Evaluation of the Sandwich Plate System

in Bridge Decks Using a Plate Approach

A Comparison Between
ANSYS and GT STRUDL Models
Devin Harris Michigan Tech
Chris Carroll Virginia Tech

Project Overview
SPS Introduction
STEEL FACEPLATES

Design Approach

POLYURETHANE CORE

Element Validation

ANSYS Models
Comparison

GT STRUDL Models

SPS for Civil Structures

Introduction to SPS
Developed by Intelligent Engineering
Maritime industry
Bridge Application (deck)
Pre-fab Panels

Advantages

Disadvantages

Lightweight
Rapid installation
New/rehab

Cost
Limited application
No design provisions

Prefabricated Decks/Bridges
Structured Panel Deck

Fabricated panel limited girder configuration

Wide girder spacing
Larger cantilevers
Fast erection
Steel Face Plates

Polymer Core
(Unexposed)

Welded
Connection
Cold-Formed
Angle
Slip-Critical Bolt

Panel Edge Plate

(Cold-Formed Angle)

Built-up or
Wide Flange
Section

Half-Scale Bridge (VT Laboratory)

Span 40 ft; width 14.75 ft
Deck 1 in. (3.2-19.1-3.2)
8 SPS panels
Transversely welded/bolted
Bolted to girders (composite)

2 girder construction
Diaphragm Angles
2 x 2 x 0.31

Top and Bottom

Sandwich Plate
PL 0.125 x 60 x 177.2

Bent Angle
PL 0.19 x 7.9 x 177.2

Girder Web
PL 0.25 x 21.4 x 480

Top Flange Plate

PL 0.625 x 6 x 480

Bottom Flange Plate

PL 1 x 6.4 x 480
4'-10"

5'-1"

4'-10"

Elastomer Core
0.75 x 60 x 177.2

Shenley Bridge (St. Martin, QC)

Completed - November 2003
7 days of total construction

Span 74 ft; width 23 ft

Deck 2 in. (6.4-38-6.4)
10 SPS panels
Transversely welded/bolted
Bolted to girders (composite)

3 girder construction

Sequence of SPS Construction

ERECT GIRDERS
& BRACING

BOLT
PANELS TO
BEAMS &
TOGETHER

LAY PANELS

WELD
DECK
SEAM

Sequence of SPS Construction

ERECT BARRIERS

COAT DECK

LAY ASPHALT

Prefabricated Decks/Bridges
Simple Plate Deck

Simple plate many girder configuration

Small girder spacing
Short cantilevers
Girders attached to deck in factory
Very fast erection
Steel Face Plates

Polymer Core
(Unexposed)

Welded
Connection
Wide Flange
Section

Cedar Creek Bridge (Wise County, TX)

2-Lane rural road

SPS Deck (integral girders)
Span = 3@50 ft
Width = 30 ft
Deck 1-5/8 in.
5/16-1-5/16

Fabrication Process

Current Bridge Projects

New Bridge IBRC Cedar Creek Texas June 08

Research Objective
To develop a simple design procedure for
SPS decks for bridge applications

SPS Deck Design Approach

St

rip

id
t

(S
)

AASHTO Deck Design

Design Methods

Linear Elastic (Equivalent Strip)

Inelastic (Yield-Line)
Empirical (R/C only)
Orthotropic Plate

Limit States

Equivalent Strip

Equivalent Strip on Rigid Girders

Serviceability
Strength
Fatigue

SPS Approach (Layered Plate)

Variable loads and B.C.s
Assume deflection controls

Plastic hinges

SPS Plate Representation

Simple Support

Fixed Support
Arbitrary Loading

Cut-out

Arbitrary Loading

Cut-out

Traffic Direction
Slab Section Cut-out

Deck Continuity

Slab-Girder Bridge

Slab Section Cut-out

Slab-Girder Bridge

Arbitrary Loading

Arbitrary Loading
Edge BCs
Simplified

Edge BCs
Simplified

Plate Representation of Bridge Deck

Plate Representation of Bridge Deck

Deck Continuity

Edge BCs
Simplified

Edge BCs
Simplified

Analysis Options
Classical Plate Approach
Navier
Levy
Energy (Ritz)

Approach primarily
dependent on B.C.s

Finite Element Approach

Shell
Solid
Grid (line elements)

FE Model Approach
Shell Model
Advantages

Ideal for thin elements

Computationally efficient
Membrane/bending effects
Single thru thickness
element

Disadvantages
Element compatibility
Element connectivity
Stacking limitations*

Solid Model
Advantages
Realistic geometry
representation
Element connectivity

Disadvantages
Can be overly stiff
User error (more likely)
Complicated mesh
refinement

Material Properties
Face Plates
(Steel)
Youngs
Modulus
(E -ksi)
Poissons
Ratio (n)
Flexural
Rigidity
(D)

Core
(Polyurethane)

29,878

Composite Section

Eequiv

109

0.287

0.36

N/A

12 Dt 1 n eq2
3
ttotal

3
3

tc tc
E pn p t p E n tc

c c
2 2
2

n eq

2
3Dt
1

1 n c2
p

2
Dt E p
3

*Dt = flexural rigidity for layered plate (equivalent to EI for a beam)

*Ventsel, E., and Krauthammer, T. (2001). Thin plates and shells:theory,

analysis, and applications, Marcel Dekker, New York, NY.

3
3
3
tc
tc
tc

p


2
2

Ec 2 2
2
1 n c
1 n p

Element Validation (Generic)

Givens:

Boundary Conditions: Fully Restrained

Material Properties: E=29,000 ksi; n=0.25
Dimensions: thickness=6 (constant); a=b=L [L/t 1-200]
Load: q = 0.01 ksi (uniform)

ANSYS
Shell 63 (4-node)
Shell 91/93 (8-node)
Solid 45 (8-node)
Solid 95, Solid 191 (20-node)

Fixed Edge
a

GT STRUDL
BPR (4-node plate)
SBHQ6 (4-node shell)
IPLS (8-node solid)
IPQS (20-node solid)

Midpanel Deflection (wmax)

wclassical

0.00126 q L4

Convergence Comparison of ANSYS and STRUDL Elements

(Square Fixed Plate with Uniform Load )
1.50

wmidspan(FE) /wmidspan (classical)

1.45
1.40

Shell 91 / 93

1.35
1.30

IPLS

1.25
1.20

Solid 45

1.15

Shell 63

1.10

BPR

IPQS
Solid 95 / 191

1.05
1.00

SBHQ6

0.95

10

SHELL 63
IPLS

Span/thickness ratio (L/t)

SHELL 91 / 93
SOLID 45
IPQS
BPR

100

SOLID 95 / 191
SBHQ6

GT STRUDL Models
Element Types

BPR

SBHQ6

IPLS

IPQS

GT STRUDL Models
Mesh Verification
IPLS Element Validation
1.5

IPLS 6x6x6
1.4

IPLS 3x3x3
IPLS 2x2x2

1.3

IPLS 1x1x1

d FEA/d CLASSICAL

1.2

IPLS 2x2x1

1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
1

10

100
L/t Ratio

1000

GT STRUDL Models
Two Dimensional Example
IPLQ
(2D equivalent of IPLS)
Linear Shape Function

60 in.

A shape function is
the relationship of
displacements within
an element.

IPQQ
(2D equivalent of IPQS)
Quadratic Shape Function

60 in.

GT STRUDL Models
Two Dimensional Example

60 in.

One Layer

60 in.

GT STRUDL Models
Two Dimensional Example

60 in.

Two Layers

60 in.

GT STRUDL Models
Two Dimensional Example

60 in.

Three Layers

60 in.

GT STRUDL Models
Two Dimensional Example

60 in.

Four Layers

60 in.

GT STRUDL Models
Two Dimensional Example

120 in.

120 in.

GT STRUDL Models
Two Dimensional Example
2D Element Comparison Example
1.00

0.95

0.90

d FEA/d Classical

0.85

IPLQ 1 Layer
IPLQ 1 Layer

0.80

IPLQ22Layers
Layers
IPLQ

IPLQ
IPLQ33Layers
Layers

0.75

IPLQ
IPLQ44Layers
Layers
0.70

IPQQ 1 Layer
0.65

IPQQ 2 Layers

0.60
0

10

15

Divisions
Num ber of Longitudinal Divisions

20
20

25
25

GT STRUDL Models
Aspect Ratios (IPLS vs. IPQS)

Small Aspect Ratios

Large Aspect Ratios

SPS Models
Case I
Simple Support on all edges
Cold-formed angles assume minimal rotational
restraint
Simple Support

Fixed Support
Girder Line

Girder
Spacing

Girder Line

Panel Length

SPS Models
Case II
Simple supports perpendicular to girders
Fixed supports along girders
Rotation restrained by girders & cold-formed angles
Simple Support

Fixed Support
Girder Line

Girder
Spacing

Girder Line

Panel Length

SPS Models
Case III
Full restraint on all edges
Rotation restrained by girders & cold-formed angles
Simple Support

Fixed Support
Girder Line

Girder
Spacing

Girder Line

Panel Length

GT STRUDL Models
Boundary Conditions/Symmetry
Full Model:

Reduced Model:

345,600 Elements
406,567 Joints
1,229,844 DOF

86,400 Elements
102,487 Joints
307,461 DOF

GT STRUDL Models
Model Construction

Simple Simple
Simple Fixed
Fixed Fixed
2 Thick Plate
1 Thick Plate
Symmetry

GT STRUDL Models
Model Construction

GT STRUDL Models
Model Construction

GT STRUDL Models
Model Construction
Stiffness Analysis
GTSES
GTHCS
The GTHCS solver partitions the global
stiffness matrix into hyper-column blocks of
size VBS, and stores these blocks on the
computer hard drive, with only two of these
blocks residing in the virtual memory at a time
reducing the required amount of virtual
memory space.

DPM-w-selfbrn, The module 'SPWNDX' may not be branched to recursively

Convergence Comparison of ANSYS and STRUDL Elements

(Square Fixed Plate with Uniform Load )
1.50

wmidspan(FE) /wmidspan (classical)

1.45
1.40

Shell 91 / 93

1.35
1.30

IPLS

1.25
1.20

Solid 45

1.15

Shell 63

1.10

BPR

IPQS
Solid 95 / 191

1.05
1.00

SBHQ6

0.95

10

SHELL 63
IPLS

Span/thickness ratio (L/t)

SHELL 91 / 93
SOLID 45
IPQS
BPR

100

SOLID 95 / 191
SBHQ6

Summary of Element Validity

ANSYS Solids
Converged with single thru thickness element

ANSYS Shells
Minimal mesh refinement required for convergence

STRUDL Plate/Shells
Converged but no multiple layer capabilities

STRUDL Solids
Converged with sufficient thru thickness refinement
All Elements are capable of Modeling thin plates, but consideration must be
given to mesh density. Especially, thru thickness density for solid elements

Suggested Improvements

Layered element for composite materials

Redraw Issues in GT Menu
Contour plots without mesh
Undo Button in GT Menu

Model Validation SPS Panel

Full Scale SPS Panel

Model Validation SPS Panel

2'-1"

2'-1"

5'-11"
10'-0"

9'-9"

10'-0"

9'-9"

SPS Plate (0.25 plates; 1.5 core)

Support by W27 x 84 beams
Loaded to 77.8 k with concrete filled tires (assumed 10 x 20)

CASE III (Fixed)

CASE II (Fixed @ Beams)

CASE I (SS)

Experimental vs. Shell Model Predictions

ANSYS

Experimental vs. Shell Model Predictions

ANSYS
Load vs. Mid-panel Deflection - Full-Scale Panel (ANSYS)
90

Applied Load (kip)

80

Case I

Case II

Case III

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0
Measured

-0.1

-0.2

SS Plate (Case I)

-0.3
Deflection (in.)

-0.4

Fixed @ Beams (Case II)

-0.5

-0.6

Fully Fixed (Case III)

Experimental vs. Solid Model Predictions

ANSYS
Load vs. Mid-panel Deflection - Full-Scale Panel (ANSYS)
90

Applied Load (kip)

80

Case III

Case I

Case II

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0
Measured

-0.1

-0.2

SS Plate (Case I)

-0.3
Deflection (in.)

-0.4

Fixed @ Beams (Case II)

-0.5

-0.6

Fully Fixed (Case III)

Experimental vs. Solid Model Predictions

GT STRUDL

Experimental vs. Solid Model Predictions

GT STRUDL
Load vs. Mid-panel Deflection - Full-Scale Panel (GT STRUDL)
90
Case III

Applied Load (kip)

80

Case II

Case I

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0
Measured

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

SS Plate (Case I)

-0.4
-0.5
Deflection (in.)
Fixed @ Beams (Case II)

-0.6

-0.7

-0.8

Fully Fixed (Case III)

Model Validation SPS Bridge

Half-Scale SPS Bridge

Model Validation SPS Bridge

Panel 2

Panel 3

Panel 4

Panel 5

Panel 6

Panel 7

Panel 8

4.84 ft

Panel 1

GIRDER "A"
6

5.09 ft

3
9

"G"
5

1
3 8

"G"

4.84 ft

GIRDER "B"

5 ft
= STRAIN GAGES
XX = STRAIN GAGES LOCATED ON OPPOSITE FACE
X = DISPLACEMENT TRANSDUCERS (WIRE POT OR DIAL GAGE)
9

3,6,8

SPS Plate (0.125 plates; 0.75 core)

6
Support5 by Built-up 3Girders2 1,2(depth
~ 23)
4,5
Loaded ~ 24 k with bearing4 7pad
(9 x 14)
40 ft

ELEVATION "G-G"

CASE III (Fixed)

CASE II (Fixed @ Beams)

CASE I (SS)

Experimental vs. Shell Model Predictions

ANSYS

Experimental vs. Shell Model Predictions

ANSYS
Load vs. Mid-panel Deflection - Half-Scale Bridge (ANSYS)
30

25

Case III

Case II

Case I

Load (kip)

20

15

10

0
0

Measured

-0.1

-0.2

SS Plate (Case I)

-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
Midspan Deflection (in.)
Fixed @ Beams (Case II)

-0.6

-0.7

Fully Fixed (Case III)

Experimental vs. Solid Model Predictions

ANSYS
Load vs. Mid-panel Deflection - Half-Scale Bridge (ANSYS)
30

25

Case III

Case II

Case I

Load (kip)

20

15

10

0
0

Measured

-0.1

-0.2

SS Plate (Case I)

-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
Midspan Deflection (in.)
Fixed @ Beams (Case II)

-0.6

-0.7

Fully Fixed (Case III)

Experimental vs. Solid Model Predictions

GT STRUDL

Experimental vs. Solid Model Predictions

GT STRUDL
Load vs. Mid-panel Deflection - Half-Scale Bridge (GT STRUDL)
30

25

Case III

Case II
Case I

Load (kip)

20

15

10

0
0

Measured

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
Midspan Deflection (in.)

SS Plate (Case I)

Fixed @ Beams (Case II)

-0.6

-0.7

-0.8

Fully Fixed (Case III)

Comparison of ANSYS and GT STRUDL

Models
0.75

Maximum SPS Panel Deflections @ Peak Load

Measured vs. FEA

0.5

0.25

0
SPS Panel

Measured

GT STRUDL Solid

SPS Bridge

ANSYS Shell

ANSYS Solid

Conclusions
SPS deck behavior can be modeled as plate
with variable boundary conditions
Solid and shell elements are applicable
Attention to mesh refinement critical to solid
elements
Higher order elements significantly increase # DOFs

Layered elements ideal for efficiency

GT STRUDL and ANSYS yield similar results,
but not identical
Future investigation of differences in solid/shell
boundary conditions

Acknowledgements

Virginia Department of Transportation

Intelligent Engineering (www.ie-sps.com)
GT STRUDL Users Group
Virginia Tech