The 6th Engineering Conference Volume 1:

College of Engineering 5-7 April 2009 Civil Engineering

EFFECT OF CROSS FRAME DIAPHRAGMS ON THE

MEASUREMENTS AND FINITE ELEMENT MODELING
OF THE NON-COMPOSITE DEFLECTIONS OF STEEL
PLATE GIRDER BRIDGES DURING CONSTRUCTION
STAGE

Zaid Fadhill Watheej Dr. Mohannad H. Al-Sherrawi

Assistant Lecture Lecture
zaidfadhill @yahoo.com mhnd7@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT:
This study investigates the effect of spacing, shapes and connection of the steel cross
frame diaphragms on the deflection of the steel bridges. The bridge under investigation
is a simple single span non-skewed girders. The bridge is modeled using finite elements
using STAAD.Pro computer program. The validity of the finite element model is
established through a comparison with site measurements and other previous results of
other computer programs.
The non-composite deflection behavior, by detailed three dimensional finite element
models is investigated for a bridge measured in the field. Parameters such as cross
frame diaphragm and stay in the place deck forms were considered in the finite element
model. The model more accurately represented the torsional behavior of the bridge
girder and allowed dead loads to be distributed transversely via the cross-frame
diaphragms used to connect the girders. It is concluded from both the field
measurements and the finite element deflections that the stay in place metal deck forms
cannot have a significant affect on the non-composite behavior of non-skewed plate
girders.

:‫اﻟﺨﻼﺻﺔ‬
‫ اﻻﺷ ﻜﺎل وﻃﺮﻳﻘ ﺔ اﻟ ﺮﺑﻂ ﻟﻠﺤﻮاﺟ ﺐ اﻟﻌﺮﺿ ﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﻌﺪﻧﻴ ﺔ ﻋﻠ ﻰ هﻄ ﻮل اﻟﺠ ﺴﻮر‬،‫ه ﺬﻩ اﻟﺪراﺳ ﺔ ﺗﺒﺤ ﺚ ﺗ ﺄﺛﻴﺮ اﻟﻤ ﺴﺎﻓﺎت‬
‫ ﺗ ﻢ ﻧﻤﺬﺟ ﺔ اﻟﺠ ﺴﺮ‬.‫ هﺬا اﻟﺠﺴﺮ هﻮ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻮع اﻻﺳﻨﺎد اﻟﺒﺴﻴﻂ ﻟﻔ ﻀﺎء واﺣ ﺪ وﻏﻴ ﺮ ﻣﻨﺤ ﺮف وﻣﺘﻌ ﺪد اﻟﻌ ﻮارض‬.‫اﻟﺤﺪﻳﺪﻳﺔ‬
‫ ﺗ ﻢ اﻟﻜ ﺸﻒ ﻋ ﻦ ﺷ ﺮﻋﻴﺔ اﻟﻨﺘ ﺎﺋﺞ‬.(STAAD.Pro) ‫ﺑﺄﺳ ﺘﺨﺪام ﻋﻨﺎﺻ ﺮ ﻣﺤ ﺪدة ﺑﻮاﺳ ﻄﺔ ﺑﺮﻧ ﺎﻣﺞ اﻟﺤﺎﺳ ﺒﺔ اﻻﻟﻜﺘﺮوﻧﻴ ﺔ‬
.‫ﻟﻠﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ اﻟﻤﺤﺪدة ﺑﻮاﺳﻄﺔ اﻟﻤﻘﺎرﻧﺔ ﻣﻊ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﻘﺎﺳﺔ وآﺬﻟﻚ دراﺳﺎت ﺳﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﺑﺄﺳﺘﺨﺪام ﺑﺮاﻣﺞ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ أﺧﺮى‬
‫ أﺳ ﺘﺨﺪﻣﺖ ﻋﻮاﻣ ﻞ ﻣ ﺆﺛﺮة ﻣﺜ ﻞ ﺣﻮاﺟ ﺐ اﻟ ﺮﺑﻂ اﻟﺤﺪﻳﺪﻳ ﺔ‬.‫ﺗ ﻢ ﻧﻤﺬﺟ ﺔ اﻟﺠ ﺴﺮ ﺑﺄﺳ ﺘﺨﺪام ﻋﻨﺎﺻ ﺮ ﻣﺤ ﺪدة ﺛﻼﺛﻴ ﺔ اﻷﺑﻌ ﺎد‬
‫ وﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﻜﻮن ﻧﻤﻮذج اﻟﺠﺴﺮ ﻣﺘﺄﺛﺮًا ﺑﺪﻗ ﺔ ﻣ ﻦ ﻧﺎﺣﻴ ﺔ‬.‫اﻟﻌﺮﺿﻴﺔ وﺻﻔﺎﺋﺢ اﻷرﺿﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﻌﺪﻧﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻧﻤﺬﺟﺔ اﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ اﻟﻤﺤﺪدة‬
‫ ﺗ ﻢ اﻻﺳ ﺘﻨﺘﺎج ﺑﻮاﺳ ﻄﺔ‬.‫ﻇ ﺎهﺮة اﻟﻠ ﻲ واﻟﺘﻮزﻳ ﻊ اﻟﻌﺮﺿ ﻲ ﻟﻠﺤﻤ ﻞ اﻟﻤﻴ ﺖ ﺑﻮاﺳ ﻄﺔ ﺣﻮاﺟ ﺐ اﻟ ﺮﺑﻂ اﻟﺤﺪﻳﺪﻳ ﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺿ ﻴﺔ‬
‫اﻟﻘﻴﺎﺳ ﺎت اﻟﺤﻘﻠﻴ ﺔ واﻟﻨﻤﺬﺟ ﺔ ﺑﺄﺳ ﺘﺨﺪام اﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻ ﺮ اﻟﻤﺤ ﺪدة ﻟﻠﻬﻄ ﻮل ﺑ ﺄن ﺗ ﺄﺛﻴﺮ اﻟ ﺼﻔﺎﺋﺢ اﻻرﺿ ﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﻌﺪﻧﻴ ﺔ ﻗﻠﻴ ﻞ ﺟ ﺪًا‬
.‫ﻟﻠﺠﺴﻮر ﻏﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﺮآﺒﺔ وﻏﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﻨﺤﺮﻓﺔ‬

Keywords:
Cross diaphragm, bridge, steel girder, STAAD.Pro, deflection, non-composite
construction.

46
Effect Of Cross Frame Diaphragms On The Dr. Mohannad H. Al-Sherrawi
Measurements And Finite Element Modeling Zaid Fadhill Watheej
Of The Non-Composite Deflections Of Steel Plate
Stage Girder Bridges During Construction

INTRODUCTION:
Steel plate bridge girders are cambered to account for deflections that occur during
construction. These deflections occur from the self-weight of the girders and from the
additional weights of the concrete deck slab, deck reinforcement (rebar), stay-in-place
(SIP) metal deck forms, falsework, screeding machine, and construction personnel. The
girder deflections due to the falsework, screed, and construction personnel that are
present during deck construction are elastic deflections and are assumed to be recovered
following their removal from the bridge. However, the falsework remains on the bridge
until the deck concrete has cured thus potentially “locking in” a portion of these
deflections. The self-weight of the girders and the weights of the deck concrete, rebar,
and SIP forms are all loads that will permanently remain on the bridge superstructure.
This steel superstructure, which includes the steel plate girders and the cross-frames
used to connect them, supports all of these construction loads until the deck concrete
has gained enough stiffness (cured) to interact compositely with the steel girders via
shear studs welded to the top flanges of the girders. This stage of loading, prior to the
concrete gaining stiffness, is considered to be non-composite loading because the
structural steel is supporting all of the loads. Thus, the deflections of the steel girders
that occur from this loading stage are considered to be non-composite deflections.
The design of steel bridge girders during construction is often controlled by
lateral torsional buckling. The buckling capacity of the girders is typically increased by
bracing the girders using cross-frames or diaphragms positioned at intermediate
locations along the bridge length.
The goals of the study included (1) presenting of an analyzed steel bridge and
comparing its deflection values with the actual measured values as well as another
computer program results, (2) comparing between the X and K shapes of the cross-
frame diaphragms, and (3) study of the effect of the node connectivity of the cross-
frame diaphragms.
This study involves quantifying the inability to accurately predict the non-
composite deflections of steel plate girders by measuring the deflections in the field as
the concrete deck is placed. By measuring the deflections as they occur, the true
deflection behavior of the bridge is captured and can be compared with the behavior
predicted by the current analysis method used. In addition to measuring the non-
composite girder deflections, this research includes using detailed, three dimensional
finite element analyses to recreate the effect of the steel cross-frame diaphragm on the
deflection behavior of the bridges observed in the field.

FINITE ELEMENT MODELING:

As a part of this study, the STAAD Pro finite element program was used to create three
dimensional finite element model of a five-steel plate girder bridge. The purpose of
modeling was to compare and correlate the non-composite girder deflections obtained
from the finite element analysis to those measured in the field and to evaluate effects of
the cross-frame connection and finally to give a comparison between the X shape and
the K shape of the cross frame diaphragms.
The finite element model created in STAAD Pro computer program was solved
using linear/static analysis. This type of analysis is used when determining structural
displacements, stresses, strains and forces that result from loading.
The steel model used for all components in the bridge model was linear-elastic,
the elastic modulus used was 29,000 ksi and Poisson's ratio was 0.3. The following

47
The 6th Engineering Conference Volume 1:
College of Engineering 5-7 April 2009 Civil Engineering

Fig.1 shown used STAAD PRO bridge model consists of plate bending elements
with beam elements and the numbers of plate and beam elements used in the model.
The following explains the modeling techniques used and the development of
each component of the finite element models. These components include the plate
girders, cross-frame diaphragms and stay-in-place (SIP) metal deck forms.

Roller Supports

Hinge Supports

Figure -1- used STAAD PRO bridge model

No. of plate bending elements: 2760

Each element has four nodes with six degrees of freedom for each node.
No. of beam elements: 1539
Each element has two nodes with six degrees of freedom each node.

Plate Girders:
The girder webs, stiffener plates and flanges were modeled using four-node plate
bending element in STAAD.Pro computer program. The plate element has six degrees
of freedom at each node with both bending and membrane capabilities. Fig.2 contains
perspective views and sectional views of a single span. Web stiffening plates were also
incorporated into the finite element models using plate elements.

Figure -2- Perspective and Cross-section of a Single Girder Model

48
Effect Of Cross Frame Diaphragms On The Dr. Mohannad H. Al-Sherrawi
Measurements And Finite Element Modeling Zaid Fadhill Watheej
Of The Non-Composite Deflections Of Steel Plate
Stage Girder Bridges During Construction

In the actual bridge which has been modeled, these plates are fully welded along the top
of the web and are also welded to the top and bottom girder flanges. Modeling this
detail was found to be difficult when using nominal width of the plates because the top
and bottom flanges are usually not of equal width and the plates may not extend exactly
to the edge of the flanges. Therefore, the plates of the bottom and top flanges are
divided accordingly to the stiffener width. Fig.3 contains a perspective view of
STAAD.Pro girder with non-prismatic bearing and web stiffeners modeled using this
approach.

Figure -3- Bearing and Web Stiffener Plates

Steel plate girders typically have a varying cross-section along their length.
These changes in the cross-section were an important parameter that was included in the
STAAD.Pro computer program models because incorporating them into the models
provides a more accurate representation of the true girder geometry and bending
stiffness. The cross-section for each girder was based on the centerline dimensions of
the girder section with the largest moment of inertia (section with the thickness of
flanges). These centerline dimensions were maintained along the entire length of the
girder in the models. The cross-section was varied along the girder length by the
changing thickness of the flange plate elements.

Cross-Frame Diaphragm:
Cross-frames were modeled using three dimensional beam elements. The intermediate
cross-frame members typically consist of steel angles (L5x5) inches in size, while the
end cross-frame diaphragms consist of steel angles (L5x5) inches for the cross and
bottom struts and miscellaneous channels (MC12x31.8) for the top struts. Therefore, the
stiffness of the cross-frame members is considerably small when compared to that the
larger girder. The connection of the cross-frame diaphragm members considered as rigid
in some runs and pin in other runs and the results has been drawn. The connection types
are shown bellow in Fig.4.

49
The 6th Engineering Conference Volume 1:
College of Engineering 5-7 April 2009 Civil Engineering

-A-Rigid Connection -B-Pin Connection

Figure -4-

Connection Detail of Cross Frame Diaphragm

In the field, the connection of the cross-frame members to the girder offset vertically
from the centerline of the girder flange and horizontally from the centerline of the girder
web. In the finite element models, the cross-frame members were connected directly to
the intersection of the girder flange and girder web to ease the modeling process. This
method is based on the connection described in Helwig and Wang (2003). Generally
this connection simulates the observed field deflection behavior. Section properties for
the cross-frame diaphragm members were obtained from the American Institute of Steel
Construction (AISC) manual of steel construction and were applied directly into the
STAAD.Pro computer program models.

Stay-in-Place Metal Deck:

The SIP metal deck forms were initially thought to behave largely as a shear diaphragm
spanning between the top girder flanges. Reasonable shear strength and stiffness
properties were required for this study without conducting laboratory tests on the shear
behavior of SIP systems. A research study by Jetann et al. (2002) provided shear
properties of typical bridge SIP forms systems that account for the mitigating effect of
the flexible conception of the SIP forms to the top girder flanges. This study provided
the basis that was used to develop the shear properties to be used in the STAAD.Pro
computer program models. It was later found that the SIP forms largely behave as a
tension-compression member that connects the top flanges of the girders (Whisenhunt
and Todd Walter (2004)).
The weight of the SIP metal deck forms is accounted in the design dead loads
used for steel plate girder bridges. However, the ability of the SIP forms to transmit
forces is not accounted for in steel bridge design.
The SIP metal deck forms were initially modeled based on the technique
developed by Helwig and Yura (2003) and employed by Egilmez et al (2003). This
method involved using beam elements (struts and diagonals) spanning between the top
girders as shown in Fig.5.

50
Effect Of Cross Frame Diaphragms On The Dr. Mohannad H. Al-Sherrawi
Measurements And Finite Element Modeling Zaid Fadhill Watheej
Of The Non-Composite Deflections Of Steel Plate
Stage Girder Bridges During Construction

Struts Diagonal
Girders Members Members

Figure -5- Plan View Picture of SIP X-frame Truss Models

Section properties of the struts and diagonal members of this SIP system were
based on a truss analogy. The following paragraphs show how to create a single
member truss with the same shear stiffness as an SIP diaphragm system.
The axial stiffness of the SIP system was determined to be dependent upon three
components which are the form panel stiffness, the screw connection stiffness, and the
stiffness of the supporting Effect Of Cross

These three stiffnesses were combined using an equivalent spring model that
represents the axial stiffness of the entire system. Fig.6 illustrates the connection detail
of the SIP forms to the girder flanges.
Fig.7 contains an illustration of the equivalent spring model used to combine the
axial stiffness of each component in the SIP forms system to represent the system axial
stiffness

Figure -6- Connection Detail Assumed for the Bridge

51
The 6th Engineering Conference Volume 1:
College of Engineering 5-7 April 2009 Civil Engineering

Figure -7- Equivalent Spring Model

The geometry of the SIP metal deck form panel is shown in Fig.8 and Table 1
below:

f
c

Figure -8- Typical SIP Form Cross-sectional Profile

Table -1- Stay-in-place Metal Deck Form Data

Cover, h, inches Pitch, inches Depth, d, inches Thickness, t, guage

22.6 7.5 3.3 20

CALCULATIONS:-
The following calculations are proceeds to create a member truss with same shear
stiffness as an SIP diaphragm system to use it in the STAAD PRO finite element model
(Whisenhunt, Todd Walter, (2004)).

Calculate the flattened panel width, w.

w = (6xe) + (3xf) + (3xc) = (6 x 3.2) + (3x4.0) + (3x2.0) = 37.2 inches (1)

Calculate the cross-sectional area , Apanel :

Apanel = w x t = 37.2 x 0.036 = 1.34 inches2 (2)

Calculate axial deflection, ∆panel of slender rod of equal cross-section area:

P×L 1× 44.1
∆panel= = = 0.001 Inches (3)
A panel × E 1.34 × 29000

52
Effect Of Cross Frame Diaphragms On The Dr. Mohannad H. Al-Sherrawi
Measurements And Finite Element Modeling Zaid Fadhill Watheej
Of The Non-Composite Deflections Of Steel Plate
Stage Girder Bridges During Construction

where:
P = unit axial force.
L = Length of rod (equal to one half panel length).
E= Steel elastic modulus.
Calculate screw flexibility, Sf (SDI 1991)

1.3 × 10 −3 1.3 × 10 −3 Inches

Sf= = = 0.00685 (4)
t 0.036 Kip

Where:
Sf = Screw flexibility (in/kip).
t = thickness of panel material.
Calculate stiffness of screw connection, Kscrew.

1 1 Kips
Kscrew= = = 48.65 (5)
n × S f 3 × 0.00685 Inch

where:
n = number of screws (assume 3 per panel).
Calculate cross-sectional area of a slender rod, Ascrew, with axial stiffness equal to Kscrew.

K screw × L 48.65 × 44.1

Ascrew= = = 0.074 Inches 2 (6)
E 29000

Calculate axial deflection, ∆screw of slender rod of equal cross-sectional area:

P×L 1 × 44.1
∆screw= = = 0.021 Inches (7)
A screw × E 0.074 × 29000

Calculate stiffness of support angle using analytical model Fig.9 and STAAD.Pro
computer program.

Figure -9-Analytical Models used in STAAD.Pro

53
The 6th Engineering Conference Volume 1:
College of Engineering 5-7 April 2009 Civil Engineering

By applying 1kip to this angle using STAAD.Pro computer grogram, ∆angle = 0.47
inches.
⎡⎛ P ⎞ ⎤
Kangle= ⎢⎜ ⎟ / unit length of panel width ⎥ × h = ⎡⎢⎛⎜ 1 ⎞⎟ / 1⎤⎥ × 22.6 = 48.08 Kips (8)
⎢⎣⎜⎝ ∆ angle ⎟⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎣⎝ 0.47 ⎠ ⎦ Inch

where:
h= Panel width.
Calculate cross-sectional area of a slender rod, Aangle, with axial stiffness equal to Kangle.

K angle × L 48.08 × 44.1

Aangle= = = 0.073 inches 2 (9)
E 29000

Calculate axial deflection, ∆angle, of a slender rod of equal cross-sectional area:

P×L 1 × 44.1
∆angle= = = 0.02 Inches (10)
A angle × E 0.073 × 29000

Calculate axial stiffness of entire system, Ksystem:

P P 1 Kips
Ksystem= = = = 23.8 (11)
∆ system ∆ panel + ∆ screw + ∆ angle 0.001 + 0.021 + 0.02 inch

Calculate area of strut members, Astrut, with axial stiffness equal to Ksystem.

K system × L 23.8 × 44.1

Astrut= = = 0.036 Inches 2 (12)
E 29000

Calculate ∆ of truss with shear stiffness equivalent to SIP form system as shown in
Fig.10 below:
P h 1 22.6
∆= × = × = 0.0177 Inches (13)
′
G B 11 12 × 9.65

where:
B: Panel length.
G': SIP system shear stiffness.
Calculate area of diagonals of X-frame truss system necessary to match ∆ of the
analogous truss model using STAAD.Pro computer program as Fig.11.

54
Effect Of Cross Frame Diaphragms On The Dr. Mohannad H. Al-Sherrawi
Measurements And Finite Element Modeling Zaid Fadhill Watheej
Of The Non-Composite Deflections Of Steel Plate
Stage Girder Bridges During Construction

Figure-10-Truss Analogy

Figure -11- X-frame Truss Model with Shear Stiffness Equivalent to Truss
Analogy

The diagonal area is found by changing it (using STAAD.Pro) until the displacement
becomes equal to that of the truss analogy.

55
The 6th Engineering Conference Volume 1:
College of Engineering 5-7 April 2009 Civil Engineering

LOAD CALCULATION AND APPLICATION:

Calculations of the dead load provided by the deck concrete were performed based on
field measured dimensions of the concrete deck slabs. These dimensions included the
depth of the concrete slab between each girder and the overhang width for each exterior
girder. Loads were calculated for each interior girder based on the slab thicknesses and
tributary widths equal to the girder spacing obtained from the construction plans. The
tributary width for the exterior girders included the overhang width and one-half of the
typical girder spacing Whisenhunt, Todd Walter, (2004). These loads were represented
with uniform pressures applied to the surface areas of the top girder flanges in the
STAAD.Pro computer program models.

CASE STUDY:
This case study contains a detailed description of the Eno River bridge including bridge
geometry, cross-frame type and size as shown in Fig.12, and dead loads calculated from
slab geometry. Graphs of the non-composite girder deflections are included.

BRIDGE DESCRIPTION

Bridge Type One Simple Span

Bridge Length 236.02 ft (71.94 m)
Number of Girders 5
Girder spacing 9.65 ft (2.94 m)
Skew 90°

GIRDER DATA
Girder Length: 236.02 ft (71.94 m)
Girder Web

101.58 in (2580 mm)

Girder Web Depth
0.55 in (14 mm)
Girder Web Thickness

Girder Flange
Top flange width: 20.08 in (510 mm)
Top flange depth:

Thickness Begin Coordinate End Coordinate

1.10 in (28 mm) 0.00 118.01 ft (35.97 m)

Bottom flange width: 22.84 in (580 mm)

Bottom flange depth:

Thickness Begin Coordinate End Coordinate

1.18 in (30 mm) 0.00 58.76 ft (17.91 m)
1.97 in (50 mm) 58.76 ft (17.91 m) 118.01 ft (35.97 m)

56
Effect Of Cross Frame Diaphragms On The Dr. Mohannad H. Al-Sherrawi
Measurements And Finite Element Modeling Zaid Fadhill Watheej
Of The Non-Composite Deflections Of Steel Plate
Stage Girder Bridges During Construction

STIFFENERS
Longitudinal: PL 0.63" × 12.6" (16 mm × 320 mm)
Bearing: PL 1.10" × 9.45" (28 mm × 240 mm)
Intermediate: PL 0.47" × 22.05" (12 mm × 560 mm)

CROSS-FRAME DATA:

Type Diagonals Horizontals

MC 12×31 (top)
End K L 5×5×5/16
L 5×5×5/16 (bottom)
Intermediate X L 5×5×5/16 L 5×5×5/16 (bottom)

57
The 6th Engineering Conference Volume 1:
College of Engineering 5-7 April 2009 Civil Engineering

Fig.-12- Bridge Layout and Sections Details

DECK LOADS:

Concrete
Girder kN/m2
G1 11.24
G2 11.88
G3 11.73
G4 12.39
G5 8.82

DISCUSSION OF THE RESEARCH RESULTS:

The following Figs.14 to 17 give the compared deflections of the girders with and
1 1
without stay-in-place (SIP) forms at mid ( ) and span using the field measurements,
2 4
ANSYS, SAP (Whisenhunt, Todd Walter, (2004)) and STAAD PRO results, while
Fig.18 and Fig.19 give the compared deflections of the girders with and without stay-in-
1 1
place (SIP) forms at mid ( ) and span by using the modeled STAAD PRO only.
2 4
Fig.20 and Fig.21 give us the girders deflections with K and X cross-frame diaphragms
1 1
shapes as shown in Fig.13 below at and span by using the modeled STAAD PRO
4 2
only.

58
Effect Of Cross Frame Diaphragms On The Dr. Mohannad H. Al-Sherrawi
Measurements And Finite Element Modeling Zaid Fadhill Watheej
Of The Non-Composite Deflections Of Steel Plate
Stage Girder Bridges During Construction

Finally Fig.22 and Fig.23 shown explain the difference in the deflection when the cross-
frame diaphragms connections had been treated as rigid and pinned nodes as shown in
1 1
previous Fig.4 at and by span using the modeled STAAD PRO only.
4 2

Fig.-13- K and X cross-frame diaphragms shapes

0.00
1.00
2.00

Deflection (in)
3.00 Measured
ANSYS (SIP)
4.00
SAP (SIP)
5.00
STAAD PRO (SIP)
6.00
7.00
8.00
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5
1/4 Span

Fig.-14- Deflection of Girders with SIP by Measuring and Using Some Softwares at
1/4 Span

0.00

2.00
Deflection (in)

4.00 Measured
ANSYS (SIP)
6.00
SAP (SIP)
8.00 STAAD PRO (SIP)

10.00

12.00
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5
Mid-Span

Fig.-15- Deflection of Girders with SIP by Measuring and Using Some Softwares at
Mid-Span

0.00
1.00
Measured
2.00
Deflection (in)

3.00 ANSYS (NO SIP)

4.00
SAP (NO SIP)
5.00
6.00 STAAD PRO (NO
SIP)
7.00
8.00
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5
1/4 Span

59
The 6th Engineering Conference Volume 1:
College of Engineering 5-7 April 2009 Civil Engineering

Fig.-16- Deflection of Girders without SIP from Measured and Used Some
Softwares at 1/4 Span
0.00

2.00 Measured

Deflection (in)
4.00
SAP (NO SIP
6.00
ANSYS (NO SIP)
8.00
STAAD PRO (NO
10.00 SIP)

12.00
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5
Mid-Span

Fig.-17- Deflection of Girders without SIP from Measured and Used Some
Softwares at Mid-Span

6.20

6.40
Deflection (in.)

6.60
STAAD PRO (NO
SIP)
6.80
STAAD PRO (SIP)
7.00

7.20

7.40
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5
1/4 Span

Fig.-18- Deflection of Girders with and without SIP by Using STAAD.Pro at 1/4
Span

9.00

9.20
Deflection (in.)

9.40
STAAD PRO (NO
SIP)
9.60
STAAD PRO (SIP)
9.80

10.00

10.20
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5
Mid-Span

60
Effect Of Cross Frame Diaphragms On The Dr. Mohannad H. Al-Sherrawi
Measurements And Finite Element Modeling Zaid Fadhill Watheej
Of The Non-Composite Deflections Of Steel Plate
Stage Girder Bridges During Construction

Fig.-19- Deflection of Girders with and without SIP by Using STAAD.Pro at Mid-
Span

6.6
6.7
6.8

Deflection (in.)
6.9 Diaphrame K
Shape
7
Diaphragm X
7.1 Shape
7.2
7.3
7.4
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5
1/4 Span

Fig.-20- Deflection of Girders with K and X Cross-Frame Diaphragms at 1/4 Span

9.00

9.20
Deflection (in.)

9.40
Diaphragm K
Shape
9.60
Diaphragm X
Shape
9.80

10.00

10.20
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5
Mid- Span

Fig.-21- Deflection of Girders with K and X Cross-Frame Diaphragms at Mid-

Span

6.8

6.9
Deflection (in.)

7
Node Release
Node Constraint
7.1

7.2

7.3
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5
1/4 Span

61
The 6th Engineering Conference Volume 1:
College of Engineering 5-7 April 2009 Civil Engineering

Fig.-22- Girders Deflection with Node Connectivity of Cross-Frame Diaphragms at

1/4 Span

9.40

9.60

Deflection (in.)
Node Release
9.80 Node Constraint

10.00

10.20
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5
Mid-Span

Fig.-23- Girders Deflection with Node Connectivity of Cross-Frame Diaphragms at

Mid-Span

MODEL PICTURE (Steel only, oblique view)

Fig.-24- Model Picture

62
Effect Of Cross Frame Diaphragms On The Dr. Mohannad H. Al-Sherrawi
Measurements And Finite Element Modeling Zaid Fadhill Watheej
Of The Non-Composite Deflections Of Steel Plate
Stage Girder Bridges During Construction

CONCLUSION:
The following list summarizes the primary conclusions made with regard to non-
composite steel girder bridge behavior during construction stage:
1- From Fig.14 to Fig.17, the difference ratio between the measured field and
STAAD Pro results was (25.61%, 70.36%, 37.28% and 69.48%) respectively for
Fig.14 to Fig.17 of the intermediate girder (G3), the differences are because of a
small hardening occur in the deck concrete after casting, connection plates, shear
connectors and the accuracy degree of the used software (STAAP PRO).
2- The mid-span deflections from the STAAD.Pro models (with and without SIP
forms) of the non-skewed bridge are plotted in Fig.18. Inclusion of the SIP
forms has little effect on the deflection behavior about (0.27%) with no SIP
forms greater than with SIP forms for G1 and about (1.16%) with no SIP forms
less than with SIP forms for G5 of the non-skewed bridge because of the
equivalent SIP forms members work as force transmitting members. And the
little effect of SIP forms is due to the fact that the girders in the non-skewed
bridge model only reflect downward and do not rotate out-of-plane significantly.
This was not the case for the skewed bridge models. (Same behavior for Fig.19).
3- There is a small difference in the deflection between the X and K shapes cross-
frame diaphragms as shown in Fig.20 and Fig.21, the percents for the middle
girder G3 are (0.2% and 0.3%) respectively for Fig.20 and Fig.21 that bridge
with K shape cross-frame diaphragms gives a smaller deflection less than X
shape cross-frame diaphragms because of the shape nature, that the K shape give
more resistance against downward deflection.

RFERENCES:-
ANSYS 7.1 Documentation (2003), Swanson Analysis System, Inc.

Egilmez, O.O., Jetann, C.A., Helwig, T.A. (2003). “Bracing Behavior of Permanent
Metal Deck Forms,” Proceedings of the Annual Technical Session and Meeting,
Structural Stability Research Council.

Helwig, T., and Yura, J. (2003), “Strength Requirements for Diaphragm Bracing of
Beams,”
Draft manuscript to be submitted.

Helwig, T., Wang, L. (2003). “Cross-Frame and Diaphragm Behavior for Steel Bridges
with Skewed Supports,” Research Report No. 1772-1, Project No. 0-1772, Department
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, TX.

Jetann, C.A., Helwig, T.A., Lowery, R. (2002). “Lateral Bracing of Bridge Girders by
Permanent Metal Deck Forms,” Proceedings of the Annual Technical Session and
Meeting, Structural Stability Research Council, U.S.A.

Manual of Steel Construction AISC ASD (American Institute of Steel Construction)

Eighth Edition 1980.

STAAD.Pro (2007) Computer Program, Bentley Solutions Center.

63
The 6th Engineering Conference Volume 1:
College of Engineering 5-7 April 2009 Civil Engineering

Steel Deck Institute (1991). Diaphragm Design Manual, second edition.

Whisenhunt, Todd Walter, (2004) "Measurement and Finite Element Modeling of the
Non-composite deflections of Steel Plate Girder Bridges" A thesis submitted to the
Graduate Faculty of North Carolina State University.

NOMENCLATURE:
AISC: American Institute of Steel Constructions.
STAAD: Structural Analysis And Design.
SIP: Stay In Place.

64