Gussete Plate Under Live Load

MODELING AND ANALYSIS OF STEEL GUSSET PLATES IN TRUSS
BRIDGES UNDER LIVE LOAD

by
MEGHAN M. MYERS

A thesis submitted to the
Graduate School - New Brunswick
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Masters of Science
Graduate Program in Civil and Environmental Engineering
written under the direction of
Dr. Hani Nassif
and approved by

_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________

New Brunswick, New Jersey
October, 2011

ii
ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS
MODELING AND ANALYSIS OF STEEL GUSSET PLATES IN TRUSS
BRIDGES UNDER LIVE LOAD
By MEGHAN M. MYERS

Thesis Director:
Dr. Hani Nassif

In the aftermath of the collapse of the I-35W over Mississippi River Bridge in Minnesota,
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issued a technical advisory to bridge
owners to check the status of similarly-designed bridges. It was determined that under-
designed gusset plates contributed to the collapse. This sparked a nationwide effort to
investigate the design of these connection members and to develop more detailed
specifications for future gusset plate design. In order to thoroughly study complicated
bridge elements such as gusset plates, sophisticated analysis techniques are required.
One such technique is finite element modeling (FEM), which is used here to identify
critical loading cases for typical Warren truss gusset plates.

The specific gusset plates studied here are located on two bridges, herein referred to as
Bridge A and Bridge B, that are similar in design to the I-35W Bridge. Following the I-
35W collapse, independent investigations, which included finite element analysis, were
initiated on both bridges. In this thesis, information from these investigations is used to
develop a comprehensive FEM, which facilitates more in-depth analysis of such gusset

iii
plates. The analysis focuses on the investigation of stresses created in the gusset plates
by various types of live loading. The results are compared to the Method of Sections
approach recommended by FHWA following the I-35W Bridge collapse to determine if
better analysis specifications are needed. Although the results of the finite element
analysis and the Method of Sections approach are similar, the authors conclude that the
value of the Method of Sections approach is strongly dependent on the accuracy of the
load data input. Therefore, more detailed specifications are needed to ensure the
accuracy of future gusset plate analysis and design.

iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would first like to thank my thesis advisor, Dr. Hani Nassif for giving me the
opportunity to conduct this research under him and for his guidance and support during
this time. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Kaan Ozbay and Dr.
Perumalsamy Balaguru for their useful comments and input.
I would like to acknowledge Arora and Associates, P.C. for affording me the
opportunity to work on various fatigue-sensitive, fracture-critical steel bridges, which
introduced me to the field of gusset plate modeling and analysis. Special thanks are also
given to Dr. Nakin Suksawang and Mr. Dan Su for introducing me to other truss bridge
evaluations and assisting me in some of my finite element model development.
Much of this thesis was supported by previous publications that I would like to
acknowledge. My publications submitted to Safety and Reliability of Bridge Structures
for the New York City Bridge Conference (Myers 2009a), the NSBA World Steel Bridge
Symposium (Myers 2009b), and the NDE/NDT for Highways and Bridges: Structural
Materials Technology Conference were largely influential to the development of this
thesis.
Lastly, I would like to thank my family and friends, and especially my husband
Clayton, for their continuous support throughout my time completing the Rutgers
University Masters Program. Without their understanding and encouragement during this
busy time, my success in this endeavor would not have been possible.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS .......................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. xi
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
1.1 Motivation ................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Justification ............................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 5
2.1 Early Research .......................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Current Research ..................................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER 3. INITIAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 13
3.1 Bridge A Project Introduction ................................................................................. 13
3.2 Method of Sections Analysis .................................................................................. 14
3.3 Bridge A Finite Element Model .............................................................................. 22
3.4 Bridge A Instrumentation ....................................................................................... 28
3.5 Bridge A Conclusions ............................................................................................. 36
CHAPTER 4. MODEL DEVELOPMENT...................................................................... 38
4.1 Creating a Model in Abaqus ................................................................................... 38

vi
4.2 Bridge B Research and Model Development.......................................................... 42
4.3 Model Integration.................................................................................................... 57
CHAPTER 5. PARAMETRIC STUDY .......................................................................... 65
5.1 Varying Plate Thickness ......................................................................................... 65
5.2 Varying Live Load .................................................................................................. 67
5.3 Validating Integrated Plate Model .......................................................................... 71
5.4 Comparing In-Depth FEM to Method of Sections ................................................. 73
CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................... 76
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 80

vii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Method of Sections notations and section locations .......................................... 2
Figure 2: Whitmore Section (Whitmore 1952) .................................................................. 6
Figure 3: Block Shear sections (Higgins et al. 2010) ...................................................... 11
Figure 4: Bridge A truss geometry for BAR7 model ....................................................... 14
Figure 5: Gusset plate shop drawings for the gusset plates in each category experiencing
the highest loads in the BAR7 analysis and used in the hand calculations .............. 16
Figure 6: Typical lower, odd numbered gusset plate type on Bridge A .......................... 20
Figure 7: Geometry of Gusset Plate L16 for STAAD model .......................................... 22
Figure 8: The STAAD finite element model for Gusset Plate L16 depicting nodes and
triangular plate elements .......................................................................................... 23
Figure 9: Stress contours on Gusset Plate L16 from STAAD finite element model ....... 26
Figure 10: Typical section loss in Bridge A gusset plate ................................................. 27
Figure 11: Sensor locations on Bridge A Gusset Plate L16 ............................................. 29
Figure 12: Bridge responses recorded by sensors on Bridge A Gusset Plate L16 ........... 30
Figure 13: Sensor readings before live loading event for four of the five truss members 31
Figure 14: Sensor readings before live loading event for fifth truss member ................. 31
Figure 15: Sensor readings at peak strain of vertical truss member ................................ 32
Figure 16: Sensor readings at peak strain of south diagonal truss member ..................... 33
Figure 17: Sensor readings at peak strain of south chord truss member ......................... 34
Figure 18: Sensor readings at peak strain of north diagonal truss member ..................... 34
Figure 19: Sensor readings at peak strain of north chord truss member .......................... 35

viii
Figure 20: Example gusset plate for detailed Abaqus finite element model ................... 39
Figure 21: Finite element model of Truss Spans 25, 26, and 27 in Bridge B (Nassif et al.
2007) ........................................................................................................................ 43
Figure 22: Integration point of (a) two-node, linear beam (B31) and (b) three-node,
quadratic beam (B32) elements along the length of the beam (Abaqus 2010) ........ 44
Figure 23: Four-node (S4) shell element (Abaqus 2010) ................................................ 45
Figure 24: Typical stress-strain curve of structural steel (Salmon and Johnson 1996) ... 47
Figure 25: Comparison of stresses in S5-S10 using the FE model and Static Load Test 1
(Nassif et al. 2007) ................................................................................................... 50
(Nassif et al. 2007) ................................................................................................... 51
Figure 27: Standard truck configurations used in the calibration of the finite element
model (Nassif et al. 2007) ........................................................................................ 52
Figure 28: Comparison of stresses in S5 using the FE model and the actual field-test data
of a 5-axle truck with a GVW of 65 kips traveling WB in Lane 1 (Nassif et al. 2007)
................................................................................................................................... 53
................................................................................................................................... 54
................................................................................................................................... 54

ix
................................................................................................................................... 55
................................................................................................................................... 55
Figure 33: Comparison of stresses in S10 using the FE model and the actual field-test
data of a 5-axle truck with a GVW of 65 kips traveling WB on Lane 1 (Nassif et al.
2007) ........................................................................................................................ 56
Figure 34: Bridge B full truss model with gusset plate integration (red circles) in Abaqus
................................................................................................................................... 59
Figure 35: Test-truck configuration (top) and information (bottom) for controlled load
tests (Nassif et al. 2007) ........................................................................................... 60
Figure 36: Under-deck view of Span 26 Bay 1 between FB11 and FB12 (Nassif et al.
2007) Note: rectangles represent strain transducers ................................................ 61
Figure 37: Span 26 sensor layout involving 16 strain gauges and 4 LVDTs (Nassif et al.
2007) ........................................................................................................................ 61
Figure 38: Comparison of Abaqus FEM results at Sensor 6 location with and without
gusset plate integration ............................................................................................ 62
Figure 39: Comparison of FEM results at adjacent truss members with and without gusset
plate integration ....................................................................................................... 63
Figure 40: Chart graphing plate stress vs. plate thickness ............................................... 66
Figure 41: Results of varying live load on a gusset plate on Bridge B ............................ 69

x
Figure 42: Gusset plate in full bridge model stress contours from Abaqus ..................... 71
Figure 43: Individual 3D gusset plate model stress contours from Abaqus .................... 72

xi
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Gusset plate categories and worst-case plates for Bridge A .............................. 15
Table 2: Summary of D/C ratios calculated under HS20 live loading for all analyzed
gusset plates ............................................................................................................. 20
Table 3: Summary of D/C ratios calculated under Permit live loading for all analyzed
gusset plates ............................................................................................................. 21
Table 4: Comparing stresses for Horizontal Section A-A of gusset plate L16 ................ 25
Table 5: Comparing stresses for Vertical Section B-B of gusset plate L16 .................... 25
Table 6: Comparison between hand calculation results using the sensor data and the
BAR7 data ................................................................................................................ 36
Table 7: Truck configuration (Nassif et al. 2007) ............................................................ 53
Table 8: Configuration for various trucks used for live loading in model (italics indicate
estimations) .............................................................................................................. 68
Table 9: Stress comparisons between plate models ......................................................... 73
Table 10: Plate stresses using Method of Sections .......................................................... 74

1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Motivation
At 6:05 P.M. EST on Wednesday, August 1, 2007, the bridge over the Mississippi River
between University Avenue and Washington Avenue on highway I-35W in Minneapolis,
MN, collapsed. Numerous vehicles were on the bridge at the time, and, as is well known,
there was a tragic loss of life and a vital transportation link was severed. At the time, in
light of the uncertainty surrounding the cause of the collapse, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) advised all State Transportation Agencies and other bridge
owners to immediately re-inspect all steel deck truss bridges with fracture critical
members or at a minimum to review inspection reports, including those for routine, in-
depth, fracture critical, and underwater, to determine whether more detailed inspections
were warranted. It was later discovered that under designed gusset plates were a
contributing cause of the collapse. After this discovery, interest in analyzing existing
gusset plates on other similar bridges was generated. This sparked a nation-wide interest
in looking deeper into the design of these connection members and the possibility of
developing new procedures for future use in such design.

In 2008, an investigation was initiated on a bridge henceforth referred to as Bridge A due
to its similarity to the I-35W Bridge. The gusset plates on the bridge were to be analyzed
to determine whether they were adequate to carry the current loads that were being seen
on the bridge. This investigation initiated the development of a finite element model to
2

predict the stresses in typical gusset plates on such a bridge. This bridge consists of a
continuous haunched Warren deck truss that makes up the three main spans of the bridge.

To begin this investigation, documents regarding the bridge geometry and history were
collected and reviewed. Using information found in these documents, the bridge was
analyzed and loads were generated that represent the current state of stress on the truss.
The gusset plates were then investigated using the analysis techniques presented in the
FHWA Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center report on the I-35W Bridge dated
January 11, 2008. This analysis consisted of a method of sections calculation, where
equilibrating loads are calculated for a horizontal and vertical section through a gusset
plate to balance the applied loads from the connecting truss members. These sections can
be seen in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Method of Sections notations and section locations

After hand calculations were performed to analyze the stresses in the above defined
sections, a finite element model was created using STAAD PRO 2005 software to
calculate similar stresses. This was done to try to verify the results of the hand
calculations. As an extension of the Bridge A analysis, the authors of this paper used
3

some of the information found from the investigation of Bridge A as a starting point for a
more in-depth analysis. This more in-depth analysis focused on the integration of an
individual gusset plate finite element model (FEM) into a 3D full truss bridge FEM.
Once the integrated model was complete, variations of live loading that may be
experienced by a bridge of this type were applied to the model to determine the stress on
gusset plates under such loading. Comparisons were also made between the integrated
FEM and the Method of Sections calculations suggested by FHWA.

1.2 Justification
Gusset plate connections are very complicated bridge elements. For this reason, many
researchers have looked into using finite element modeling in order to really determine
how these connections behave. However, since these connections need to be investigated
and analyzed often by bridge owners, especially in the last few years, more simplified
methods are needed. Development of good, detailed finite element models is too time
consuming to be used frequently by these agencies. Though, for research purposes, FEM
is a useful tool in learning more about the behavior of these members. As such, the
research presented in this paper uses finite element models to find out critical loading
cases for typical Warren truss gusset plates.

As a focus, this research investigates various types of live loading and how the truss
member reactions from these trucks affect the stresses in the gusset plate. For instance,
the permit trucks used in typical analyses and ratings of bridges are normally heavy
trucks that are also longer than the typical HS20 live load case specified by the American
4

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). These permit
trucks are meant to represent the largest legal trucks allowed on roads. However, there
could be heavier trucks that make it onto roads unnoticed. Also, in some cases, trucks
that are slightly less heavy, or maybe just as heavy as permit trucks, but are much shorter
in length, such as full dump trucks, may end up creating a more critical reaction in trusses
since the heavy load would be carried by fewer truss members. These are the types of
concepts investigated in this study.

5

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Early Research
Some of the previous research done specifically to evaluate locations and magnitudes of
stress in gusset plates, and to derive a simple way to determine maximum stresses for
designing these structural members was performed by Whitmore (Whitmore 1952). In
his investigation, Whitmore mainly studied the joints in Warren type truss configurations,
one of the most common truss types. For the gusset plates tested, he determined that
maximum tension and compression forces were located around the ends of the diagonal
members and maximum shearing stresses were located near the chord member and
toward the center of the plate, with much lower stresses toward the edge of the plate. The
results of this analysis contradicted what had been the regularly assumed distribution of
stresses in such gusset plates. Whitmore then found that the maximum stresses at the
ends of the diagonal members could be approximated by dividing the force from the truss
member by an area equal to the width of the plate multiplied by a length measured
perpendicular to the truss member axis along the bottom row of bolts and between two
lines measured 30 degrees from the outside columns of bolts along the truss member axis.
This section, known now as the Whitmore Section, can be seen in Figure 2 below.

6

Figure 2: Whitmore Section (Whitmore 1952)

The Whitmore Section analysis became the more widely used procedure to design and
check gusset plates until the development of the block shear analysis method.

In the 1980s there were a number of analyses performed in order to further understand
the specific stress devices working in typical gusset plate configurations. As mentioned
above, Warren, along with Pratt, trusses are the most common truss shapes. Yamamoto,
Akiyama, and Okumura (Yamamoto et al. 1985) performed experiments and theoretical
analyses on elastic stress distributions in gusset plates of these common truss
configurations. The paper stated that at that time the design of gusseted joints is based
on rather simple methods of analyses and current design specifications hardly establish
definite rules about gusset plate thickness. This is attributed to the general lack of
experimental research available on the design of gusset plates. This idea that current
design standards do not adequately deal with design of gusset plates is still somewhat
relevant today, as will be discussed later in this section. Yamamoto et al. proposes
formulae to calculate the design thickness of gusset plates. These formulae establish
7

rules for calculating required gusset plate thickness to transmit axial forces and bending
moments and transmit shear forces.

Another consideration within the study of gusset plates is the evaluation of fatigue and
fracture. A study performed under the National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP) Project 12-25 (Fisher et al. 1987) researched these mechanisms in riveted
connections on bridges. It was confirmed through this study, which examined data from
a Department of Transportation (DOT)-sponsored research study, as well as other studies
and full-scale tests, that the type of riveted connection does not affect resistance to
fatigue stresses in any significant way. It also confirmed that primary members in these
riveted bridges are not expected to develop fatigue cracks, though the study did not cover
gusset plates specifically. Fatigue stresses were also studied by Kitzawa, Kanaji,
Ohminami, and Furukawa (Kitazawa et al. 1994), though with slightly different results.
Kitazawa et al. found that the fatigue strength of the gusset plates on the cable-stayed
Higashi-Kobe Bridge were not sufficient to resist the largest stresses from live loading.
These differing results may very well be attributed to the design standards in Japan versus
the United States and the difference between stresses in the types of bridges (cable-stayed
versus riveted connections in other kinds of bridges).

An aspect of analyzing bridges that has not been considered in many truss analyses is the
specific differences that may result from various types of live loads passing over the
bridge, specifically, heavier trucks than the standard permit trucks used for rating bridges.
One such research project that was conducted on this topic was by Laman, Pechar, and
8

Boothby (Laman, et al. 1999). This study looked at the affect of bridge component type,
component peak static stress, live load type, and live load speed on the dynamic stresses
in steel through-truss bridges. The results do not seem to conclude anything specific
about the live load type, and the gusset plates on the bridge were not one of the
components analyzed. This leaves some gaps in the topic of truss live load analysis for
consideration in future research.

In 2006, a Rutgers University team performed field tests, analysis, simulations, and
laboratory tests in order to identify if cracking in the deck of a bridge (herein referred to
as Bridge B) is caused by shrinkage or by live load vibrations (Nassif 2007). To
accurately measure the loads that were crossing the bridge, multiple sensors were
installed on the bridge, including a portable Weigh-in-Motion (WIM) system and two
piezo-axle sensors connected to a main data collection unit. Using these sensors to
measure live load on the bridge, as well as other sensors to measure bridge response, it
was possible to create accurate, calibrated finite element models to determine the overall
impact of the live load on the bridge, though the gusset plates in particular were not
studied at this time.

In 2006 Huns et al. conducted research with the objective of developing a finite element
model that could predict the tension and shear block failure of gusset plates and
conducting a reliability analysis of existing test results to evaluate current design
equations and propose new limit state design equations. The current practices in North
America, Europe, and Japan for tension and shear block design (Kulak and Grondin
9

2000, 2001) were reviewed and it was discovered that the equations give a satisfactory
prediction of capacity of gusset plates, but do not predict the failure mode as well. Some
other studies were conducted in search of similar results. Chakrabarti and Bjorhovde
(1983) and Hardash and Bjorhovde (1984) studied inelastic behavior of gusset plates in
tension, Hu and Cheng (1987) and Yam and Cheng (1993) studied gusset plates in
compression, and Rabinovitch and Cheng (1993), Walbridge et al. (1998), and Nast et al.
(1999) studied gusset plates under cyclic loading. The conclusions of the Huns et al.
research state that the existing literature as well as the finite element analysis performed
in this study indicate that tension fracture always occurs before shear rupture. It also
indicates that most of the connections showed the full capacity of the gusset plate being
reached before the rupture occurs. It was determined through the reliability analysis that
equations posed by Hardash and Bjorhovde (1984) and Driver et al. (2004) provide a
good prediction of the test results of the gusset plates, where the equations in the design
standards were overly conservative and in some cases did not predict the failure mode
accurately.

Also in 2006, Li, Zhou, Chan, and Yu (Li et al. 2006), published a paper on their research
in multi-scale numerical analysis on long-span bridges. This research focused on local
damage and dynamic responses in such bridges and used the stiffening truss of a
suspension bridge in China as a case study. Li et al. believe that the most effective way
to analyze such a complicated structure is through models that account for damage and
deterioration and the behavior of the connections between main structural elements. This
study concluded that such multi-scale modeling was necessary for the evaluation of long-
10

span bridges and the effects of damage on them. A discrete evaluation of the structural
elements in such a bridge cannot adequately evaluate more complex responses such as
fatigue in the trusses of these bridges, although this simpler form of analysis can be
useful in that it can be easily applied for quicker analyses.

2.2 Current Research
A variety of topics in the realm of truss or gusset plate analysis were discussed in the
previous section. These connections have always been a somewhat lesser understood
element, in that their responses and reactions are complex and are many times designed
to well exceed necessary capacity in order to assure that they are not the first thing to fail
on the bridge. However, in 2007, the collapse of the I-35W Bridge over the Mississippi
River in Minneapolis, Minnesota brought the topic of truss analysis to the forefront of
structural engineering research. Many studies were performed and papers were written
on the analysis of the collapse of the I-35W Bridge (e.g. Holt & Hartmann 2008, Minmao
et al. 2009, Hao 2010, Liao et al. 2011). Through the forensic structural analyses
performed, it was determined that underdesigned gusset plates were a contributing cause
of the collapse of the bridge. The inadequate gusset plates were yielded at the time of the
collapse, and increased weight on the bridge due to construction on the deck (materials,
equipment, etc.) caused the failure of the plate and the collapse of the bridge.

In July of 2009, the FHWA issued a publication entitled Load Rating Guidance and
Examples for Bolted and Riveted Gusset Plates in Truss Bridges. This publication was
produced in order to give guidance to bridge owners on how to analyze and load rate
11

gusset plates. This publication and its guidelines were based on the existing practices and
knowledge in the field. However, these guidelines could be updated with information
received from a current study that is underway. This study is being conducted by FHWA
and is being sponsored jointly by FHWA and AASHTO through the NCHRP.

In 2010, Higgins et al. performed a study to compare the methods of block-shear
(depicted in Figure 3 below) and Whitmore Section stress evaluation on truss gusset
plates. As noted earlier, these kinds of studies became more prevalent after the collapse
of the I-35W Bridge. Block shear and Whitmore section analyses are two of the most
prevalent methods of gusset plate analysis, which is why these were the two compared in
this study. The specific failure mode in a gusset plate will depend on the geometry,
distribution of loads, and material properties for that specific gusset plate. This is why
there are many failure planes in the block shear method. Higgins et al. found that using
the block-shear method on plates that were originally designed with the Whitmore section
methods and allowable stress design will produce rating factors below 1.0. They also
determined that gusset plates made from higher yield strength steel and those with more
bolts produce lower rating factors with the block-shear method.

Figure 3: Block Shear sections (Higgins et al. 2010)
12

From the current AASHTO bridge specifications, Article 6.14.2.8 states,
Gusset or connection plates should be used for connecting main members, except
where the members are pin-connected. The fasteners connecting each member shall
be symmetrical with the axis of the member, so far as practicable, and the full
development of the elements of the member should be given consideration.

The comments to this article state that,
Following the 2007 collapse of the I-35W Bridge in Minneapolis, the traditional
procedures for designing gusset plates, including the provisions of this Article, have
been under extensive review. As of Spring 2008, new design procedures have not
been codified. Guidance from FHWA is expected shortly. Designers are advised to
obtain the latest approved recommendations from Owners.

This comment coincides with the statement made by FHWA on their website that was
mentioned in the above. When the joint study between FHWA and AASHTO has been
completed, it is expected that new guidelines will be given in AASHTO as to how to go
about designing future truss bridge gusset plates. This same article also describes the
design equations as follows,
The maximum stress from combined factored flexural and axial loads shall not
exceed
f
Fy based on the gross area. The maximum shear stress on a section due to
the factored loads shall be
v
Fy/3 for uniform shear and
v
0.74 Fy/3 for flexural
shear computed as the factored shear force divided by the shear area. If the length of
the unsupported edge of a gusset plate exceeds 2.06(E/Fy)
1/2
times its thickness, the
edge shall be stiffened. Stiffened and unstiffened gusset edges shall be investigated
as idealized column sections.

Besides the reference that is given to the more general Sections 6.13.4 and 6.13.5 in
AASHTO (Block Shear Rupture Resistance and Connection Elements), these are the only
guidelines for specific design of gusset plates. This shows the relative uncertain nature of
gusset plate design to this point.

Obviously the topic of gusset plate analysis is a broad and complex one. This paper
focuses on the topic of varying live load cases and their impact on truss gusset plates.
13

CHAPTER 3. INITIAL ANALYSIS

3.1 Bridge A Project Introduction
As mentioned before, many authorities began investigations of their bridges with similar
details to the I-35W Bridge after its collapse. In particular, Bridge A was the subject of
such gusset plate analyses. Bridge A is a five-span bridge consisting of a continuous
haunched Warren deck truss, which makes up the three main spans, and two deck girder
side spans. The overall bridge span is approximately 740 ft, and its width is 61 ft 6 in.
The longest of the five spans is the center span, which is 280 ft long.

To initiate this analysis, a review of the bridge inspection reports, design calculations,
photograph logs, and plans was performed, and a detailed history of the bridge was
compiled considering its structural configuration, modifications made through
rehabilitation and maintenance contracts, and the condition of the primary members.
This was helpful in determining what changes had been made to the structure since the
original design and construction and the current state of stress in each of the primary
members and, hence, the gusset plates. Using the information found in these documents,
the most recent computer analysis run performed on this structure was reviewed and
updated. The rating program BAR7 was used to reanalyze the bridge and generate new
loads that represent the current state of stress on the truss. Based on the results and the
gusset plate geometry detailed in the original shop drawings, the gusset plates were
grouped into categories for further analysis. The gusset plates were then investigated
14

using the analysis techniques presented in the FHWA Turner-Fairbank Highway
Research Center report on the I-35W Bridge dated January 11, 2008 (FHWA 2008).

3.2 Method of Sections Analysis
The model that was used to analyze the three-span, continuous deck truss unit is shown in
Figure 4.

Figure 4: Bridge A truss geometry for BAR7 model

With revised input and an updated model, BAR7 was run and new member forces were
generated. The live load cases considered were HS20 and Permit loadings.

For the Permit live load run, it was assumed that there were three lanes loaded with
100%, 55%, and 55% of the truck load respectively. The two 55% lanes approximate the
force of an HS20 live load, while the 100% represents the one lane of Permit truck
loading.

There are 58 gusset plates in each of the deck trusses. Rather than analyze every gusset
plate, a representative sample of gusset plates with worst-case scenario loads and
geometry was selected for analysis. The first step was to split the plates into categories
15

based on their thickness and their location on the truss. This resulted in 9 different
categories. Within each of the categories, the worst-case location was determined using
the forces calculated in the new BAR7 run. Table 1 lists the various categories by which
each gusset plate could be identified and the gusset plate(s) chosen for analysis for each
category.

Gusset Plate Worst-Case Gusset Plates
Categories High Loads Other
5/8 Upper Chord U7
11/16 Upper Chord U9
3/4 Upper Chord U13
1/2 Upper Chord U14 U8
3/4 Lower Chord L0 L28
11/16 Lower Chord L14
1/2 Lower Chord L15 L7
5/8 Lower Chord L16
Multiple Gussets L8
Table 1: Gusset plate categories and worst-case plates for Bridge A

One of these categories (Multiple Gussets) consisted solely of the panel points at the
pier supports. These panel points contain 4 gusset plates stacked together and represent a
unique and important situation. In some categories, two gusset plates were analyzed due
to the large differences in force direction (tension vs. compression) and geometry of the
connecting truss members (right angles vs. more extreme angles). In the end, the 58
gusset plates in each truss were narrowed down to only 12 that were analyzed. The shop
drawing for the high-load gusset plates in each category is shown in Figure 5 below.

16

Figure 5: Gusset plate shop drawings for the gusset plates in each category experiencing
the highest loads in the BAR7 analysis and used in the hand calculations
17

Calculations were performed to analyze the representative gusset plates to determine the
forces and stresses acting on them. The calculations and methods used were based on the
reconstructed design calculations for the I-35W over Mississippi River Bridge illustrated
in the FHWA report (FHWA 2008). The procedure that was used makes two cuts in the
plate, one horizontal, just above or below the horizontal member (section A-A) and one
vertical, just next to the vertical member (section B-B), as shown in Figure 1 in the
introduction section of this paper.

Based on the truss member forces found from BAR7, equilibrating axial, shear, and
moment forces are calculated to balance the truss member forces from one side of the cut
plane. Then the axial (f
a
= P/A), flexural (f
b
= M/S), and shear (f
v-avg
= V/A) stresses
along the section and the principal tension and compression stresses are calculated, taking
into account any splice plates that contribute to the gusset plate section properties. For
this analysis, the principal stresses were taken at either the section neutral axis or at the
edge of the plate depending on which was greater. The neutral axis principal stresses
were calculated by
2 2
/
2
3
2 2
|
.
|
\
|
+ |
.
|
\
|
=
avg v
a a
comp ten
f
f f
f (1)
and the principal stresses at the edge of the gusset plate were calculated by
b a comp ten
f f f =
/
(2)
The plus or minus was applied in each of these equations to create the biggest tension and
compression stresses for each case. For the final step in this procedure, a
18

Demand/Capacity (D/C) ratio is produced using AASHTO allowable stresses as the
capacities.

The review of the available bridge plans and documents did not reveal which edition of
AASHTO was used to perform the original bridge design or what grade of steel was used.
Therefore, the AASHTO Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges, Second Edition
was used to determine the allowable stresses. In the Manual, there is a category for
unknown steel constructed between 1936 and 1963, which specifies Grade 33 steel.
Since the bridge was designed in 1954 and constructed in 1957, Grade 33 steel was
assumed in order to determine the allowable stresses for these calculations.

For Inventory Rating (IR) compression allowable stress, the AASHTO Manual for
Condition Evaluation of Bridges formula for compression in concentrically loaded
columns for bridges built between 1936 and 1963,
2
45 . 0 570 , 15 |
.
|
\
|
=
r
KL
F
comp
(3)
was used, since the FHWA procedure models the edge of the gusset plate as a column. It
is noted that the 1949 version of AASHTO uses
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
2
2
4
1
000 , 15
r
L
F
comp
(4)
for compression in concentrically loaded columns having values of L/r not greater than
140 and with riveted ends. The differences between Equation 3 and Equation 4 would
not have significantly changed the results of the analysis. Therefore, the AASHTO
19

Manual equation (Eq. 3) was the one chosen, since it is a more general guideline. The
Operating Rating (OR) equation for compression allowable stress that was used is
2
56 . 0 410 , 19 |
.
|
\
|
=
r
KL
F
comp
(5)
The AASHTO Manual was also consulted to determine the allowable stresses for tension
(F
ten
= 18,000 psi for IR and 24,500 psi for OR) and shear (F
v-avg
= 11,000 psi for IR and
15,000 psi for OR). The same allowable stresses used for tension were also used for the
bending allowable stresses, F
b
.

Based on the calculated stresses and D/C ratios, it was evident which gusset plates would
require further investigation. There is one D/C ratio over 1.00 for the HS20 live load
case, which occurs for f
comp
. The ratio occurs in gusset plate U13 (1.03 at Section B-B).
The gusset plates in the table that have NOT APPLICABLE written in the Section B-B
columns are placed at the intersection of a vertical web truss member and a chord truss
member. These are located at the centers of continuous chord members and are therefore
not carrying much, if any, of the horizontal load. Also, as the gusset plates at these
locations are only slightly wider than the vertical truss member, the location of the
vertical section would effectively be at the edge of the plate and would not reveal internal
gusset plate forces and stresses. This is why the vertical cut was not considered
applicable for the analysis. An example of one of these thinner gusset plates can be seen
in Figure 6 below.

20

Figure 6: Typical lower, odd numbered gusset plate type on Bridge A

A summary of the analysis results is shown in Table 2 and Table 3 below for HS20 and
Permit loading, respectively.

HS20 Section A-A Section B-B
f
b
f
v-avg
f
ten
f
comp
f
b
f
v-avg
f
ten
f
comp

U7 0.32 0.57 0.48 0.72 0.70 0.38 0.99 0.34
U8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 NOT APPLICABLE
U9 0.39 0.77 0.67 1.00 0.57 0.69 0.75 0.66
U13 0.22 0.36 0.29 0.45 0.60 0.25 0.12 1.03*
U14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 NOT APPLICABLE
L0 0.26 0.39 0.22 0.77 0.08 0.40 0.34 0.48
L7 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 NOT APPLICABLE
L8 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.36 0.05 0.20 0.14 0.32
L14 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.36 0.13 0.81 0.13
L15 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 NOT APPLICABLE
L16 0.29 0.58 0.51 0.69 0.38 0.40 0.78 0.26
L28 0.30 0.39 0.21 0.84 0.10 0.40 0.34 0.48
*Case where D/C ratio is greater than 1.0.
Table 2: Summary of D/C ratios calculated under HS20 live loading for all analyzed
gusset plates

21

Permit Section A-A Section B-B
f
b
f
v-avg
f
ten
f
comp
f
b
f
v-avg
f
ten
f
comp

U7 0.28 0.50 0.43 0.70 0.69 0.34 0.91 0.46
U8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 NOT APPLICABLE
U9 0.31 0.61 0.53 0.87 0.36 0.54 0.56 0.60
U13 0.19 0.31 0.26 0.42 0.50 0.21 0.10 0.94
U14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.79 NOT APPLICABLE
L0 0.24 0.36 0.20 0.77 0.08 0.37 0.32 0.48
L7 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 NOT APPLICABLE
L8 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.32 0.04 0.16 0.11 0.28
L14 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.29 0.12 0.67 0.11
L15 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 NOT APPLICABLE
L16 0.24 0.48 0.43 0.64 0.32 0.33 0.66 0.23
L28 0.27 0.36 0.20 0.84 0.10 0.37 0.32 0.48
Table 3: Summary of D/C ratios calculated under Permit live loading for all analyzed
gusset plates

Even though the stresses under Permit live loading are larger, the D/C ratios that were
calculated were lower than those under HS20 live loading. This was a result of the fact
that the Permit live load stresses were compared to Operating Rating allowable stresses.
Unsupported edge length adequacy was also studied. Only one of the applicable gusset
plates (gusset plates connecting diagonal members) investigated did not comply with the
unsupported edge limit, expressed by
( ) thickness plate
000 , 11
Limit Edge d Unsupporte -
(
(
=
y
F
(6)
This equation is for the unstiffened unsupported edge limit from the AASHTO Standard
Specifications for Highway Bridges, Ninth Edition. The gusset plate that did not comply
with this limit is located at panel point U9. Since the long unsupported edge of this
gusset plate is in tension, it was concluded that all the gusset plates on the bridge were
adequate to meet the criteria for unsupported edge length limit.
22

3.3 Bridge A Finite Element Model
For this investigation of Bridge A, analyses were taken a step beyond the FHWA
suggested procedure. As a verification of the hand calculations, a 2D finite element
model using STAADPRO 2005 software was developed. Interior gusset plate L16 was
chosen as a representative example for this model. The gusset plate dimensions,
connection configuration and the limits of splice plates were confirmed after a review of
the original shop drawings and were input into the FE model. A copy of the original shop
drawing for gusset plate L16 depicting its geometry can be seen in Figure 7 below.

Figure 7: Geometry of Gusset Plate L16 for STAAD model

Nodes (joints) were generated to define boundaries for the gusset plate, limits of splice
plates, and locations of the fasteners in each of the five connections. For simplicity, the
23

connection holes in the gusset plate were not modeled. After these fixed nodes were
established, a 4 x 4 grid of nodes was placed over the model to fill in the areas between
these key points. The node geometry was reviewed and joints from the 4 x 4 grid that
conflicted with any of the initially determined fixed nodes were deleted. Locations of
conflict were determined by engineering judgment. Triangular plate elements were then
generated between the remaining nodes. Figure 8 shows the layout of the nodes and
triangular plate elements.

Figure 8: The STAAD finite element model for Gusset Plate L16 depicting nodes and
triangular plate elements

The triangular plate elements within the limits of the splice plate were assigned the
thickness of the combined gusset and splice plates (2), while elements outside this area
were assigned the thickness of the gusset plate alone (5/8). The basic geometry model
was analyzed for the two sections evaluated with the hand calculations. For the
horizontal Section A-A, truss member forces from members B, D, and E were applied to
24

the plate. For vertical Section B-B, the member forces from members A and C were
applied.

Support conditions for the finite element model were given careful consideration. Axial
forces taken from the BAR7 output are envelope forces; they represent the maximum
values in a given member, but do not necessarily occur under the same loading conditions
or at the same time. As a result, the gusset plate as an individual free body is not in
equilibrium when these maximum loads are applied simultaneously. Therefore, separate
support conditions were established to develop equilibrating forces in the truss members
that did not have their maximum forces applied to the model. This was accomplished by
placing additional nodes in line with the fasteners of the existing connection and just
beyond the gusset plate boundary. These nodes were assigned the properties of a pinned
support. From these supports, truss elements were generated in the model to connect
each of the fastener nodes in the adjacent connection to the new virtual pinned support.
These additional truss elements were assigned a proportion of the area of the
corresponding truss member. Loads were applied to the remaining connector nodes
depending upon which section of the gusset plate was being evaluated. For example:
When evaluating vertical Section B-B, forces from truss members A and C were applied
to the model and supports were generated at additional nodes located in line with the
existing connections of truss members B, D and E.

Unit (1 kip) axial forces, resolved into components along the global X- (horizontal) and
Y- (vertical) axes, were applied to each of the fastener nodes. Component values were
25

calculated based upon the geometry of the individual connection. The forces from each
truss member were considered as a separate load case. The live and dead load axial force
values obtained from the BAR7 analysis were divided equally amongst the number of
connectors in each member. This per connector value was then applied as a factor to
the unit load cases in the Load Combination command.

Stresses were checked using the feature in STAAD that allows the user to define a cutting
plane. Using this STAAD command, horizontal and vertical cutting planes were
established at the same locations in the model that were evaluated in the hand
calculations. The stresses are summarized in Table 4 and Table 5 below. Positive values
represent tensile stresses; negative values represent compressive stresses.

Section A-A Left Side of Plate Right Side of Plate
ksi ksi
Hand Calculations -4.7 5.7
STAAD Model -2.8 0.4
Table 4: Comparing stresses for Horizontal Section A-A of gusset plate L16

Section B-B Top of Plate Bottom of Plate
ksi ksi
Hand Calculations -3.1 14.03
STAAD Model -4.9 14.0
Table 5: Comparing stresses for Vertical Section B-B of gusset plate L16

Qualitatively, the STAAD model yields results that match those of the hand calculations.
However quantitatively there are differences, especially in section A-A. The difference
in the stress values for the Section A-A model is attributed to local effects due to the
26

support conditions. It is also noted that when the forces in members B and D are in
tension, as they are in Figure 9, they have a tendency to want to become parallel, creating
a lower tensile area in the right side of the gusset plate along Section A-A (between
members B and D). This secondary effect is not accounted for in the hand calculations
and would be an area for consideration in future study.

Figure 9: Stress contours on Gusset Plate L16 from STAAD finite element model

The model for evaluating Section B-B provides stresses that are in general agreement
with the hand calculations. Also of note is the distribution of the stresses in the gusset
plate. The larger stresses are found to occur at the edges of the cut section and reduce
substantially towards the center of the plate. See Figure 9 for stress contours on the
gusset plate.

27

After the initial FE analysis was done on the gusset plate, the model was modified to
account for the section loss in the gusset plate that was documented in the latest available
bridge inspection report. Inspection photos reveal that the typical corrosion on the plate
occurs just above the bottom chord members, as can be seen in Figure 10. Based upon a
review of this information, the gusset plate elements just above the limit of the splice
plates were reduced in thickness from 5/8 to 1/2. The model was reanalyzed and it is
found that the section loss raises the stresses in the gusset plate by approximately 20% in
the area of the section loss.

Figure 10: Typical section loss in Bridge A gusset plate

28

3.4 Bridge A Instrumentation
Recognizing that the recommended analysis procedure includes a number of assumptions
that may be overly conservative, it was decided that continuous monitoring would offer
data necessary to quantitatively evaluate the actual behavior of the bridge, and allow for a
more informed decision making process regarding the bridge operation and any
rehabilitation needs. In April 2009, a continuous monitoring program was implemented
to gather additional information on the behavior of the gusset plates through sensors
installed on the representative gusset plate L16 used in the finite element analysis. 12
strain gauges were installed on various locations on and around the gusset plate. Five
extensometers were installed on the truss members, one on each member just beyond the
limits of the plate, and seven extensometers were installed on the plate itself at various
locations of high stress, as determined by the STAAD FEA. The sensors were installed
and monitored continuously for one year by Osmos USA. The yearlong monitoring cycle
allowed for all seasonal variations and traffic cycles to be observed. See Figure 11 for
sensor locations.

29

Figure 11: Sensor locations on Bridge A Gusset Plate L16

In order to manage the sheer volume of available data, the software which was used to
record, view, and download the information from the bridge was programmed to save
measurements that exceeded a certain threshold. The real-time data could be viewed
through a web browser to allow the user to see the bridges response while the structure
was subjected to live load. Alternatively, the historical data that has been downloaded
and archived can be reviewed through a program installed on the users personal
computer. The historical data can be organized and viewed in various formats, useful for
comparing readings from different sensors at concurrent times. The following screen
30

shots depict data that was collected to compare against the results from the hand
calculations and finite element model. Figure 12 shows approximately four minutes of
monitoring in dynamic mode for the bridge. This information represents the results for
four of the truss member sensors.

Figure 12: Bridge responses recorded by sensors on Bridge A Gusset Plate L16

Figure 13 and Figure 14 below show a zoomed-in view of the five truss member sensors
(four sensors in Figure 13, the fifth sensor in Figure 14) over a time period of less than
one minute. The black vertical line represents the cursor function in the data program.
The numbers displayed in the bottom left corner of each screen represent the strain
recorded by each sensor at the time indicated by the cursor. The various colors in the
bottom left corner correspond to the sensor color in the graph. The sensor name is
displayed in line with the readings below the graph at the center of the screen.
31

Figure 13: Sensor readings before live loading event for four of the five truss members

Figure 14: Sensor readings before live loading event for fifth truss member

The strain values in the above figures provide a base reading against which to compare
the readings from the following set of figures. It can be seen that the responses depicted
32

in the graphs above (Figure 13 and Figure 14) occur just before the live loading event and
therefore represent the approximate sensor readings when the truss members are
subjected only to dead load.

Figure 15 below depicts the sensor strain readings of all five truss members at the time
when the vertical truss member (green) is experiencing a peak reading.

Figure 15: Sensor readings at peak strain of vertical truss member

As can be seen, the peak values for each truss member do not occur at the same time,
which is consistent for a truss bridge subjected to a moving load.

Below are four other screen shots (Figure 16 through Figure 19) depicting the same live
load event as Figure 12. In each graph, the cursor has been located at the peak value of a
33

different truss member sensor. Therefore, the strains recorded by all five sensors are
displayed for the time period corresponding to each of these peak sensor values.

Figure 16: Sensor readings at peak strain of south diagonal truss member

34

Figure 17: Sensor readings at peak strain of south chord truss member

Figure 18: Sensor readings at peak strain of north diagonal truss member

35

Figure 19: Sensor readings at peak strain of north chord truss member

The data from Figure 18 represented by the pink line (from the sensor affixed to the 45
degree member extending from the gusset plate to the north) suggests that there may have
been loosening of the bolted connection that attaches the sensor mounting plate to the
member based on the excessive vibrations. The results may not be 100% accurate, but
do show the increased strain value during the live load event.

The actual strains in each member were found by taking the readings of the peak values
on these graphs, subtracting the value at the flat line area of the graph occurring just
before the live load event, and dividing the difference by 2000 mm, which is the length of
the sensors on the truss members. These strains were then converted to stresses and
forces in order to be substituted into the spreadsheets created for the hand calculations.
Table 6 compares the final total stresses resulting from using the sensor live load data
36

with the total stresses obtained from BAR7. Since it is assumed that the sensor data is
only detecting live load strains, the live load stress values obtained from the sensors are
added to the dead load stresses calculated in BAR7.

Sensor Data BAR7
Section Location on Plate
SC
Peak
S45
Peak
VM
Peak
N45
Peak
NC
Peak
HS20 P82
A-A
Left Side of Plate -3.41 -3.56 -2.98 -3.66 -3.02 -4.7 -5.11
Right Side of Plate 4.23 4.06 4.16 4.02 3.46 5.7 6.75
B-B
Top of Plate -1.72 -1.67 -1.87 -1.67 -1.99 -3.18 -3.56
Bottom of Plate 9.13 8.95 9.34 9.04 9.47 14.03 16.22
Table 6: Comparison between hand calculation results using the sensor data and the
BAR7 data

From the data that has been obtained, it appears that the actual loads and strains
experienced by the bridge are significantly less than the hand calculations would predict.
The stresses calculated from the sensor data appear to be at most about 75% of the
stresses calculated using the envelope forces in BAR7. When comparing the live load
forces alone from the sensors to the live load forces from BAR7, the live load forces seen
by the sensors are much smaller than those calculated from BAR7.

3.5 Bridge A Conclusions
The hand calculation analysis of the Bridge A gusset plates reveal only one location with
a Demand/Capacity Ratio greater than 1.0, which is at Gusset Plate U13 where the D/C
Ratio is 1.03. A finite element analysis of the Gusset Plate L16 was performed, and the
resultant maximum principal stress is found to be 3% above the allowable value. The
finite element analysis of the L16 plate indicates that a 20% loss in plate thickness
37

occurring just above the bottom chord, which is typically where the gusset plate section
loss occurs on the Bridge A structure, results in a 20% increase in stress at the reduced
area. However, these stresses are still below the yield strength of the material. The
results of the analysis indicate that the gusset plates that do not exhibit significant section
loss have adequate capacity to support the current dead load and design live loads on the
bridge. Instrumentation of the bridge provides more data regarding the actual state of
stress of the gusset plates on Bridge A. Since the actual strains and resulting
stresses/forces are far below those obtained from both the hand calculations and FE
model, it can be concluded that the structure has adequate capacity.
38

CHAPTER 4. MODEL DEVELOPMENT

4.1 Creating a Model in Abaqus
In order to perform a more refined analysis of gusset plates in a typical Warren deck
truss, multiple steps must be taken beyond the above discussed hand calculations and
simple FEM. As a first step, it is decided that a more comprehensive finite element
model program should be used. Abaqus is the program chosen to advance the gusset
plate analysis. A similar gusset plate to the one that was used in the previous FE model is
used for the Abaqus model. However, since the Abaqus model uses live loads measured
on Bridge B (discussed later in this paper), a high-loaded gusset plate from the truss on
that bridge (Panel Point L10) is chosen for the Abaqus FEM. In order to improve upon
the simple FEM developed in the initial analyses, the Abaqus model is created as a 3D
model.

Given the complicated shape of gusset plates, it is decided that the Abaqus CAE will be
used to develop the model. As stated on the Simulia website,
With Abaqus/CAE you can quickly and efficiently create, edit, monitor, diagnose,
and visualize advanced Abaqus analyses. The intuitive interface integrates modeling,
analysis, job management, and results visualization in a consistent, easy-to-use
environment that is highly productive. Abaqus/CAE supports familiar interactive
computer-aided engineering concepts such as feature-based, parametric modeling,
interactive and scripted operation, and GUI customization. Users can create
geometry, import CAD models for meshing, or integrate geometry-based meshes
that do not have associated CAD geometry.

With the visualizations and multiple manipulation tools, it is easy to create a more
complex model.

39

Figure 20: Example gusset plate for detailed Abaqus finite element model

Abaqus defines its models beginning with parts. The gusset plate model being created
in this step of the analysis is based off of the shop drawing shown in Figure 20 above and
consists of just one part: the gusset plate. The gusset plate is approximately 73.5 wide
by approximately 45.1 tall and is 5/8 thick. At one point, it was considered to refine
this model compared to the previous one by modeling the rivet holes in the gusset plate.
There are a total of 125 rivets that connect the gusset plate to the truss members. Each of
the rivet holes are 1 1/6 in diameter for 1 rivets. Each one of the holes for these rivets
could have been included in the gusset plate. However, since in the actual field condition
the rivets effectively fill out the voided area of the plates, it was decided that the rivet
holes would not be included.
40

After each of these parts are modeled and input into Abaqus, the next step is to create a
material for the plates, the type of material being steel. In Abaqus, the density is input as
0.000284 kips per cubic inch. The grade of steel for Bridge B (as well as many other
similar truss bridges) is Grade 36 (36ksi yield strength). Therefore, this yield strength is
input into the Abaqus model. Elastic material properties are then input into the program
for the material. A Youngs Modulus of 29,000 ksi is used, as well as a Poissons Ratio
of 0.3. This material is then applied to the parts of the model through the use of
sections. A section is created as a solid, homogeneous type with the steel material
previously defined.

The next step to the model development is to create an assembly. The assembly function
in Abaqus uses instances of the parts created in order to create a completed model.
There can be more than one instance of a part, and any changes made to the part are made
to the instance automatically. In the model under discussion here, only one instance of
the plate part is used in the assembly. In actuality, these kinds of gusset plate connections
are typically double gusset plates. This means that there are symmetrical gusset plates on
either side of the truss members. However, since it is assumed that these gusset plates
would carry the same stresses as each other on either side of the truss, it is decided that
only one gusset plate will be modeled and simply half of the loads felt by the truss
members will be transferred to the gusset plate model.

After the assembly is positioned correctly, the steps for the model run are created. For
this model, three steps are created. The first step, called the Initial step, is created
41

automatically for every model developed in the Abaqus CAE. This step applies the
boundary conditions, which will be discussed below. The second step created is called
the Contact step. This step establishes the contact for the loads carried by the truss
members under truck live loading. The third and final step is called the Load step.
This step applies the loading itself in iterative steps as defined in the input.

Next, the boundary conditions are applied to the model assembly. It is decided that the
nodes at the bottom of the vertical truss member will function as the pinned supports for
the plate with rotation allowed in all directions, but no translation allowed.

After boundary conditions are established, the individual part is meshed to create the
finite elements that are to be analyzed during the model run. The first step to the meshing
function is to seed the part. For the gusset plate, a maximum deviation factor of 0.1 is
tried to limit the size of the finite elements. An approximate global size of 5 is input to
accompany the deviation factor. Then, the mesh controls are established. The element
shape tested is a Wedge, or a six-node linear triangular prism. This is chosen since the
2D STADD model had used a triangular plate element. This results in an appropriately
sized mesh with similarly sized elements in a sweep across the plate that will both give
good resolution to the model, but will not take an unreasonably long time to run.

Defining the mesh is the last main step in the development of the gusset plate finite
element model. The next step is to analyze the truss model developed by the research
team at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, for Bridge B.
42

4.2 Bridge B Research and Model Development
As discussed previously in the Literature Review, a team of researchers at Rutgers
University performed tests and analysis to determine the cause of cracking in the deck of
what is here referred to as Bridge B. As part of this effort, a detailed 3-D finite element
model was created to help process the results and conclusions. The model used beam and
shell elements. The model was validated using results from field tests that were
performed on the bridge. These tests were performed using a test-truck of known axle
weights and consisted of taking measurements through sensors installed on the bridge,
which included a portable Weigh-in-Motion (WIM) system and two piezo-axle sensors
connected to a data collection unit. The finite element model was developed to examine
the behavior of the bridge structure at various loading stages.

Just as was the decision for the gusset plate model described in the previous section,
Abaqus was used for developing the model of Bridge B. The program was chosen here
because of its vast materials and elements library that is suited for civil engineering
applications. Figure 21 shows part of this full truss model.

43

Figure 21: Finite element model of Truss Spans 25, 26, and 27 in Bridge B (Nassif et al.
2007)

Various element types were used to model the bridge. The various element types are
described in detail. Moreover, the description of the boundary conditions, loads, and
constraints are also detailed in the following paragraphs.

The beam element is used to assemble the trusses, floor beams, and stringers. It is a one-
dimensional line element that cannot deform in its own plane; under bending the plane
sections remain plane. Two types of beam elements were chosen for the analysis: two-
node, linear beam (B31) and three-node, quadratic beam (B32) elements (Figure 22a&b
respectively). Both beam elements were modeled in spaces with six degrees of freedom
at each node. Abaqus also includes an I-beam section in the beam element cross-section
library. The advantage of using the cross-section library is that the moment of inertia and
44

torsional rigidity are automatically calculated. The user only needs to input the
dimensions of the I-beam.

(a) (b)
Figure 22: Integration point of (a) two-node, linear beam (B31) and (b) three-node,
quadratic beam (B32) elements along the length of the beam (Abaqus 2010)

The shell element is used to model the concrete slab on the bridge. It was used because
the concrete slab has one dimension that is significantly smaller than the others (i.e.,
thickness of the slabs is smaller than its width and length). Abaqus contains a vast library
of shell elements, but the most common and general type of shell element is the four-
node shell element (S4). This element is a fully integrated, general purpose, finite-
membrane-strain shell element that allows in-plane bending (Abaqus 2010). The S4
element has six degrees of freedom at each node. Figure 23 shows S4 element.

45

Figure 23: Four-node (S4) shell element (Abaqus 2010)

Bridge piers and abutments were idealized using boundary conditions to represent the
actual bearings used in the field. Piers and abutment were assumed not to be affected by
the live load (i.e., no settlement or side-sway) in the FEM model.

The bridge model consists of multiple parts that needed to be joined together to construct
the entire bridge structure. This is achieved using constraint elements, specifically a
multi-point constraint (MPC). In Abaqus, there are predefined MPCs, including BEAM
and PIN. The BEAM MPC provides a rigid beam between two nodes to constrain the
displacement and rotation at the first node to the displacement and rotation at the second
node (Abaqus 2010). It is mainly used for constraining the slab nodes to the stringer
nodes for composite action. For non-composite or zero moment connection, such as the
connection between the stringers and floor beams, PIN MPC is used. PIN MPC provides
a pin connection between two nodes.

46

In addition to the constraints, there were some members that shared the same nodes (e.g.
the diaphragms and the stringers). Abaqus assumes a rigid connection if the same initial
or terminal node of two elements is used. Thus, to model the diaphragm connections, the
rotation of the starting and ending nodes of the diaphragms (that are connected to the
stringer) needed to be released. This was done using the RELEASE commands specified
by Abaqus.

Three different types of steel properties were used in the finite element model: structural
steel, reinforcing steel, and prestressing steel. The structural steel (I-girder and
diaphragms) is subdivided into two grades: A36 carbon steel and A572 high-strength,
low-alloy carbon steel. The A36 carbon steel has a minimum yield strength of 36,000
lb/in
2
, where the ultimate strength varies between 58,000 lb/in
2
to 80,000 lb/in
2
. The
A572 high-strength, low-alloy carbon steel has a minimum yield strength of 50,000 psi,
where the ultimate strength varies between 70,000 lb/in
2
to 100,000 lb/in
2
. A36 carbon
steel was used in most older bridges. A572 high-strength, low-alloy carbon steel is used
for newly constructed bridges. Figure 24 shows a typical stress-strain curve of the two
grades of steel used in the FE model.

47

Figure 24: Typical stress-strain curve of structural steel (Salmon and Johnson 1996)

Depending on the age of concrete, the deck slab typically has a design compressive
strength ranging from 4,000 lb/in
2
to 6,000 lb/in
2
. The compressive strength of the deck
slab was assumed to be 5,000 lb/in.
2
.

As mentioned earlier, the modulus of elasticity and Poisons ratio need to be specified in
the model for elastic analysis. Unlike steel, the modulus of elasticity of concrete varies
significantly with compressive strength, types of aggregates, paste content, and
admixture. For simplicity, a relationship between the modulus of elasticity and
compressive strength has been established. The American Concrete Institute (ACI)
Building Code (ACI 318 Article 8.5.1, 2005) gives the modulus of elasticity, E
c
, as
follows:
48

E
c
= 33w
c
1.5
' f
c
for

90 sw
c
s155 lb/ft
3
(7)
or for normal-strength concrete:

E
c
= 57,000 ' f
c

(8)
where, w
c
and
c
f ' are the unit weight (lb/ft
3
) and compressive strength (lb/in.
2
) of
concrete, respectively.

The tensile strength of concrete was also considered in the FEM model. A good
approximation of the tensile strength of concrete is 10% to 20% of the compressive
strength (Nawy, 2005). However, if subjected to bending, the modulus of rupture rather
than the tensile strength should be used. ACI 318 Article 9.5.2.3 specifies the modulus of
rupture of concrete, f
r
, for normal-weight concrete as follows:

c r
f f ' = 5 . 7 (9)

The FE model was validated by comparing it to both the static and dynamic field load
tests. The FE model was validated with the static load test results by doing the following:
A 3-axle dump truck with a gross vehicle weight (GVW) of 67 kips was positioned at the
center of S8 (Stringer 8) (i.e., the left and right wheels of the truck were evenly
distributed to the north and south of S8). A diagram depicting the location of S8 on the
bridge can be seen in Figure 37 below. The test was controlled and isolated from other
trucks traveling over the bridge. It was also unaffected by the dynamic impact factor
since the test-truck was moving at a relative low speed (<10 mph).
49

Figure 25 and Figure 26 show the comparison of stresses in S5 through S10 from the
field test results and the FE model for static load tests 1 and 3, respectively. In the
figures, the field test data is denoted by EXP and represented with a red solid line, and
the FE model is denoted as FEM with a blue dashed line. Overall, the FE model
correlated well with the field test results with variations within 15% of the field test
results. The FE model does provide an accurate stress-strain calculation and represents
the actual bridge very well.
50

(Nassif et al. 2007)

51

(Nassif et al. 2007)

52

The dynamic load tests were also used for validating the FE model. The dynamic field
tests were conducted using the actual truck traffic traveling on the bridge. Three dynamic
load cases were used for the comparison. These cases consisted of three 5-axle trucks
with gross vehicle weights of 65, 55, and 42 kips. Figure 27 and Table 7 show the
configuration of the most common truck used for the FE model.

Figure 28 through Figure 33 illustrate the comparison of the dynamic load test of the 5-
axle trucks with GVW of 65 kips for S5 through S10, respectively. Overall, the FE
model correlated well with the field test results for the maximum stresses, having only a
2% variation. At lower stresses, especially over S8, S9, and S10, the variation is
significantly high, which could have been for multiple reasons.

A B
C D
1
2 3 4 5

Figure 27: Standard truck configurations used in the calibration of the finite element
model (Nassif et al. 2007)

53

Truck GWV (kips) 65.2
Axle 1 (kip) 9.2
Axle 2 (kip) 13.3
Axle 3 (kip) 12.4
Axle 4 (kip) 15.1
Axle 5 (kip) 15.2
Spacing A (ft) 17.4
Spacing B (ft) 4.3
Spacing C (ft) 35.9
Spacing D (ft) 4.1
Table 7: Truck configuration (Nassif et al. 2007)


54


55



-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 500 1000 1500 2000
S9-EXP
S9-FEM
S
t
r
e
s
s
e
s
(
k
s
i
)
Time (1/100 s)
56

Figure 33: Comparison of stresses in S10 using the FE model and the actual field-test
data of a 5-axle truck with a GVW of 65 kips traveling WB on Lane 1 (Nassif et al. 2007)

Multiple simulations representing various load cases were made using the FE model.
Two actual trucks obtained from the portable WIM system were used for the simulations:
78.7 kip, 4-axle and 50 kip, 3-axle dump trucks. These types of trucks cause the highest
stress range and also represent approximately 20% of the average daily traffic.

Multiple simulations were performed with these two truck types:
- Loading the WB left lane with a 78.7 kip, 4-axle dump truck
- Loading the EB left lane with a 50 kip, 3-axle dump truck
- Loading the WB right lane with a 78.7 kip, 4-axle dump truck
- Loading the WB lanes with two 78.7 kip, 4-axle dump trucks side-by-side
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 500 1000 1500 2000
S10-EXP
S10-FEM
S
t
r
e
s
s
e
s
(
k
s
i
)
Time (1/100 s)
57

- Loading the WB left lane with a 50 kip, 3-axle dump truck
- Loading the EB left lane with a 50 kip, 3-axle dump truck
Two impact factors, 1.33 and 1.5, are used in the analyses for trucks traveling WB and
EB, respectively. The 1.33 impact factor is based on dynamic test results as well as the
recommendation of the AASHTO LRFD Standard Specification. It was noted that the
observed impact factor of dynamic test-trucks traveling EB was as high as 2.0.
However, a conservative value of 1.5 was used since the dynamic impact factor from
heavier trucks will be lower and will vary from truck to truck.

4.3 Model Integration
In order to complete the final steps of the analysis for this thesis research, the individual
gusset plate finite element model that was developed based on the Bridge B as built
drawings is integrated into the truss model developed by the Rutgers team described in
the previous section. This allows the stresses in the gusset plate to develop under actual
loading conditions in a calibrated model.

As a first step, it is decided to convert the 3D model into a 2D shell element in order to
more closely transition to the 1D beam elements used for the truss members. The Abaqus
CAE model for the gusset plate is used to export an input file to define the coordinates of
all of the points in the gusset plate FE mesh. The coordinates from one side of the 3D
gusset plate are then added as new nodes into the truss model with the appropriate offsets
to the base coordinate system in the truss bridge model. The gusset plate coordinates are
58

integrated into the truss model at 4 symmetric locations, two on each truss, where this
type of gusset plate is located on the bridge.

The elements are then created between each node by copying the element definitions
from one side of the gusset plate model. The carbon steel material used for some of the
members in the truss is applied to the integrated plate. The thickness of each element in
the plate is then defined. In the areas connected to truss members, the thickness is
increased to account for the two gusset plates as well as the truss member. In the areas in
between, the thickness is simply the two gusset plates.

In order to insert the gusset plate into the truss, some sections of the truss member are
removed around the associated node. Then the connection between the remaining truss
members and the nodes at the corresponding edge of the plate are established by using
the same node for both the end of the member and the center of the plate edge. A
kinematic coupling restraint is also established between the connector node and the
adjacent node on the plate edge to establish that the whole edge of the plate at the truss
member would move as one. Figure 34 below shows the full bridge model with gusset
plate integration. This figure also displays the stress results of the bridge being loaded
with a heavy live load, the results of which will be discussed in the next section.

59

Figure 34: Bridge B full truss model with gusset plate integration (red circles) in Abaqus

Now the model is ready to be loaded. The test live load case shown in Figure 35 below is
used on the new combined model as well as the original truss bridge model without the
gusset plates. Both models are run with the live load and the results are compared to
validate that the gusset plates in the new model do not significantly affect the outcome
compared to the original model.

60

August/Sept Test-truck
3-axle single body dump
truck
Gross Vehicle Weight =
53.7k
Axles 1 2 3
Weights 15.5k 19.1k 19.1k
Spacing --- 12.5 ft 5.0 ft
Figure 35: Test-truck configuration (top) and information (bottom) for controlled load
tests (Nassif et al. 2007)

After consulting the results from the Rutgers study, the node corresponding to the
location of the sensor on S6 (as shown in Figure 36 and Figure 37) in both models is
chosen to generate the validation data, since this has the highest responses from the
dynamic tests.

61

Figure 36: Under-deck view of Span 26 Bay 1 between FB11 and FB12 (Nassif et al.
2007) Note: rectangles represent strain transducers

Toward River
6534
S11

6138
S10
6117 5979 6348 6538 5122 Top
6489 Bot.
S9
6139 Top
6536 Bot.
S8
6111 5088 5116
6258
S7

6612
S6

S5
6535

S4
S3
S2
Pier 25
FB9
FB10 FB11 FB12 S1
Bay 4 Bay 3 Bay 2 Bay 1 End of 4 span
stringer
Bottom flange
only

Top & Bot
Flange

LVDT vert. or
horizontal
Figure 37: Span 26 sensor layout involving 16 strain gauges and 4 LVDTs (Nassif et al.
2007)
62

The results from the integration points at the bottom of the stringer S6 in both models are
shown in Figure 38 below.

Figure 38: Comparison of Abaqus FEM results at Sensor 6 location with and without
gusset plate integration

As can be seen, the results are nearly identical. The models are also compared with
respect to the response of the truss members immediately around the gusset plate
location. The following images (Figure 39) show the responses of these truss members
with and without the plate integrated into the model.

63

Figure 39: Comparison of FEM results at adjacent truss members with and without gusset
plate integration
-210
-110
-10
90
190
0 20 40 60 80
Member A w/Plate
-210
-110
-10
90
190
0 20 40 60 80
Member A w/o Plate
-210
-110
-10
90
190
0 20 40 60 80
Member B w/Plate
-210
-110
-10
90
190
0 20 40 60 80
Member B w/o Plate
-210
-110
-10
90
190
0 20 40 60 80
Member C w/ Plate
-210
-110
-10
90
190
0 20 40 60 80
Member C w/o Plate
-210
-110
-10
90
190
0 20 40 60 80
Member D w/Plate
-210
-110
-10
90
190
0 20 40 60 80
Member D w/o Plate
-210
-110
-10
90
190
0 20 40 60 80
Member E w/Plate
-210
-110
-10
90
190
0 20 40 60 80
Member E w/o Plate
64

In general, the results of these comparisons show that the member stresses with or
without the gusset plates are similar. The various lines on each chart are the different
integration points within the section of the member. There is some difference in the
magnitude of the stresses for Member B (horizontal), though the general response shape
is the same and is deemed to be similar enough to continue with the model including the
plate. This allows us to follow through using the new model to start analyzing the gusset
plate stresses under various live loads.

65

CHAPTER 5. PARAMETRIC STUDY

5.1 Varying Plate Thickness
In this step of the research, a parametric study is conducted to compare the gusset plate
responses under various conditions. The first step is to simply see how the response of
the gusset plate will change under two lanes of the test dump truck live load that was
used in the static analysis of Bridge B with varying plate thickness. The graph also
shows the relationship of the gusset plate stress to thickness under two lanes of the
AASHTO defined HL-93 standard design live loading. According to as-build drawings
of Bridge B, the test gusset plates chosen for this analysis are each 5/8 thick. In each
separate finite element run, the thickness is decreased by an additional 1/16 down to
5/16 each, which is the minimum thickness for any steel members, as defined in the
AASHTO Bridge Design Specifications. The results of this parametric study are shown
in Figure 40 below.

66

Figure 40: Chart graphing plate stress vs. plate thickness

As would be expected, the stress in the plate increases as the plate thickness decreases
under both live loading cases. These graphs follow power trends, approaching infinity
when the gusset plate thickness approaches zero (0.0). It can be seen in the graph that the
HL-93 loading case is the far more critical case for this type of comparison. And
although the stresses for both live loads increase, they do not reach a critical level for
steel with a yield strength of 36ksi, even at the minimum plate thickness. This is
considered a good result, since it is undesirable for gusset plates to approach failure under
any live loading. Gusset plates are typically designed such that they are not the most
critical members on a bridge, as is the case with any connection point between main
bridge members.
67

5.2 Varying Live Load
The second parametric study that is performed for this research involves using the
original integrated FEM with the as-build gusset plate thickness and varying the live load
according to the WIM data that was collected by the Rutgers team during the Bridge B
Deck Evaluation. The test dump truck is the first and smallest load applied. However,
instead of running one lane of the load down the center of the bridge model, two lanes of
the live load are placed along the edge of the deck, with the first lane located
approximately 2-0 from the edge of the parapet, and the second lane located 10 feet
from the first, as per AASHTO standard specifications. The next largest live load that is
tested is an HS20 AASHTO design live load. Again, two lanes of the load are placed on
the bridge at the same location as the dump truck case. The third live load that is used is
the 78.7-kip Short Heavy Vehicle recorded by the WIM data in the Rutgers study. This
truck is coupled with a second lane of the test dump truck. The fourth load is an
approximation of the heaviest load measured by the Rutgers WIM system. This is a
105.8-kip, 6-axle vehicle. The spacing of the wheels is assumed to be approximately 5
feet between each of the back 5 axles under a heavy load and an approximately 16
between the front axle and the first of the back axles. The distribution of the weight is
assumed to be 15.8 kips on the front axle and 18 kips on each of the back axles. This
truck is then also paired with a second lane of the dump truck. The final and heaviest live
load used for this study is a Permit load, representing the largest legal live load allowed
on the bridge. This load is coupled with the AASHTO HS20 truck in the second lane to
represent the most probable configuration of permit live loading on a bridge per
68

AASHTO Bridge Design Specifications. The spacing between and load on each of the
axles for all of the above mentioned live loads are listed in the table below.

LL Case
Test
Dump
Truck
HS20 SHV
Max
WI M
NJ
Permit
PA
Permit
Axle 1
Load
(kips) 15.5 8 14.3 15.8 16 15
Space (ft) 12.5 14 13.5 16 12 11
Axle 2
Load
(kips) 19.1 32 15.6 18 16 27
Space (ft) 5 14 4.5 5 4 4
Axle 3
Load
(kips) 19.1 32 26.3 18 28 27
Space (ft) - - 4.5 5 4 4
Axle 4
Load
(kips) - - 22.5 18 28 27
Space (ft) - - - 5 21 24
Axle 5
Load
(kips) - - - 18 28 27
Space (ft) - - - 5 4 4
Axle 6
Load
(kips) - - - 18 28 27
Space (ft) - - - - 4 4
Axle 7
Load
(kips) - - - - 28 27
Space (ft) - - - - 4 4
Axle 8
Load
(kips) - - - - 28 27
Table 8: Configuration for various trucks used for live loading in model (italics indicate
estimations)

After each of these live load cases are created and the FE models are run for each case,
the results are graphed on the chart in Figure 41 below. The results shown are the Tresca
69

stresses in the node with the maximum stress in the gusset plate, which happens to be at
the edge of the plate next to the vertical truss member.

Figure 41: Results of varying live load on a gusset plate on Bridge B

The results of this parametric study comparison are as would be expected for the
respected live load cases. The test dump truck, which is the lightest of the vehicles
produces the smallest stresses, with the maximum stress (when the centroid of the truck is
placed over the location of the gusset plate) being 3.41kips. The HS-20 live load case
and the 4-axle short heavy vehicle produce very similar results, which makes sense since
the loads of these trucks are less than 10% different from each other. However, the
70

second lanes for these live load cases are more significantly different. The HS20 second
lane is another HS-20 truck, whereas the SHV second lane is the test dump truck, which
is only 53.7 kips, compared to the 72 kip HS20. Despite this difference, the stress results
still come out similarly, with the maximum stress for the HS20 being slightly higher.
This could indicate that a shorter vehicle which fits entirely between two stringers on a
truss bridge could have a similar or possibly even more critical reaction in gusset plates
than a longer vehicle with a larger load. The load case with the next largest stress is the
heavier vehicle with a longer assumed total length. When comparing this longer vehicle
with the short heavy vehicle (both with the test dump truck in the second lane), a 20%
increase in the total live load on the bridge results in an increase in stress of only 11%.
This again indicates that the length of the vehicle can have an inverse effect on the gusset
plate stress. However, it does appear that the effect is not so great as to cause concern
about using the HS20 vehicle vs. anything much shorter than that. Especially when all of
these loading cases are compared to the Permit load, also specified by AASHTO to be
used for design of bridges. The Permit truck produces a peak stress that is more than
50% larger than the next largest peak stress. Although in the AASHTO design
specifications these types of Permit loads are scaled down compared to a more typical
HS20 truck load, the fact that these trucks are used for the design of bridges indicates that
most of the largest stresses experienced by gusset plates due to live load are being
covered in current designs.

71

5.3 Validating Integrated Plate Model
One final comparison of the FEM results in order to validate the models used to analyze
gusset plates in the future is to compare the results of an individual plate model with the
results from the plate shell element integrated into a full truss model. To do this, the
stresses in the truss elements of the full bridge model without the gusset plates are found
and converted to forces. Then these forces are applied as pressure uniformly to the edges
of the plate within the limits of the truss member width. Figure 42 and Figure 43 below
show the gusset plate stress distribution on the gusset plate in the truss model and the 3D
individual plate model, respectively.

Figure 42: Gusset plate in full bridge model stress contours from Abaqus

72

Figure 43: Individual 3D gusset plate model stress contours from Abaqus

At first glance, these results look very different, but when analyzed more closely, they
seem to be much more similar than may be first assumed. The most obvious difference
between the two is the added thickness of the plate in the bridge model to account for the
truss members that were removed from the original Rutgers bridge model. These
locations of the gusset plate model will not experience nearly as large of a stress as the
individual model will. It is probably most accurate from a tension/compression stress
standpoint that the gusset plate would not fail where it is closely connected to the truss
member. Therefore, we can focus mostly on the other locations within the individual
model.

73

There is also obviously going to be a discrepancy in the area of the boundary condition
within the individual model, which is where the highest stress is occurring in our
individual model. When these discrepancies are set aside, the remaining plate stresses in
between the truss member locations actually reveal a similar pattern. If the location of
highest stress in the bridge model gusset plate is also looked at in the individual plate
model, a similar stress is revealed. The stress results are shown in Table 9 below.

Max
Principal
(ksi)
Min
Principal
(ksi)
Mises
(ksi)
Tresca
(ksi)
3D Plate 0.336023 -4.99244 4.36662 5.03196
Bridge 0.226118 -4.58197 4.131292 4.581972
% Diff 32.71% 8.22% 5.39% 8.94%
Table 9: Stress comparisons between plate models

The four types of stresses shown are the ones that are controlling in either negative or
positive stress in both cases. For 3 of the 4 of these stresses, the difference is below 10%,
which can be considered acceptable. The magnitude of the Maximum Principal stresses
are so small in this location that the large difference can be disregarded. These results
indicate that an individual model can be used to create accurate results if the correct loads
from the truss members are input into the model.

5.4 Comparing In-Depth FEM to Method of Sections
In our final step of this research, we compare the stresses in the finite element model with
the ones calculated from the FHWA suggested Method of Sections procedure used in our
74

previously-described Bridge A analysis. To do this, we used the spreadsheet created
during the Bridge A part of our work, though instead of inputting the envelope forces of
the truss members into the spreadsheet, we input the truss member loads calculated from
the full bridge FEM. These are the same forces used in our plate vs. full bridge FEM
comparison above. The table below shows the final calculation of principal stresses
using the Method of Sections.

Vertical Section B-B
Principal Stresses (at neutral axis)
Principal Stresses (at edge of
gusset plate) Maximum
R = 5.65 kip/in
2

f
ten
= 7.3 kip/in
2
ften = 4.61 kip/in
2
7.3 kip/in
2

f
comp
= -4.01 kip/in
2
fcomp = 1.97 -4.01 kip/in
2

Horizontal Section A-A
Principal Stresses (at neutral axis)
Principal Stresses (at edge of
gusset plate) Maximum
R = 1.55 kip/in
2

f
ten
= -0.6 kip/in
2
ften = 1.31 1.31 ksi
f
comp
= 2.5 kip/in
2
fcomp = 2.49 2.5 ksi
Table 10: Plate stresses using Method of Sections

Comparing to the values in Table 9, it can be seen that by an order of magnitude
comparison, these stresses actually appear to be close to what is being seen in the finite
element models. Especially when considering the tension at the edge of the gusset plate
in the Vertical Section B-B (4.61ksi) vs. the Mises and Tresca maximum stresses from
both FEM, which are measured at the top edge of the plate as well. Given these results, it
can be concluded that the Method of Sections is an appropriate way to quickly check a
gusset plates capacity. However, this is only the case if accurate loads are input into the
calculations, and in order to do this, a more in-depth approach needs to be taken to find
these loads. From the Bridge A analysis, it was learned that doing a simple computer
75

analysis model and using the envelope forces from the model in the Method of Sections
do not produce accurate results.

76

CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The analyses performed during the course of this research resulted in various different
conclusions on the topic of gusset plate stresses under live loading. The topics of
adequate plate thickness, varying degrees of heavy truck live loading, and recommended
analysis techniques were all studied and the results documented in this paper.

In the first stage of this research, the Bridge A gusset plates were looked at to determine
if they had adequate capacity to carry the loads on the structure. Using the FHWA
suggested method of sections calculations, it is concluded that there is only one location
on the truss with a Demand/Capacity Ratio greater than 1.0 (1.03 at U13), which is
considered to be an acceptable result. A finite element analysis of a representative gusset
plate was then performed, and aside from the typical analysis, the effect of section loss
was studied. The finite element analysis indicates that a 20% loss in plate thickness
occurring just above the bottom chord results in a 20% increase in stress at the reduced
area, though stresses are still below the yield strength of the material. The results of the
analysis indicate that the gusset plates that do not exhibit significant section loss have
adequate capacity to support the current dead load and design live loads on the bridge.

The second part to the Bridge A analysis was to compare readings from instrumentation
on the bridge to the hand calculations and FEM. From the data that was obtained, the
actual loads and strains experienced by the bridge are significantly less than the hand
calculations would predict. The stresses calculated from the sensor data appear to be at
most about 75% of the stresses calculated using the envelope forces in BAR7. Since the
77

actual strains and resulting stresses/forces were found to be far below those obtained
from both the hand calculations and FE model, it is again concluded that the structure has
adequate capacity.

The second stage in this research focused on more in depth finite element modeling on
the trusses and gusset plates in another similar bridge (Bridge B). One aspect of this
stage was to compare the stresses in gusset plates integrated into a full truss model to the
stresses in an individual gusset plate FEM. At first glance, the results look very different,
but when analyzed more closely, they seem to be much closer than may be first assumed.
The most significant difference between the two is obviously going to be a discrepancy in
the area of the boundary condition within the individual model, which is where the
highest stress is occurring in our individual model. It is difficult to model an individual
plate element properly without the truss elements to hold it in place. Another
discrepancy is the handling of the section properties within the area of the truss elements,
which causes large variations in stress in those locations. However, if it is assumed that
the plate will buckle or yield in a location that is not tightly connected to the truss
element, an analysis of the remaining plate stresses in between the truss member
locations can be focused on. The intermediate locations reveal a similar pattern in both
models, and when looking at the location of highest stress from the bridge model gusset
plate and comparing it to that location in the individual model, a similar stress is
revealed. This helps determine that an individual plate model can be used as a quicker
analysis tool for gusset plates, rather than creating a full scale truss model.

78

A parametric study was conducted on the full scale truss model to study the effect of
various live loads on gusset plates. The results of this parametric study comparison are in
general as would be expected for the respected live load cases. The test dump truck,
which is the lightest of the vehicles, produces the smallest stresses. The HS-20 live load
case and the 4-axle short heavy vehicle produce very similar results, which makes sense
since the loads of these trucks are less than 10% different from each other. However, the
effect of the second lanes for these live load cases is more interesting. The HS-20 second
lane was another HS-20 truck, whereas the SHV second lane was the test dump truck.
Given this difference, one might think the stress results of these two cases should be more
different. This suggests that a shorter vehicle which fits entirely between two stringers
on a truss bridge can have a similar or possibly even more critical reaction in gusset
plates than a longer vehicle with an even larger load. The load case with the next largest
stress is the heaviest vehicle with a longer assumed total length. When comparing this
longer vehicle with the short heavy vehicle (both with the test dump truck in the second
lane), a 20% increase in the total live load on the bridge results in an increase in stress of
only 11%. This again indicates that the length of the vehicle can have an opposite effect
on the gusset plate stress. However, it does appear that the effect is not so great as to
cause concern about using the HS20 vehicle vs. anything much shorter than that. The
largest stresses are a result of the heaviest load, the Permit load. These stresses are more
than 50% larger than the long heavy vehicle. This is a good result since Permit vehicles
are used as critical case designs for actual bridges. This indicates that in designs of
bridges, the most critical live loading cases are generally being used.

79

The last part of the full truss FEM analysis was to compare the results of the model to the
FHWA Method of Sections approach. It is found that by an order of magnitude
comparison, the stresses from the Method of Sections appear to be close to the finite
element model results. This is especially true when considering the location of highest
stress in the plate model, which are almost exactly the same as the stresses in that
location from the hand calculations. Given these results, it can be concluded that the
Method of Sections is an appropriate way to quickly check a gusset plates capacity.
However, this is only the case if accurate loads are input into the calculations. In order to
find accurate load inputs, an in-depth approach needs to be taken, rather than running a
simple computer analysis model and taking the envelope forces.

In the end, the authors on this paper suggest that, although the method of sections appears
to be an adequate approach to gusset plate analysis, more detailed guidelines are needed
in this topic to assure that whichever approach is used to analyze a truss bridge gusset
plate will be done using accurate live loading to what is seen on the subject bridge and
accurate corresponding forces in the truss members connected to the gusset plate.
80

REFERENCES

AASHTO, Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 9th Edition, 1965.

AASHTO Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges, 2nd Edition, 2003 Interim, 2003.

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Customary U.S. Units, 5th Edition, with
2010 Interim Revisions, 2010.

Arora and Associates, P.C., Pre-Final Report Gusset Plate Analysis, 2008.

Arora and Associates, P.C., Final Report Gusset Plate Analysis, 2010.

Chakrabarti, S.K., Bjorhovde, R., Tests of Full Size Gusset Plate Connections.
Research Report, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Arizona, Tucson,
AZ, 1983.

Driver, R.G., Grondin, G.Y., Kulak, G.L., A Unified Approach to Design for Block
Shear. ECCS/ASCI Workshop, Connections in Steel Structures 5: Innovative Steel
Connections, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 34 June 2004.

Federal Highway Administration, Gusset Plate Guidance for Truss Bridges Available
from FHWA. Focus, n. FHWA-HRT-09-015, July 2009.

Fisher, J.W., Yen, B.T., Wang, D., Mann, J.E., Fatigue and Fracture Evaluation for
Rating Riveted Bridges. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report, n
302, December 1987.

Gee, K.W., Technical Advisory 5140.29 Load-carrying Capacity Considerations of
Gusset Plates in Non-load-path-redundant Steel Truss Bridges, Federal Highway
Administration, 2008.

Hao, S., I-35W Bridge Collapse. Journal of Bridge Engineering ASCE
September/October 2010, pp. 608- 614.

Hardash, S.G., Bjorhovde, R., Gusset Plate Design Utilizing Block-shear Concepts.
Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, The University of Arizona,
Tucson, AZ, 1984.

Higgins, C., Senturk, A.E., Turan, O.T., Comparison of Block-shear and Whitmore
Section Methods for Load Rating Existing Steel Truss Gusset Plate Connections.
Journal of Bridge Engineering, v 15, n 2, pp. 160-171, 2010.

81

Holt, R., Hartmann, J., Adequacy of the U10 & L11 Gusset Plate Designs for the
Minnesota Bridge No. 9340 (I-35 over the Mississippi River) Interim Report, Federal
Highway Administration, 2008.

Hu, S.Z., Cheng, J.J.R., Compressive Behaviour of Gusset Plate Connections.
Structural Engineering Report No. 153., Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Alberta, Edmonton, Alta., 1987.

Huns, B.B.S., Grondin, G.Y., Driver, R.G., Tension and Shear Block Failure of Bolted
Gusset Plates. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 33, No. 4 2006, 395-408.

Ibrahim, F., Load Rating Guidance and Examples for Bolted and Riveted Gusset Plates in
Truss Bridges, Federal Highway Administration, 2009.

Kitazawa, M., Kanaji, H., Ohminami, R., Furukawa, M., Design For Truss Panel Points
of the Higashi-Kobe Bridge. Doboku Gakkai Rombun-Hokokushu/Proceedings of the
Japan Society of Civil Engineers, n 489, pt 1-27, 1994, pp. 269-276.

Kulak, G.L., Grondin, G.Y., Block Shear Failure in Steel Members A Review of
Design Practice. Connections in Steel Structures IV: Steel Connections in the New
Millennium, 2225 October 2000, Roanoke, VA., American Institute of Steel
Construction, Chicago, IL, 2000.

Kulak, G.L., Grondin, G.Y. AISC LRFD Rules for Block ShearA Review. AISC
Engineering Journal, v. 38(4), pp. 199203, 2001.

Laman, J.A., Pechar, J.S., Boothby, T.E., Dynamic Load Allowance for Through-Truss
Bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering, v 4, n 4, pp. 231-241, November 1999.

Li, Z.X., Zhou, T.Q., Chan, T.H.T., Yu, Y., Multi-scale Numerical Analysis on
Dynamic Response and Local Damage in Long-span Bridges. Engineering Structures, v.
29, pp. 15071524, 2007.

Liao, M., Okazaki, T., Ballarini, R., Schultz, A.E., Galambos, T.V., Analysis of Critical
Gusset Plates in the Collapsed I-35W Bridge. Proceedings of the 2009 Structures
Congress - Don't Mess with Structural Engineers: Expanding Our Role, pp. 2159-2168,
2009.

Liao, M., Okazaki, T., Ballarini, R., Schultz, A.E., Galambos, T.V., Nonlinear Finite-
Element Analysis of Critical Gusset Plates in the I-35W Bridge in Minnesota. Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, pp. 59-69, January 2011.

Myers, M.M., Screening and analysis for the gusset plates of the Hawk Falls Bridge,
Pennsylvania, USA. Safety and Reliability of Bridge Structures, ed. K.M. Mahmoud,
CRC Press/Balkema, Leiden, The Netherlands, 2009.

82

Myers, M.M., Gusset Plate Screening and Analysis on the Hawk Falls Bridge. 2009
NSBA World Steel Bridge Symposium, San Antonio, TX, November 2009.

Myers, M.M., Nassif, H., Finite Element Analysis and Field Instrumentation of a
Pennsylvania Turnpike Bridge. NDE/NDT for Highways and Bridges: Structural
Materials Technology (SMT), August 2010.

Nassif, H., Davis, J.C., Suksawang, N., Aktas, K., Mohamed, A., Evaluation of Bridge
Deck Cracking Final Report, Rutgers University, 2007.

Nast, T.E., Grondin, G.Y., Cheng, J.J.R., Cyclic Behaviour of Stiffened Gusset Plate
Brace Member Assemblies. Structural Engineering Report 229, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta, 1999.

Rabinovitch, J.S., Cheng, J.J.R., Cyclic Behaviour of Steel Gusset Plate Connections.
Structural Engineering Report No. 191, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Alberta, Edmonton, Alta., 1993.

Rosenker, M.V., et al., Safety Recommendation H-08-1, National Transportation Safety
Board, 2008.

Salmon, C. G., Johnson, J. E., Steel Structures: Design and Behavior. Fourth Edition,
Harper Collins College Publishers, New York, 1996.

Simulia, Abaqus Analysis Users Manual, Dassault Systmes, 2010..

Simulia, Abaqus/CAE, http://www.simulia.com/products/abaqus_cae.html, Dassault
Systmes, 2011.

Walbridge, S.S., Grondin, G.Y., Cheng, J.J.R. An Analysis of the Cyclic Behaviour of
Steel Gusset Plate Connections. Structural Engineering Report No. 225, Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta., 1998.

Whitmore, R.E., Experimental Investigation of Stresses in Gusset Plates. Bulletin /
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Engineering Experiment Station, 1952.

Wright, F.G., Technical Advisory 5140.27 Immediate Inspection of Deck Truss Bridges
Containing Fracture Critical Members (FCM), Federal Highway Administration, 2007.

Yam, C.H.M., Cheng, J.J.R., Experimental Investigation of the Compressive Behaviour
of Gusset Plate Connections. Structural Engineering Report No. 194., Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta., 1993.

Yamamoto, K., Akiyama, N., Okumura, T., Elastic Analysis of Gusseted Truss Joints.
Journal of Structural Engineering, New York, N.Y., v 111, n 12, December 1985, pp.
2545-2564.

Gussete Plate Under Live Load

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Gussete Plate Under Live Load

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gussete Plate Under Live Load

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MODELING AND ANALYSIS OF STEEL GUSSET PLATES IN TRUSS

BRIDGES UNDER LIVE LOAD

You might also like