements with
shear deformation. For box girders the conventional shear area of bracings must be doubled to
predict the real behaviour (example 1).
The warping effect of bridge decks can also be taken into account. In this case the gril-
lage of the bridge deck must be extended by an additional beam in axis of the shear center, rep-
resenting the horicontal bending stiffness of the bridge deck.

Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank his colleague Dr. Ofner for the FE- analysis.

References
[1] Program RM SPACEFRAME, TDV- GmbH., Graz/ Austria
[2] Hambly E.C.: Bridge Deck Behaviour,2nd edition, 1991.
[3] Resinger F.: Der dnnwandige, einzellige Kastentrger mit einfachsymmetrischem, ver-
formbarem Rechteckquerschnitt, doctor thesis, 1956.
[4] Resinger F.: Lngszwngungen - eine Ursache von Brckenlagerschden,
in Der Bauingenieur, 46. Jahrgang, Heft 9, 1971.
[5] Program ABAQUS, Hibbit, Karlsson & Sorensen, Version 5.5, 1996.
[6] Greiner R., Ofner R., Unterweger H.: Betriebsbeanspruchung des Torsionsverbandes einer
Straenbrcke - Analyse eines aktuellen Anwendungsfalles, in Neue Entwicklungen im
konstruktiven Ingenierbau, Universitt Karlsruhe, 1994.
[7] Unterweger H.: Fatigue failure on the bracing of a steel arch highway bridge - failure
description, theoretical investigations and repair, in Proceedings of Int. Conference on
Advances in Steel Structures, Hongkong 1996.