Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 Aim .................................................................................................................................... 2 Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 2 How was the model produced? ............................................................................................. 3 Concave elliptical variable depth deck on AUTOCAD ........................................................ 3 Fish-belly variable depth deck AUTOCAD ......................................................................... 3 Concave elliptical variable depth deck on STAAD pro ....................................................... 3 Fish-belly variable depth deck STAAD pro ........................................................................ 4 Behaviour of structure under dead load only ......................................................................... 5 Concave Elliptical curve Bending Moment Diagram and Deflection ................................... 5 Elliptical fish-belly Bending Moment Diagram and Deflection ............................................. 5 Comparing support conditions for a rectangular beam to previous models ............................ 8 Fixed support at both ends ................................................................................................ 8 Fixed support at both ends with a hinge in the middle ....................................................... 8 Simply support at both ends .............................................................................................. 8 Bending moment diagram for fixed supports at both ends ................................................. 9 Bending moment diagram for fixed supports and hinge in mid span .................................. 9 Bending moment diagram for simply support at both ends ................................................ 9 Deflection for fixed supports at both ends .......................................................................... 9 Deflection for fixed supports and hinge in mid span ........................................................... 9 Deflection for simply support at both ends ......................................................................... 9 Behaviour of structure under dead + live load acting on every single span ......................... 11 Bending moment and deflection diagram for Concave Elliptical Curve UDL on left deck . 11 Bending moment and deflection diagram for Concave Elliptical Curve UDL on middle deck ........................................................................................................................................ 11 Bending moment and deflection diagram for Concave Elliptical Curve UDL on right deck 11 Bending moment and deflection diagram for fish belly with UDL on left deck .................. 12 Bending moment and deflection diagram for fish belly with UDL on middle deck ............. 12

Bending moment and deflection diagram for fish belly with UDL on right deck ................ 12 Using factored load cases, gain bending moment envelope and min and max deflections. . 14 First load case combination and load case factors .......................................................... 14 Second Load case combination and Load case factors ................................................... 15 Elliptical curve Bending moment envelope values for 1.0 and 1.35 gk load factors .......... 16 Elliptical curve displacement values for 1.0 and 1.35 gk load factors ............................... 16 Fish belly Bending moment envelope values for 1.0 and 1.35 gk load factors ................. 17 Fish belly Displacement values for 1.35 gk and 1.5 qk load factors ................................. 17 Concave Elliptical Curve vs Fish belly type Bending moment envelope values for 1.35 and 1.5 gk load factors ........................................................................................................... 18 Concave Elliptical Curve vs Fish belly type minimum and maximum displacement values for 1.35 and 1.5 gk load factors ....................................................................................... 18 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 20

Introduction

Elliptical curves and fish belly type bridges is a feature that is not uncommon to come across and both bring about various advantages as well as disadvantages. An Elliptical curve usually spans large distances due to the nature of the elliptical curve which places the concrete under compression. This is particularly fundamental as this configuration eliminates tensile stresses which concrete is very poor at resisting.

(University of Ljubljana) An elliptical fish belly is a more uncommon feature than the Elliptical curve and is even rarer to see this system made entirely of concrete. The Fish belly type configuration is usually made from steel due to the volume of concrete required to construct the fish belly.

(BridgeHunter.com, 2011) 1

Aim The aim of this report is to use Structural analysis software, STAAD Pro in this case, to assess the behaviour of the elliptical curve shape and fish belly shape deck types under various loading conditions. Objectives Create 2 beam models, elliptical curve and fish belly type deck, using the structural analysis package. For both beams, obtain the bending moment diagram and deflected shape for dead load g, comprising self-weight plus 10mm of non-structural concrete finish. Compare the values obtained with those expected if the beam is modelled using a rectangular section with an average depth = (A+B)/2 and a single span beam of length L with o o o Fixed supports Fixed supports and a hinge in mid-span Simply supports.

For both beams 1 and 2, obtain the three different bending moment diagrams and deflected shapes when a uniformly distributed live load q is acting on every single span

For both beams 1 and 2, assuming the load factors included in the table below, obtain the bending moment envelope at both support and mid span sections, and the maximum and minimum deflections in mid span section in the middle span.

How was the model produced?

Using STAAD Pro Analysis software it is possible to produce a model of beam 1, a concave elliptical variable depth deck, and beam 2, a fish-belly variable depth deck. The parameters of the deck are given as shown below: L = 5.6m 0.7L = 3.92m B = 0.11m A = 0.37m

Concave elliptical variable depth deck on AUTOCAD

Fish-belly variable depth deck AUTOCAD

Since the depth of the concrete varies along the span, it is not a simple matter of plotting the x axis on to STAAD Pro. A plot of only the x axis will give the following on STAAD Pro:

Using AUTOCAD , it is possible to draw a elliptical curve by using the elliptical tool. Each deck is then split into 10 equal members and the x and y coordinates are obtained by simply using the dimension tool within the software. When the x and y coordinates have been defined, these can be plotted into STAAD Pro to give the following: Concave elliptical variable depth deck on STAAD pro

Fish-belly variable depth deck STAAD pro

The next step is to define the depth of the concrete for each member which varies for each member. This is gained from measuring the average depth of each member as shown in yellow below:

Inputting the depth of the concrete for each member into STAAD pro will give the following shape: Concave elliptical variable depth deck on STAAD pro 3D

Fish-belly variable depth deck STAAD pro 3D

Modelling the structure as a straight beam will produce similar reactions in the Y direction of the elliptical and fish-belly type deck however, the straight beam will produce no reaction in the x direction however due to the nature of the elliptical curve reactions will be naturally produced in the x direction. In that regard the beam modelled with the y coordinate, is the more appropriate model.

Behaviour of structure under dead load only

The behaviour of both the elliptical curve and fish-belly type variable depth deck were assessed under dead load only. To achieve this, a load case was produced in STAAD pro which contained two load definitions, Self-weight and 10mm non-structural concrete with an assumed density of 20KN/m. The following are the results gained from the STAAD pro analysis software:

Concave Elliptical curve Bending Moment Diagram and Deflection

Elliptical fish-belly Bending Moment Diagram and Deflection

Bending Moment Diagram

6 Bending Moment (KN/m) 4 2 0 -2 -4 1 -1.581 2 -2.015 3 1.243 -0.344 4 -1.581 -2.015 5 1.243 Concave Elliptical Curve BMD Elliptical fish-belly BMD 4.88 4.88

-3.114 1 = Moment at Left deck mid span 2 = Moment at support 3 = Moment at mid span 4 = Moment at support 5 = Moment at right deck mid span

Deflection Graph
0 1 -0.05 Deflection (mm) -0.1 -0.15 -0.2 -0.25 -0.267 -0.3 -0.221 -0.252 -0.267 Concave Elliptical Curve Deflection Elliptical fish-belly deflection -0.065 2 3 -0.065

1 = Deflection at left deck 2 = Deflection at mid deck 3 = Deflection at right deck

As can be seen from the bending moment diagram and graph above, the elliptical curve produces higher moments at support than the fish belly type. This is down to the self-weight which is higher for the elliptical curve at support than the fish belly type due to the depth of concrete at support which adds to the higher moment. The moment at mid span of the elliptical curve is shown be 30% less than the moment for elliptical fish belly which is to be expected due to the depth of the concrete being 70% less for elliptical curve. These lessons the self-weight thus are creating less moment. The fish belly type shows a 89% increase in moment at midspan when compared to the elliptical curve. This is due to the second moment of area which is 70% greater thus more self-weight contributes to this increase in moment.

Deflection for the elliptical curve is negligible at left and right deck, -0.065mm, however the mid span shows a sharp rise in displacement of -0.0252 mm. This sharp increase can be attributed to the second moment of area at the vicinity which is at its lowest at mid span. This leads to less inertia which means there is less resistance to displacement. Although the fish belly type deck shows a 12% decrease in displacement at mid span, the left and right deck show a deflection of -0.267mm. Although the depth of concrete is higher in mid span than the elliptical type, the inertia is greater which is why deflection is better than the elliptical type deck, although moment for the fish belly is 89% larger.

Comparing support conditions for a rectangular beam to previous models

A rectangular model was proposed with a length of 5.6m and a uniform depth of 0.24m to assess the effect of various support conditions and how they compare to the two models created previously. The support conditions were as follows:

Fixed support at both ends

Fixed support at both ends with a hinge in the middle

Simply support at both ends

The loading placed upon these rectangular models were the same as the previous model, a dead load case comprising of self-weight and 10mm non-structural concrete. The results are displayed on the diagrams below.

Bending moment diagram for fixed supports at both ends

Bending moment diagram for fixed supports and hinge in mid span

Bending moment diagram for simply support at both ends

Deflection for fixed supports at both ends

Deflection for fixed supports and hinge in mid span

Deflection for simply support at both ends

The fixed end allow for moment at mid span to lesson due to the absorption of moment at end support. Along the vicinity of support, displacement is negligible and will as a result produce less deflection along the middle. The fish belly and elliptical curve both have simply support at ends which produce high moments on the left and right decks. The moment could be reduced by fixing both ends. The fixed end supports and hinge in the middle configuration shows the same moment as the fixed end supports only configuration. This is due to the hinge not being a support and so the same moments are inflicted across the span. Displacement is 5% greater than the fixed end supports only configuration due to the hinge adding a weakness in the mid span. When comparing simply supported ends to fixed end supports, simply supported ends produced a 66% increase in moment due to the simply support not resisting any moment. The simply support also does not reduce displacement as a fixed support does and as a result, an 80% increase in displacement can be seen on the simply support when compared to the fixed supports. When compared to the two models created in the previous tasks, the moment and displacement at mid span of the left and right decks can be improved by fixing the end supports rather than keeping them pinned.

10

Behaviour of structure under dead + live load acting on every single span

Having assessed the behaviour of the structure under dead load only, a live load of 25 KN/m is introduced on every single span. The bending moment diagram and displacement for the elliptical curve and fish belly type deck are displayed below: Bending moment and deflection diagram for Concave Elliptical Curve UDL on left deck

Bending moment and deflection diagram for Concave Elliptical Curve UDL on middle deck

Bending moment and deflection diagram for Concave Elliptical Curve UDL on right deck

Placing a live UDL on the left span produces high moments at both mid span of left deck and the intermediate support adjacent to it. The moment at support is 15% larger than at the left deck. This suggests that the support is absorbing the moment due to higher second moment of area. The high moment at the left deck produces a displacement of 6.243 mm since the 11

second moment of area is not at great on the left deck thus there is little inertia to resist this displacement. Placing a live UDL on the middle span produces equal moments throughout the structure which is to be expected since the structure is symmetrical. Yet again, it can be seen that the moment at support is greater than that of the mid span due to a higher second moment of area at support. Due to the UDL being placed on the middle, the displacement is higher in the middle of mid span than anywhere else on the structure. Despite the fact that the second moment of area is lowest at this point, the deflection is still 21% less than when the UDL is placed on the left and right span. This is due to the second moment of area at intermediate supports, which is at its highest, resist deflection around the vicinity of support. Placing a live UDL on the right span produces the exact same moments as placing the UDL on the left span but mirrored. This is due to the structure being symmetrical. Bending moment and deflection diagram for fish belly with UDL on left deck

Bending moment and deflection diagram for fish belly with UDL on middle deck

Bending moment and deflection diagram for fish belly with UDL on right deck

When the UDL is placed on the left deck, it can be observed that the moment is 66% larger than that of the adjacent intermediate support. This is due to the volume of concrete at this point which absorbs the majority of moment and lessons the moment at support. This is turn

12

means that there is more inertia which produces less displacement, 90% less, than that exhibited for the elliptical curve type. The middle span produces the majority of moments as the second moment of area is larger thus reducing the moment at support. Although the moment created at mid span for the fish belly is 83% larger than that of the elliptical curve type, the displacement is over twice as less. The larger second moment of area creates more inertia thus lessening the displacement at mid span. The right span is identical to the left span but mirrored when the UDL is placed on the right span since the structure is symmetrical.

13

Using factored load cases, gain bending moment envelope and min and max deflections.
The Elliptical curve and fish belly type behaviour will be assessed by placing factored load cases onto them. The first will be a factored load case of 1.0 gk and 1.5 qk and the second factored load case will be 1.35 gk and 1.5 qk. The load combinations are as follows:

First load case combination and load case factors 1.5 qk 1.0 gk

1.5 qk 1.0 gk

1.5 qk 1.0 gk

1.5 qk

1.5 qk

1.0 gk

1.5 qk 1.0 gk

1.5 qk 1.0 gk

1.5 qk 1.0 gk

14

Second Load case combination and Load case factors 1. 5 gk 1.35 gk

1. 5 gk 1.35 gk

1. 5 gk 1.35 gk

1. 5 gk

1. 5 gk 1.35 gk

1. 5 gk 1.35 gk

1. 5 gk 1.35 gk

1. 5 gk 1.35 gk

Once the load cases have been defined on STAAD pro, load combinations must then be created to gain the bending moment envelope and to obtain the maximum and minimum displacement at mid span. The following are the bending moment envelope, maximum and minimum displacement.

15

Elliptical curve Bending moment envelope values for 1.0 and 1.35 gk load factors
120 100 Bending Moment (KN/m) 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 1 -50.8 2 1.0gk + 1.5qk -9.855 3 4 5 -50.8 1.35gk + 1.5qk 96.946 96.946

1 = Moment at Left deck mid span 2 = Moment at support 3 = Moment at mid span 4 = Moment at support 5 = Moment at right deck mid span

As can be seen on the graph above, the bending moment values between the two load case factors is almost negligible, however the 1.35gk load case factor produced slightly higher moment in all cases. Elliptical curve displacement values for 1.0 and 1.35 gk load factors
4 2 Displacement (mm) 0 1 -2 -4 -6 -7.316 -7.367 -8 1 = Minimum Displacement 2 = Maximum Displacement 2 1.0gk + 1.5qk 1.35gk + 1.5qk 1.818 1.768

Negligible displacements are experience between the two load case factors. The load case factor of 1.35gk produces higher maximum displacement but less minimum displacement of which the difference between the two is not more than 0.7%.

16

Fish belly Bending moment envelope values for 1.0 and 1.35 gk load factors
30 20 Bending Moment (KN/m) 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -40.799 1 = Left deck mid span 2 = intermediate support 3 = mid span 4 = intermediate support 5 = right deck mid span 1 -20.962 2 3 4 5 1.0gk + 1.5qk -20.962 1.35gk + 1.5qk 19.576 19.576

As it can be seen from the graph above, the bending moment envelope between the different load case factors are negligible. There is a maximum 3% difference between the two load case factors and the 1.35gk +1.5qk factored load case bring higher moments. Fish belly Displacement values for 1.35 gk and 1.5 qk load factors
0 1 -0.5 -1 Displacement (mm) -1.5 -2 -2.5 -3 -3.5 -4 -3.659 1 = Minimum Displacement 2 = Maximum Displacement -3.571 1.0 gk + 1.5qk 1.35gk + 1.5qk -0.132 2 -0.22

Negligible displacements are experience between the two load case factors. The load case factor of 1.35gk produces higher maximum displacement overall as was expected.

17

Concave Elliptical Curve vs Fish belly type Bending moment envelope values for 1.35 and 1.5 gk load factors
120 100 Bending Moment (KN/m) 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 1 -20.962 2 19.576 -9.855 3 4 5 -20.962 19.576 Concave Elliptical Curve Elliptical Fish Belly 96.946 96.946

-40.799 -50.8 -50.8 1 = Moment at Left deck mid span 2 = Moment at support 3 = Moment at mid span 4 = Moment at support 5 = Moment at right deck mid span

The Concave Elliptical Curve bending moment shown above show higher values for bending moment except for at mid span. At intermediate supports, the Elliptical curve has an increase of moment of 90% and at the right and left deck there is an increase of moment of 59% although the second moment of area is larger for the fish belly type deck. The mid span elliptical curve shows a bending moment value that is 76% less than the fish belly type. This however comes at a cost of significantly higher moment at intermediate support. So it can be seen that the fish belly type distributes the moments better and the higher second moment of area absorbs the moments better than the Concave elliptical curve. Concave Elliptical Curve vs Fish belly type minimum and maximum displacement values for 1.35 and 1.5 gk load factors
4 2 Displacement (mm) 0 1 -2 -4 -6 -8 -7.367 1 = Minimum Displacement 2 = Maximum Displacement 2 -0.22 Concave Elliptical Curve Elliptical Fish Belly -3.659 1.768

As can be seen from the displacement graph above, the fish belly type deck produces 50% less minimum displacement. The maximum displacement is shown to be negligible for the fish belly but a displacement of 1.768 mm is experience for the elliptical curve type. Due to 18

the second moment of area being greater for the fish belly type at this point, far less displacement is expected. The Elliptical curve experiences a high positive displacement due to the second moment of area being at its lowest at this point. This means that there is less inertia to resist this displacement unlike the fish belly which has high inertia.

19

Conclusion
This research aimed to analyse and compare the concave elliptical curve and the elliptical fish belly by creating a model on STAAD pro. Based on the analytical results, the conclusions are summarised as follows: 1) The concave elliptical curve produces higher bending moment envelope at support than the Elliptical Fish Belly. 2) The Elliptical Fish Belly produced moments that were 76% higher in the middle span but lower in the left and right side decks than the Concave Elliptical curve. 3) Deflection is overall 50% greater for the Elliptical Fish belly type due to higher second moment of area. 4) For the bending moment envelope, the elliptical fish belly type produces better results but comes at a cost of excessive material which adds to the moment at mid span.

20