Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110291

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Multi-index distortion control of steel-concrete composite tub-girders T

considering interior cross-frame deformation
⁎
Ying-Jie Zhua, Xin Niea, Jia-Ji Wanga,b, , Mu-Xuan Taoc, Jian-Sheng Fana
a
Key Lab. of Civil Engineering Safety and Durability of China Education Ministry, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, TX, 77204, United States
c
Beijing Engineering Research Centre of Steel and Concrete Composite Structures, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Excessive distortion of the cross section may occur and induce significant distortional warping stresses when the
Distortion control steel-concrete composite trapezoidal box girders are subjected to eccentric loads. The most effective solution to
Multiple indices control distortion is to install sufficient internal cross-frames. However, current design methods generally omit
Deformable interior cross-frames the deformation of the cross-frames. In addition, most design guidelines limit the distortion control index to a
Steel-concrete composite trapezoidal box girder
specific value, which may result in quite conservative design. Therefore, this paper aims to propose a method for
with cantilever overhangs
Design formulas
distortion control of steel-concrete composite box-girders with deformable interior cross-frames considering
various distortion control indices and limit values. In accordance with current studies and design specifications,
three distortion control indices are selected for investigation in this research. Equations for the distortion of
composite trapezoidal box girders with cantilever overhangs are first derived based on the energy-variation
method. Accordingly, an efficient modeling strategy using the Beams on Elastic Foundation (BEF) analogy is
developed. Subsequently, extensive parametric analyses are conducted to obtain simplified design formulas of
the control indices, which well fit the numerical results. Therefore, the effective design methods for the cross-
frames to control distortion are proposed, where various indices and shear deformation of inner cross-frames are
considered. Analyses of bridge design examples demonstrate that the proposed method is both efficient and
universally applicable to provide appropriate number and size of cross-frames to control distortion of composite
tub-girders in practical design.

1. Introduction of the Beams on Elastic Foundation (BEF) analogy in the distortional

Due to the superb torsional stiffness, high load capacity, and re-
duced girder height, steel-concrete composite trapezoidal box (tub)
girders are widely used. When subjected to eccentric loads, the cross
section of the tub girder undergoes bending, torsion and distortion
(Fig. 1). As a result of the large torsional stiffness of the closed cross
section, the torsional warping stresses are usually relatively small,
while excessive distortion of the cross section may occur and induce
significant distortional warping stresses.
Considerable studies have been conducted on the distortion of the
box girders in the past decades. In some early studies, researchers
tended to rely on the solution of the differential equation for distortion
[1–3], which was complex and available only for constant cross section
properties. Subsequently, some researchers developed beam finite ele-
ments with distortional degrees of freedom [4–7]. Since the utilization
analysis was proposed by Wright et al. [8], many researchers have
studied distortion of the box girder bridges using plane-frame finite
element analysis. By using the computer programs, this method is ap-
plicable to girders with any type of cross-frame or diaphragm, various
types of loading and boundary conditions and variable cross section
properties provided that distortion equations are obtained. Xiang [9]
and Yoo et al. [10] derived distortion equations for trapezoidal steel
box girders with cantilever overhangs, and Yoo et al. [10] established a
corresponding procedure based on the concept of the BEF analogy using
two relatively simple computer programs. Liu [11] studied the influ-
ence of the spacing of diaphragms on the ratio of the distortional
warping stress to the bending stress in horizontally curved steel-con-
crete composite box girder bridges using the BEF analogy. Ren et al.
developed an initial parameter method to analyze the distortion of
simply supported [12] and cantilever [13] box girders considering the

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, TX, 77204, United States.
E-mail addresses: zhuyingjie@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn (Y.-J. Zhu), xinnie@tsinghua.edu.cn (X. Nie), jj-wang14@tsinghua.org.cn (J.-J. Wang),
taomuxuan@tsinghua.edu.cn (M.-X. Tao), fanjsh@tsinghua.edu.cn (J.-S. Fan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110291
Received 29 July 2019; Received in revised form 5 December 2019; Accepted 23 January 2020
Available online 29 February 2020
0141-0296/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y.-J. Zhu, et al.
Fig. 1. Cross section deformation under eccentric vertical loads.
shear deformation of inner diaphragms.
The most effective solution to control distortion is to install suffi-
cient internal cross-frames in the tub-girders [10,12,14–17]. The fab-
rication costs of internal cross-frames are generally higher than that of
other elements [4]. Moreover, redundant cross-frames increase the self-
weight of the superstructure, which imposes restrictions on the increase
of bridge spans, for example, and has a negative impact on control of
the long-term midspan deflection of large span continuous girder
bridges. Therefore, it is vitally important to determine appropriate
number and size of cross-frames.
Although some attempts have been made to solve the design pro-
blem of internal cross-frames [4–6,16,18], certain drawbacks remain
with these approaches. First, existing studies are mostly focused on box
girders composed of a single material; only a few considers steel-con-
crete composite box girders [11,19]. In particular, the distortion
equations for composite trapezoidal box girders with cantilever over-
hangs have not been clarified. Second, most studies were based on a
specific distortion control index and a fixed limiting value [4,6], how-
ever, different bridge design specifications generally adopts different
distortion control indices and limiting values [20–23]. Moreover, lim-
iting the distortion control index to a specific value may result in quite
conservative design [4,6]. Third, current design guidelines merely
specified the spacing of the cross-frames assuming that infinite-stiffness
solid diaphragms are adopted [20,23], which are not applicable to
girders with deformable truss type cross-frames. In view of the fact that
truss type cross-frames are widely applied and the stiffness of a truss
type cross-frame is much lower than that of a solid diaphragm, it is
essential to establish a design method considering effects of both spa-
cing and stiffness of internal cross-frames.
To fix the aforementioned issue, the primary purpose of this study is
to propose a method for distortion control of steel-concrete composite
tub-girders with deformable interior cross-frames considering various
control indices and limit values. In accordance with current studies and
design specifications, three distortion control indices are chosen for
consideration. Firstly, the theoretical treatment of the distortion of
composite trapezoidal box girders with cantilever overhangs based on
energy-variation method is presented. This is followed by a description
of the corresponding efficient modeling strategy using the BEF analogy.
2
Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110291
To investigate the effect of torsional warping stresses, elaborate finite
element models are established. Subsequently, extensive parametric
studies focusing on three distortion control indices are conducted, in-
cluding the following design parameters: the loading form, the
boundary conditions, the span length, the dimensions of the cross sec-
tion, and the stiffness and spacing of the internal cross-frames. Finally,
based on the distortion equations and numerical results, a multi-index
design method indicating adequate stiffness and spacing of internal
cross-frames for distortion control of composite tub-girders is proposed.
In this research, the cracking of concrete slab is neglected because the
crack width in the concrete bridge is generally controlled to be under
0.2 mm by existing design recommendations. Therefore, the influence
of the concrete cracking on the distortion behavior is deemed insig-
nificant.
2. Distortion control indices
Based on the fact that no unified distortion control index has been
adopted in the design, three typical control indices are investigated in
this study, to accommodate different design requirements:
(1) Distortion warping stress ratio Rd
R d = σdw / σb (1)
where σdw is the maximum distortion warping stress and σb is the
maximum vertical bending stress. This index reflects the relative extent
of the distortion and has been adopted by some researchers [5,6,16].
(2) Maximum distortion warping stress σdw, defined as the maximum
distortion warping stress of the whole span. In Japan, this index is
limited to 0.02–0.06 of the allowable stress of the steel in design
[24].
(3) Warping stress ratio Rw
Rw = σw / σb (2)
where σw is the maximum warping stress (including torsional warping
stress and distortion warping stress). The limitation of this index is 15%
under the vehicle load in China’s bridge design practice, and the
AASHTO specifications [20] mandates the designer to keep this index
Y.-J. Zhu, et al. Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110291

below 10% at the strength limit state of the girder. δv

1 ⎧ nE b3X 2 a (aX − c sin θ)2
= +
3. Equations for distortion of composite trapezoidal box girder 12Es ⎨
⎩ Ic Ib
with cantilever overhangs 2c 2 2
+ [b X + (aX − c sin θ)2 + bX (aX − c sin θ)] ⎫
Iw ⎬
⎭ (10)
As given in previous research [9,10], the equilibrium equation for
distortion of the box girder is a2c sin θ c 2 (2a + b) sin θ
Ib
+ Iw
X=
EID γd″ ″ + EIR γd = D nE b3 a3 2c (b2 + a2 + ab)
(3) + + (11)
Ic Ib Iw

where EID = distortional warping stiffness (kN·m ), γd = distortional

4
From the comparison of the expressions for the composite and the
angle (rad), EIR = stiffness of the cross section against distortion single (provided by Xiang [9]) material cross section, the concrete can
(kN·m/m), and D = distortion load (kN·m/m). Xiang [9] and Yoo et al. be transformed to the steel by applying different equivalent regulations
[10] derived the expressions of EID and EIR for single material cross in the calculations of EID and EIR, respectively. Specifically, when cal-
sections; the corresponding expressions for steel-concrete composite culating EID, the thickness of the concrete deck should be transformed
box girders are provided in this study. Due to use of the same energy- according to the elastic modulus ratio of the steel and the concrete,
variation method as that presented by Xiang [9], the derivation process namely
is omitted. Cross section dimensions are shown in Fig. 1.
With steel chosen as the basic material of the composite cross sec- tc* = tc/ nE (12)
tion, the distortional warping stiffness of the total composite cross
but for EIR, the moment of inertia should be transformed, namely
section is
Ic* = Ic/ nE (13)
EK 2 d 2 t
EID = s 4 ⎡ (b + d ) ⎛1 + ⎞ β 2 c + atb + 2ctw (β 2 − β + 1) ⎤
3 ⎢⎣ ⎝ b ⎠ nE ⎥
⎦ (4) Thereby, the equations for the distortion of a composite trapezoidal
box girder with cantilever overhangs are derived.
where Ec denotes the elastic modulus of the concrete, Es denotes the
elastic modulus of the steel, nE = Es/Ec. K4 and β are two constants 4. Finite element modeling
determined by the dimensions of the cross section.

cba2 sin θ The BEF analogy is quite efficient and is widely applicable to solve
K4 = the distortion of a box girder when combined with the plane-frame fi-
2[a2β + (2 + β ) ab + 2cb cos θ] (5)
nite element analysis [9–11]. The equations developed in Section 3
make it possible to apply this efficient and effective method to the
a2tb + ctw (2a + b)
β= distortion analysis of the composite trapezoidal box girder with canti-
(b + d)3tc
bnE
+ ctw (a + 2b) (6) lever overhangs. Therefore, the distortion warping stress ratio Rd and
the maximum distortion warping stress σdw can be investigated by
The stiffness of the composite cross section against distortion is plane-frame finite element models. To investigate the warping stress
ratio Rw, 3-D finite element models are developed as well.
1 ⎡ 2 nE b a 2c (K12 + K22 + K1 K2 ) ⎤ Models of 60 m span simply supported girder bridges and
EIR = K1 + K22 +
3Es ⎢
⎣ Ic Ib Iw ⎥
⎦ (7) 3 × 120 m continuous girder bridges are established, each provided
with solid diaphragms 5 mm thick and spaced longitudinally at 10 m, as
where Ic, Iw, and Ib are transverse moments of inertia of a unit length of illustrated in Fig. 2. The girders are loaded with eccentric distributed
the concrete deck, the steel web and the steel bottom flange in the load (q = 10.5 kN/m) on whole span, or an eccentric concentrated load
longitudinal direction, respectively. K1 and K2 are two constants, (P = 360 kN) in the middle of two adjacent cross-frames near midspan
cbX sin θ and the eccentricity is e = 6.51 m. Details of the two types of finite
K1 = − element models are as follows.
2δ v (8)

c sin θ 4.1. Plane-frame finite element model

K2 = −(aX − c sin θ)
2δ v (9)
The analogies between the variables in equations for the box girder
in which δv and X are two intermediate parameters [9] and corre- distortion and the BEF analogy are as shown in Table 1. The modeling
sponding expressions in the composite box girder are derived in this strategies for an efficient plane-frame finite element model developed
paper here are as follows:

Fig. 2. Geometry of the initial models in finite element analysis.

3
Y.-J. Zhu, et al. Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110291

Table 1 distributed vertical load (DDS) and that induced by the eccentric
Analogy between BEF and distortion. concentrated vertical load (DDC) are
BEF Distortion qeha
DDS =
EIy′ ′′′ + ky = q EID γd′ ′′′ + EIR γd = D 2A0 (18)
2
EI——bending rigidity (kN·m ) EID——distortional warping stiffness (kN·m )
4
Peha
k——foundation spring stiffness EIR——stiffness of the cross section against DDC =
2A0 (19)
(kN/m2) distortion (kN·m/m)
q——distributed load intensity D——distributed distortion load (kN·m/m) where q is the vertical load intensity; P is the concentrated load; e is the
(kN/m)
eccentricity of the vertical load; A0 is the enclosed area of the box.
y——vertical deflection (m) γd——distortion angle (rad)

(4) Distortion warping stress: In accordance with the analogy, the

(1) Element choice: beam elements are used to simulate the bridge
girder, while the elastic modulus of the material is set as that of the
basic material of the composite section, which is steel in this re-
search, and an arbitrary cross section profile can be chosen, pro-
vided that the moment of inertia is of the same numerical value as
the distortional warping stiffness of the actual girder. The rectangle
section is adopted here (Fig. 3).
(2) Boundary conditions: the boundary conditions are determined by
the warping constraint and the distortion constraint in the struc-
tural system. The solid diaphragms placed at the supports usually
possess large distortion stiffness to maintain the original shape of
the cross section. Therefore, the vertical degrees of freedom of the
nodes at the supports are constrained. As recommended by Yoo
et al. [10], the total distortion stiffness of a box girder between two
adjacent cross frames is commonly far lower than that of a single
normal cross-frame and can be neglected to improve modeling and
computational efficiency. Springs are placed at cross-frame loca-
tions to provide elastic vertical constraints, the stiffness of which is
determined by the stiffness of the cross-frame against distortion KD,
which was given by Nakai and Yoo [15] as:
For the K truss
Es Adia a2h2
KD = 3
2ldia (14)
For the X truss
Es Adia (a + b)2h2
KD = 3
2ldia (15)
For the solid diaphragm
Gs tD (a + b) h
KD =
2 (16)
For the frame type
24Es Iv
KD =
α0 h (17)
where Adia = cross sectional area of diagonal bracing; ldia = length of
diagonal bracing; Gs = shear modulus; tD = thickness of diaphragm; α0
and Iv are two parameters determined by the dimensions of the girder.
It is noteworthy that connection eccentricities may significantly reduce
the in-plane stiffness of the cross frames comprised of single-angle
members welded to a gusset plate, and formulas for correction factors
were proposed by Battistini et al. [14]. Boundary conditions of the
model are illustrated in Fig. 3.
(3) Distortion load: the distortion load induced by the eccentric
vertical displacement of the beam element represents the distortion
angle of the girder and the bending moment represents the warping
bimoment. Due to the relatively large width of the concrete deck,
the maximum distortional warping stress in the cross section
usually occurs at the bottom corner of the cross section, where the
distortional warping stress is
Bd
σdb = K4
ID (20)
where K4 is a constant determined by the dimensions of the cross sec-
tion (Eq. (5)); Bd is the warping bimoment; ID is the distortional
warping constant (Eq. (4)).
The steel is chosen as the basic material of the composite cross
section, and the modulus of elasticity and Poisson’s ratio are set at
206 GPa and 0.3, respectively.
4.2. 3-D finite element modeling
To investigate the warping stress ratio Rw, a general purpose finite
element program MSC.MARC version 2015 [25] is used to develop 3D
finite element models, in which concrete decks are modeled with eight-
node 3-D hexahedron solid elements with full integration and steel
plates are modeled with four-node 3-D quadrilateral thick shell ele-
ments. The materials of the models are assumed to remain linear elastic.
The modulus of elasticity and Poisson’s ratio are set at 206 GPa and 0.3
for the steel and 34.0 GPa and 0.2 for the concrete, respectively. The
solid diaphragm is adopted as representative of a cross-frame and the
effects of different cross-frame types can be obtained by calculating the
equivalent distortion stiffness, as given in Eqs. (14)–(17). To separate
the bending stress from the total stress, the vertical eccentric load is
decomposed as a symmetrical bending load and an antisymmetrical
torsional load, with the latter containing a pure torsion component and
a distortion component, as demonstrated in Fig. 1.
Appropriate mesh sizes are selected based on mesh sensitivity tests
to provide convergence results with high efficiency. In the case of
uniformly distributed load, the effect of the mesh size on the maximum
distortion warping stress σdw and the corresponding analysis time are as
shown in Fig. 4(a). The results provided by the plane-frame model using
the BEF analogy are illustrated in Fig. 4 as well. It can be observed that
the maximum distortion warping stress increases slightly with in-
creasing mesh density, while the analysis time increases significantly.
Furthermore, the results provided by the plane-frame models are basi-
cally identical to those given by the 3D finite element models. There-
fore, in order to reduce the computational time and to accommodate
changing the spacing of the cross-frames, an element mesh size of 1 m is
selected. The mesh discretization is shown in Fig. 5. However, in the
case of concentrated load, due to the significant stress concentration

Fig. 3. Plane-frame finite element model for distortion analysis.

4
Y.-J. Zhu, et al. Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110291

Fig. 4. Results of mesh sensitivity tests.

caused by the concentrated load, convergence results are hard to be Table 2

achieved in 3D finite element models, while the plane-frame model can Analysis parameters for three distortion control indices.
provide reliable results, as shown in Fig. 4(b). Therefore, the distortion Parameters Values
warping stress ratio Rd and the maximum distortion warping stress σdw
are investigated by plane-frame models for concentrated load condi- Diaphragm spacing SD (m) 4, 6, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 30
tions. The 3D finite element models are employed to investigate the Thickness of diaphragm td (mm) 0.4, 1, 2, 5, 10, 16, 20
Thickness of bottom flange tb (mm) 20, 30, 40, 60, 70, 80, 90
relative relationship of the Rd to the Rw, though the values are not Width of steel box opening b (m) 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
accepted. Girder height h (m) 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5, 5, 5.5, 6
The slip between the concrete deck and the steel top flange is not Thickness of web tw (mm) 12, 16, 20, 24, 30, 40, 60
considered in the model, and the connection of these two parts is si- Thickness of concrete deck tc (mm) 240, 300, 360, 420, 480, 540, 600
Middle span length Lm (m) 60, 80, 100, 120, 140
mulated by the share-node approach in MSC.MARC version 2015, as
Span length ratio λL 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 1
shown in Fig. 5.

5. Parametric analyses
The variations of the warping stress distribution with different
boundary conditions and loading forms are first analyzed to determine
the initial load conditions of the parametric analyses. Subsequently, the
effects of the span length, the dimensions of the cross section, and the
stiffness and spacing of the internal cross-frames are investigated to
determine the main parameters affecting the abovementioned three
distortion control indices. The parameters adopted in the analysis are
broadly selected within the range of usual values in actual practice and
are given in Table 2.
5.1. Boundary and loading conditions
The fully distributed vertical eccentric load is applied to the simply
supported girder bridges, whereas four loading conditions are con-
sidered in the continuous girder bridge: L1 to L4 represent the vertical
eccentric load distributed on all three spans, or only on the middle span,
or only on a side span, or on the middle span along with a side span,
respectively. The results are illustrated in Fig. 6(a), where σdb denotes
the distortion warping stress at the bottom corner of the cross section, L
is the span length, and the origin of the z-axis is at the support of the
corresponding span.
As can be seen from Fig. 6(a), the longitudinal distribution of the
distortion warping stress of the simply supported girder bridge is dif-
ferent from that of the continuous girder bridge, suggesting the need for
separate analysis of each type of boundary condition. Because the
maximum distortion warping stress occurs at the first interior support
of the continuous girder bridge, L1 (distributed vertical eccentric load
on all three spans) is selected to investigate the σdw. Likewise, as the

Fig. 5. 3D finite element model in MSC.MARC.

5
Y.-J. Zhu, et al. Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110291

Fig. 6. Influence of boundary and loading conditions on the distortion warping stress.

most unfavorable load condition, L2 (distributed vertical eccentric load 3.5

only on the middle spans) is selected to investigate the Rd.
In the case of concentrate load, the location of the concentrated load 3
can be represented by the distance from the load point to the nearest
cross-frame. In the case of SD = 10 m, the maximum distortion warping 2.5
stress induced by a concentrated load increases with increase of the
distance from the load point to the nearest cross-frame, as shown in 2
Fig. 6(b). The stronger the cross-frame, the larger the variation of the
maximum distortion warping stress. To consider the unfavorable con- 1.5
dition, the concentrated load is applied in the middle of two adjacent
1 Sd (m)
cross-frames when varying other parameters.
4
0.5 12
5.2. Stiffness and spacing of the cross-frames
20
0
The comprehensive impacts of the stiffness and the spacing of the 0 5 10 15 20
cross-frames on the control indices are shown in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8. Be- td (mm)
cause the cross-frames have little influence on the vertical bending
Fig. 8. Influence of spacing and stiffness of cross-frames on the distortion
stress, the variation tendency of the σdw is consistent with that of the Rd.
control indices (concentrated load).
It is noted that both the spacing and the stiffness of the cross-frames
have a major impact on the distortion. As can be seen from the figures,
for certain cross-frame spacing, the girder distortion decreases rapidly signs of these two types of stress are opposite, the sum of the distortion
at first and then remains stable with the increase of the stiffness of the warping stress and the torsional warping stress may increase with the
cross-frames. On the other hand, the girder distortion diminishes as the reduction of distortion.
cross-frame spacing decreases when the cross-frame stiffness remains
constant. It is noteworthy that when the cross-frame spacing is small, 5.3. Dimensions of the cross section
the Rw may increase a little with the increase in the stiffness of the
cross-frames, because under this circumstance, the distortional warping As the thickness of the bottom flange increases, the σdw decreases in
stress is at quite a low level. Thus, the influence of the torsional warping various cross-frame arrangements, as shown in Fig. 9(c) and Fig. 10(b).
stress cannot be ignored, especially near the support areas. Because the However, the decrease of the bending stress is more significant and thus

0.6 0.6
SD (m)
0.5 0.5
4
0.4 6 0.4
10
0.3 12 0.3
Rd

Rw

14
0.2 16 0.2
18
0.1 20 0.1
30
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
td (mm) td (mm)
(a) Rd (b) Rw
Fig. 7. Influence of spacing and stiffness of cross-frames on the distortion control indices (distributed load).

6
Y.-J. Zhu, et al. Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110291

Fig. 9. Influence of thickness of bottom flange on the distortion control indices (distributed load).

the Rd increases, as shown in Fig. 9(a) and (b) and Fig. 10(a). Because of
the effect of the torsional warping stress, the Rw shows various trends
with different cross-frame stiffness (Fig. 9(d)). However, it is noted that
the Rw is lower than the Rd in most cases.
When the box opening width increases, the vertical bending stress is
almost unchanged, whereas the distortion warping stress decreases
significantly (Fig. 11(c) and Fig. 12(b)). Thus, the Rd also decreases
(Fig. 11(a) and (b) and Fig. 12(a)). Likewise, the Rw shows a declining
trend with the increase in the box opening width (Fig. 11(d)).
Figs. 13 and 14 demonstrate that the σdw decreases while the Rd
remains almost unchanged with increases of the thickness of the web.
However, In the case of uniformly distributed loading, the Rw exhibits
complex and obvious variations. The Rw first decreases and then
increases with the increase in the thickness of the web, because the
torsional warping stress level is high when the thickness of the web is
small whereas the distortion warping stress is diminished by the cross-
frames with high stiffness. If the stiffness of the cross-frames and the
thickness of the web are both small, the torsional and distortion
warping stresses cancel each other, leading to the Rw being lower than
the Rd.
As shown in Figs. 15 and 16, an increase in the height of the girder
accompanies concomitant decrease of both vertical bending stress and
distortion warping stress. Thus the Rd remains essentially constant,
especially with high cross-frame stiffness. Also, the Rw changes slightly
with variation of girder height.
Figs. 17 and 18 illustrate that the thickness of the deck has little

Fig. 10. Influence of thickness of bottom flange on the distortion control indices (concentrated load).

7
Y.-J. Zhu, et al. Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110291

Fig. 11. Influence of width of box opening on the distortion control indices (distributed load).

effect on the control indices in both the distributed and concentrated
load conditions. Because the vertical bending stress decreases a little,
the Rd increases slightly with the increase in deck thickness.
5.4. Span length and span length ratio
Because the span length has little effect on the distortion warping
stress induced by the concentrated load, results under distributed load
condition are presented in this section. When the length of the middle
span is kept constant, the influence of the span length ratio λL (defined
as the ratio of the side and middle span length) on the Rd is shown in
Fig. 19(a) and (b). As shown in Fig. 19, with the increase in the span
length ratio, the Rd and the Rw both decrease due to the increase of the
vertical bending stress and the basically invariant distortion warping
stress.
When the span length ratio is unchanged, the Rd drops significantly
at first and then becomes stable with the increase in the span length,
whereas the σdw changes little with an increase in the span length
(Fig. 20(a) and (b)). The Rw also decreases, as shown in Fig. 20(c).
6. Formulas for the control indices and design guide
The results of the parametric analysis demonstrate the effects of the
parameters but are not applicable to actual practice. Thus, calculations
of the distortion control indices are further facilitated through extensive
regression studies using the numerical results. Accordingly, design

Fig. 12. Influence of width of box opening on the distortion control indices (concentrated load).

8
Y.-J. Zhu, et al. Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110291

Fig. 13. Influence of thickness of web on the distortion control indices (distributed load).

guidelines for the cross-frames are proposed and design examples are that of the cross-frames, and thus the EIR can be omitted. WD is adopted
given. This research is focused on establishing the stiffness and spacing to represent the anti-distortion characteristic of the cross section, which
requirements of the cross-frames based on the control indices of the is defined as:
distortion warping stress; other requirements such as the stability and
ID
strength of the cross-frames have been developed previously [26–29]. WD =
K4 (22)

6.1. Maximum distortion warping stress The variable λD reflecting the arrangement of the cross-frames is
defined as:
Through the theoretical analysis in Section 3, it can be understood
SD2
that the σdw is a function of the geometrical properties (EID, EIR, and λD =
K4), the spacing of the cross-frames SD, the stiffness of the cross-frames KD (23)
KD, and the distortion load DDS, namely: Thereby, by applying the equations derived in Section 3, the effects
σdw = f1 (EID, EIR , K 4, SD, KD, DDS) (21) of the dimensions of the cross section, stiffness and spacing of the cross-
frames can be reflected by two key parameters, WD and λD, which is
Generally, the distortion stiffness of the box girder is far less than helpful for deriving more reliable regression formulas. Therefore, Eq.

Fig. 14. Influence of thickness of web on the distortion control indices (concentrated load).

9
Y.-J. Zhu, et al. Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110291

Fig. 15. Influence of girder height on the distortion control indices (distributed load).

0.421 0.16
(21) can be simplified as: λ DDS WD0 ⎛ EID ⎞
σdwd = 0.515σdw0 ⎛ D ⎞
⎜ ⎟ · · · ⎜ ⎟

σdw = f2 (EID, WD, λD, DDS) (24) ⎝ λD0 ⎠ DDS0 WD ⎝ E0 ID0 ⎠ (26)

Based on the results of the parametric analysis, the following for- ah

DDS = φ′ ∑ qi ei
mulas are proposed for calculating the maximum distortion warping 2A0 (27)
stress: In the case of concentrated load,
In the case of uniformly distributed load (continuous girder
0.12 0.2
bridges), λ DDC WD0 ⎛ EID ⎞
σdwc = 2.5436σdw0·⎛ D ⎞
⎜ ⎟ · · · ⎜ ⎟

0.54 ⎝ λD0 ⎠ DDC0 WD ⎝ E0 ID0 ⎠ (28)

λ DDS WD0 EID
σdwd = 0.85σdw0·⎛ D ⎞
⎜ ⎟ · · ·
λ
⎝ D0 ⎠ DDS0 WD E0 ID0 (25) ah
DDC = φ′ ∑ Pi ei
2A0 (29)
In the case of uniformly distributed load (simply supported girder
−8 −1
bridges), where σdw0 = 1 MPa, λD0 = 1.6510 × 10 m·N , DDS0 = 28.972

Fig. 16. Influence of girder height on the distortion control indices (concentrated load).

10
Y.-J. Zhu, et al.
Fig. 17. Influence of deck thickness on the distortion control indices (distributed load).
kN·m/m, DDC0 = 993.3 kN·m, WD0 = 1.1019 m4, E0 = 2.05 × 108 kN/
m2, ID0 = 6.2824 m6, E is the elastic modulus of the basic material of
the composite girder (kN/m2), φ' is the multiple lane reduction factor,
qi is the intensity of the lane load (kN/m), Pi is the concentrated load
(kN), ei is the eccentricity of the corresponding lane load (m). For the
girder with variable cross sections, the adoption of unfavorable sizes is
suggested, which are the lowest thickness of the bottom flange and web
and the lowest girder height, in accordance with the results of the
parametric analysis. Large numbers of numerical results obtained from
parametric analysis are compared with the predictions using the pro-
posed formulas, with the results shown in Fig. 21. It can be seen that the
formulas accurately predict the maximum distortion warping stress.
Once the formulas of the maximum distortion warping stress have
Fig. 18. Influence of deck thickness on the distortion control indices (concentrated load).
11
Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110291
been derived, the requirements for the cross-frames can be obtained.
Because λD involves two parameters, spacing and stiffness of the cross-
frames, a reasonable spacing needs to be selected first. The Chinese
Specifications for the Design of Highway Steel Bridges [24] suggests
that the cross-frame spacing can be determined by Eq. (30): (in units of
m)
6 L ⩽ 50
SD ⩽ ⎧
⎨
⎩ min(0.14L − 1, 20) L > 50 (30)
Eq. (30) is applicable to steel box girder bridges of which the span
length is no greater than 100 m, whereas the applicable span length of
formulas proposed in this paper reaches 140 m. In view of security and
reliability, the authors suggest that the cross-frame spacing should not
Y.-J. Zhu, et al. Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110291

Fig. 19. Influence of span length ratio on the distortion control indices.

exceed 16 m in straight bridges as follows: (in units of m) expression of the distortion warping stress ratio is:

6 L ⩽ 50 σdw
SD ⩽ ⎧ Rd = = f4 (EID, λW , λD, L, λL , λP )
⎨ min(0.14L − 1, 16) 50 < L ⩽ 140 σb (33)
⎩ (31)
where λp and λW are parameters that represent the loading ratio and the
In accordance with the limit value of the maximum distortion
section modulus ratio, respectively:
warping stress and the cross-frame stiffness, the cross-frame spacing can
be further adjusted. DDS ah ∑ qi ei
λP = = ·
P 2A0 ∑ qi (34)
6.2. Distortion warping stress ratio Rd
W
λW =
Besides the distortion warping stress, the distortion warping stress WD (35)
ratio also takes the effect of the vertical bending stress into account, where qi is the intensity of the lane load, ei is the eccentricity of the
while the maximum vertical bending stress σb can be described as: corresponding lane load, WD is the anti-distortion characteristic of the
σb = f3 (W , L, λL , P ) (32) cross section (Eq. (22)). In accordance with the parametric analysis,
formulas for the distortion warping stress ratio are proposed:
where W is the section modulus, P is the vertical load. Therefore, the In the case of uniformly distributed load (continuous girder

Fig. 20. Influence of middle span length on the distortion control indices.

12
Y.-J. Zhu, et al. Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110291

Fig. 21. Accuracy of formula for calculating maximum distortion warping stress.

bridges), increase significantly due to superimposed effect while the maximum

0.535 distortion warping stress is mainly affected by the heaviest load.
λ λW λP EID 2 L 2
R dd = 0.134 ⎛ D ⎞
⎜ ⎟ · · · · ·⎛ 01 ⎞ Therefore, the Rd of the girder under multiple concentrated loads is
⎝ λD0 ⎠ λW0 λP0 E0 ID0 1 + λL ⎝ L ⎠ (36) usually lower than that given by Eq. (38) which is based on one hea-
In the case of uniformly distributed load (simply supported girder viest concentrated load.
bridges),
0.421 0.16
λ λW λP L02 2 ⎛ EID ⎞ 6.3. Warping stress ratio Rw
R dd = 0.195 ⎛ D ⎞
⎜ ⎟ · · ·⎛ ⎞ · ⎜ ⎟

⎝ λD0 ⎠ λW0 λP0 ⎝ L ⎠ ⎝ E0 ID0 ⎠ (37)

Due to the superposition of the torsional and distortion warping
In the case of concentrated load, stresses, it is difficult to find a simple and accurate expression to de-
λ
0.12
λPC λW ⎛ EID ⎞
0.2
2 L 2 scribe the warping stress ratio. However, it can be limited to a certain
R dc = 0.7879·⎛ D ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ · · ·⎜ ⎟ · ·⎛ 01 ⎞ scope in practice. From the abovementioned parametric analysis, it is
⎝ λD0 ⎠ λPC0 λW0 ⎝ E0 ID0 ⎠ 1 + λL ⎝ L ⎠ (38)
observed that in most cases, the warping stress ratios are close to the
ah ∑ Pi ei distortion warping stress ratios. Moreover, the load eccentricities ap-
λPC = plied in the numerical examples are relatively large. Thus, the relation
2A0 ∑ Pi (39)
of the warping stress ratio to the distortion warping stress ratio is in-
−1
where λW0 = 1.6246 m , λP0 = 2.759 m, λPC0 = 2.759 m, vestigated based on the parametric analysis, as shown in Fig. 23. In the
L01 = 120 m, L02 = 60 m, L is the main span length (m); the meanings case of distributed load, if the distortion warping stress ratios are
of other parameters refer to Eqs. (25) and (26). For girders with vari- greater than 15%, the warping stress ratios are generally lower than the
able cross sections, it is suggested that the greatest thickness of the distortion warping stress ratios, because the distortion and torsional
bottom flange, the smallest thickness of the web, and the greatest girder warping stresses are opposite in signs. In these cases, therefore, it is
height be adopted, in accordance with the results of the parametric conservative to control the warping stress ratio through the distortion
analysis. The accuracy of the formulas is illustrated in Fig. 22, in which warping stress ratio. However, if the distortion warping stress ratios are
it is indicated that the distortion warping stress ratios obtained by the below 15%, the warping stress ratios may exceed the distortion warping
formulas given in Eqs. (36)–(38) correlate well with the numerical re- stress ratios, but most are still less than 15%. Consequently, designers
sults. can focus solely on critical cases in which the distortion warping stress
It should be noted that when multiple concentrated loads in the ratios are below 15% but the warping stress ratios are beyond 15%. In
longitudinal direction are applied on the girder, the bending stress will the case of concentrated load, the Rw is always lower than the Rd, as

Fig. 22. Accuracy of formula for calculating distortion warping stress ratio.

13
Y.-J. Zhu, et al. Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110291

Fig. 23. Relation of distortion warping stress ratio and warping stress ratio.

1.852
shown in Fig. 23(b), thus it is conservative to control the warping stress σ* D W E0 ID0 ⎞
ratio through the distortion warping stress ratio. λD ⩽ 1.351λD0 ⎜⎛ dw · DS0 D · ⎟ = 9.991 × 10−8 m·N−1
σ D W
⎝ dw0 DS D0 EID ⎠
Through analysis of the data, it can be found that critical cases have
the following characteristics: the thickness of the web is small (12 mm),
or the thickness of the bottom flange is large (80 mm), or the total (4) Requirement for the internal cross-frames (concentrated vehicle
girder height is large (6.2 m), along with large stiffness and small load):
spacing of cross-frames. Therefore, when the box girder has the * 0.2 8.333
σdw DDC0 WD ⎛ E0 ID0 ⎞ ⎤
abovementioned characteristics, it is unreasonable to install too many λD ⩽ λD0 ⎡
⎢0.393 σdw0 · DDC WD0 · EID
⎜ ⎟
⎥ = 9.330 × 10−7 m·N−1
cross-frames to control the warping stress ratio. Under this circum- ⎣ ⎝ ⎠ ⎦
stance, it is suggested to adopt an appropriate number and stiffness of
cross-frames and to appropriately reduce the allowable stress. (5) Choose a proper spacing of the cross-frames:

6.4. Design examples SD ⩽ 0.14L − 1 m = 14.4 m ⩽ 16 m , SD is selected as 10 m.

Taking the non-navigational bridge of the Dalian Bay Bridge, the (6) Then the stiffness of the cross-frames KD should be
non-navigational bridge of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, and
the Jinan-Qingdao high-speed highway overpass as examples, this SD2 100
KD ⩾ = N·m = 1.0009 × 109 N·m
section shows the cross-frame design recommendations based on the λD 9.991 × 10−8
proposed design method. The design parameters of the bridges are
listed in Table 3. The limit values of the distortion control indices
(b) Controlled by Rd∗
adopted in the examples are 7 MPa for the maximum distortion warping
∗ (1) Determine the critical cross section characteristics: ID = 5.729 m6;
stress σdw , 0.15 for the distortion warping stress ratio Rd∗ under the
WD = 0.995 m4;
distributed eccentric lane load and 0.3 for the distortion warping stress 6.5 + 3.4 + 0.3 - 2.8 6.4
(2) λP = λPC = 4 6.4 + 8.7
= 0.784 m
ratio under the concentrated eccentric vehicle load. The load value is in
(3) Requirement for the internal cross-frames (distributed lane load):
accordance with Chinese specification JTGD64-2015 [24].
To clarify the design flow, sample calculations for the requirements 2 1.869
λP0 λW0 E0 ID0 1 + λL ⎛ L ⎞ ⎤
of cross frames in the non-navigational bridge of Dalian Bay Bridge are λD ⩽ λD0 ⎡ *
⎢Rd · 0.134λP λW · EID · 2 · L01 ⎥
⎜ ⎟ = 1.4989
shown below. ⎣ ⎝ ⎠⎦
× 10−7 m·N−1
∗
(a) Controlled by σdw
(1) Determine the critical cross section characteristics: (4) Requirement for the internal cross-frames (concentrated vehicle
ID = 4.146 m6; WD = 0.708 m4; load):
6.4
(2) DDS = 17 × (6.5 + 3.4) × 1.0 × 6.4 + 8.7 = 71.33 kN·m/m
6.4 0.2 2 8.333
DDC = 280 × (6.5 + 3.4) × 1.0 × 6.4 + 8.7 = 1174.89 kN·m * λPC0 λW0 ⎛ E0 ID0 ⎞ 1 + λL ⎛ L ⎞ ⎤
λD ⩽ λD0 ⎡
⎢1.2692·Rd · λPC λW · EID
⎜ ⎟· · ⎥
⎜ ⎟ = 3.0647
(3) Requirement for the internal cross-frames (distributed lane ⎣ ⎝ ⎠ 2 ⎝ L01 ⎠ ⎦
load):
× 10−8 m·N−1

Table 3
Parameters in the design examples.
Project index b/m a/m h/m d/m θ/rad tw/m tb/m tc/m L/m λL

Non-navigational bridge of Dalian Bay Bridge σdw 8.7 6.4 4.7 8.3 1.33 0.018 0.028 0.36 110 1
Rd 8.7 6.4 4.7 8.3 1.33 0.018 0.050 0.36 110 1
Non-navigational bridge of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge σdw 9.3 6.7 4.2 7.0 1.27 0.018 0.028 0.36 85 1
Rd 9.3 6.7 4.2 7.0 1.27 0.018 0.044 0.36 85 1
Jinan-Qingdao high-speed highway overpass σdw 5.4 5.4 2.6 3.8 1.57 0.024 0.032 0.32 96 0.6875
Rd 5.4 5.4 5.6 3.8 1.57 0.024 0.040 0.32 96 0.6875

14
Y.-J. Zhu, et al. Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110291

Table 4
Comparison of the cross-frames design.
Project Original design Suggested σdw control Rd control Design provisions for SD(m)

6 6
type KD SD type KD (10 kN × m) SD KD (10 kN × m) SD Hanshin [21] AASHTO [20] JTGD64-
(106 kN × m) 2015 [24]
(m) (m) (m)

Non-navigational bridge of Dalian K 2.775 5.1 K 1.001 10 1.175 6 ≤13 ≤12 ≤14.4
Bay Bridge
Non-navigational bridge of Hong K 5.79 4 K 0.906 10 13.34 6 ≤9.5 ≤12 ≤10.9
Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge
Jinan-Qingdao high-speed highway solid 17.75 4 X 2.98 10 2.79 6 ≤11.04 ≤12 ≤12.44
overpass

(5) Choose a proper spacing of the cross-frames:
SD ⩽ 0.14L − 1 m = 14.4 m ⩽ 16 m , SD is selected as 6 m.
(6) Then the stiffness of the cross-frames KD should be
SD2 36
KD ⩾ = N·m = 1.1747 × 109N·m
λD 3.0647 × 10−8
The original and proposed designs of the cross-frames are compared
in Table 4. It is indicated that most of the original designs meet the
requirements for the cross-frames in controlling the maximum distor-
tion warping stress and the distortion warping stress ratio, but tend to
be on the conservative side, especially when solid diaphragms are used,
the stiffness of which is far greater than is actually needed. However,
due to the relatively small span length of the Non-navigational bridge of
Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, the distortion warping stress ratio
under the concentrated load tends to be quite significant and larger
stiffness of the cross-frame is required to control this index. Design
provisions for SD provided by some design specifications are also de-
monstrated in Table 4; however, only the spacing of the cross-frames is
stipulated, and the provisions are so general that they cannot lead to
safe and economic design practices.
It can be seen that the proposed design method is both efficient and
universally applicable in distortion control of composite tub-girders,
indicating appropriate number and size of internal cross-frames.
Moreover, the spacing of the cross-frames is suggested to be appro-
priately increased and the truss types are recommended for the internal
cross-frames, especially in the large span bridges to reduce self-weight,
save costs, and help to control long-term deflection.
the thickness of the concrete deck by dividing it by the elastic
modulus ratio of steel to concrete, and the stiffness of the cross
section against distortion can be derived by transforming the mo-
ment of inertia of the concrete deck according to the modulus ratio.
Based on the derived equations, efficient plane-frame model can be
established for distortion analysis of this type of girder by using the
BEF analogy.
(2) A comprehensive parametric study reveals that under eccentric
loads, the maximum distortion warping stress is primarily influ-
enced by the dimensions of the cross section and the stiffness and
spacing of the internal cross-frames. Besides these parameters, the
distortion warping stress ratio is also influenced by the span length,
the span length ratio, and the load eccentricity. The warping stress
ratio is also influenced by these parameters, but no universal reg-
ularity is found. It is noteworthy that these parameters affect the
distortion control indices of simply supported and continuous gir-
ders differently under uniformly distributed loads.
(3) The proposed formulas for the maximum distortion warping stress
and the distortion warping stress ratio on the basis of the para-
metric study correlate well with the numerical results. Accordingly,
quantitative design methods indicating adequate stiffness and spa-
cing of internal cross-frames for various distortion control indices
and limit values are obtained. In addition, regarding control of the
warping stress ratio, suggestions are provided based on investiga-
tion of the relation of the warping stress ratio to the distortion
warping stress ratio. Design examples indicate that the proposed
method is both efficient and universally applicable to provide ap-
propriate number and size of cross-frames to control distortion of
composite tub-girders in practical situations.

7. Conclusions
This paper investigates the distortion control method for composite
trapezoidal box girder bridges with cantilever overhangs, where various
indices and shear deformation of inner cross-frames are considered.
Several new equations are developed to improve the distortion theory
of this type of girder. Parametric analyses are performed on some re-
presentative bridge models. Based on the distortion equations and nu-
merical results, formulas for the distortion control indices and effective
design methods for the cross-frames are proposed. The following con-
clusions are drawn within the limitations of the research presented in
this paper:
This research neglects the concrete slab cracking and interface slip
between concrete and steel, which may induce influence on the dis-
tortion results if significant cracking or interface slip exists under ulti-
mate load.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements

(1) Based on the energy-variation method, equations for the distortion The writers gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided
of composite trapezoidal box girders with cantilever overhangs are by the National Key Research Program of China (Grant No.
derived. Compared with steel box girders, the distortional warping 2018YFC0705704) and the Key Research Program of China Railway
stiffness of composite box girders can be obtained by transforming Corp. (Grant No. K2018G018).

Appendix A. Notation

The following symbols are used in this paper:

15
Y.-J. Zhu, et al. Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110291

Symbol Description
a width of steel bottom flange
A0 enclosed area of the box
Adia cross sectional area of diagonal bracing
b width of steel box opening
Bd warping bimoment
c height of steel web
d total cantilever length
D distortion load
DDC, DDS distortion loads induced by eccentric concentrated vertical load and eccentric distributed vertical load, respectively
e eccentricity of the load
E modulus of elasticity (of basic material of the composite girder)
Ec, Es elastic modulus of the concrete and steel, respectively
EID distortional warping stiffness
EIR stiffness of the cross section against distortion
Gs shear modulus
h girder height
I moments of inertia of the beam on elastic foundation
Ic, Iw, Ib transverse moments of inertia of a unit length of the concrete deck, the steel web and the steel bottom flange in the longitudinal direction, respectively
Ic* equivalent transverse moments of inertia of the concrete deck
k foundation spring stiffness
K1, K2, K4 cross section constant
KD stiffness of the cross-frame against distortion
L span length
ldia length of diagonal bracing
Lm middle span length
nE modulus ratio (=Es/Ec)
P vertical load
q vertical load intensity
Rd distortion warping stress ratio (defined as the ratio of the maximum distortion warping stress to the maximum vertical bending stress)
Rd* limit value of distortion warping stress ratio
Rdc, Rdd distortion warping stress ratios induced by eccentric concentrated vertical load and eccentric distributed vertical load, respectively
Rw warping stress ratio (defined as the ratio of the sum of the distortion warping stress and the torsional warping stress to the vertical bending stress)
SD diaphragm spacing
tb thickness of bottom flange
tc thickness of concrete deck
tc* equivalent thickness of concrete deck
tD thickness of diaphragm
tw thickness of web
W section modulus
WD parameter represent the anti-distortion characteristic of the cross section
y vertical deflection of the beam on elastic foundation
β cross section constant
γd distortional angle
θ angle between the web and concrete deck
λD parameter reflects the arrangement of the cross-frames (=SD2/KD)
λL span length ratio (the ratio of the side and middle span length)
λp, λpc, λW parameters that represent the loading ratios and the section modulus ratio, respectively
σb maximum vertical bending stress
σdb distortional warping stress at the bottom corner of the cross section
σdw maximum distortion warping stress
σdw* limit value of maximum distortion warping stress
σdwc, σdwd maximum distortion warping stresses induced by eccentric concentrated vertical load and eccentric distributed vertical load, respectively
σtb torsional warping stress at the bottom corner of the cross section
φ' multiple lane reduction factor

References
[1] Dabrowski R. Curved thin-walled girders theory and analysis. London, England:
Cement and Concrete Association; 1968.
[2] Dabrowski R. Curved thin-walled girders, translated version from the German
Edition (Springer-Verlag, 1968) by Amerongen. London, UK: Cement and Concrete
Association; 1972.
[3] Heins CP, Hall DH. Designer’s guide to steel box-girder bridges. Bethlehem, PA:
Bethlehem Steel Corporation; 1981.
[4] Park NH, Lim NH, Kang YJ. A consideration on intermediate diaphragm spacing in
steel box girder bridges with a doubly symmetric section. Eng Struct
2003;25(13):1665–74.
[5] Park NH, Choi YJ, Kang YJ. Spacing of intermediate diaphragms in horizontally
curved steel box girder bridges. Finite Elem Anal Des 2005;41(9–10):925–43.
[6] Park NH, Yoon KY, Cho SK, Kang YJ. Effective distortional stiffness ratio and spa-
cing of intermediate diaphragm in steel box girder bridges. Int J Steel Struct
2004;4:93–102.
[7] Kermani B, Waldron P. Analysis of continuous box girder bridges including the
effects of distortion. Comput Struct 1993;47(3):427–40.
[8] Wright RN, Abdel-Samad SR, Robinson AR. BEF analogy for analysis of box girders.
J Struct Div 1968;94(7):1719–43.
[9] Xiang HF. Advanced theory of bridge structures, 2nd ed. China Communication
Press; 2013 [in Chinese].
[10] Yoo CH, Kang J, Kim K. Stresses due to distortion on horizontally curved tub-gir-
ders. Eng Struct 2015;87:70–85.
[11] Liu YL. Research on bending-torsion mechanism and diaphragm effect of steel-
concrete curve composite beams. Dissertation. China: Shijiazhuang Tiedao
University; 2015 [in Chinese].
[12] Ren YZ, Cheng WM, Wang YQ, Chen QR, Wang B. Distortional analysis of simply
supported box girders with inner diaphragms considering shear deformation of
diaphragms using initial parameter method. Eng Struct 2017;145:44–59.
[13] Ren YZ, Cheng WM, Wang YQ, Wang B. Analysis of the distortion of cantilever box
girder with inner flexible diaphragms using initial parameter method. Thin Wall
Struct 2017;117:140–54.
[14] Battistini AD, Wang WH, Helwig TA, Engelhardt MD, Frank KH. Stiffness behavior
of cross frames in steel bridge systems. J Bridge Eng 2016;21(6):04016024.
[15] Nakai H, Yoo CH. Analysis and design of curved steel bridges. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill Book Company; 1988.
[16] Lebet JP, Hirt MA. Steel bridges: conceptual and structural design of steel and steel-
concrete composite bridges. Lausanne, Switzerland: EPFL Press; 2013.
[17] Zhang H, Desroches R, Yang ZJ, Liu SZ. Experimental and analytical studies on a
streamlined steel box girder. J Constr Steel Res 2010;66(7):906–14.
[18] Zhang L. Influences of diaphragm plate and geometric characteristics on distortion

16
Y.-J. Zhu, et al.
effect of steel box girder. J Railway Eng Soc 2013;8:68–73. [in Chinese].
[19] Tsiptsis IN, Sapountzakis EJ. Generalized warping and distortional analysis of
curved beams with isogeometric methods. Comput Struct 2017;191:33–50. [25]
[20] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications, 7th ed. Washington, DC, US; 2015. [26]
[21] Hanshin Expressway Public Corporation. Guidelines for the design of horizontally
curved girder bridges (draft). Osaka, Japan: Hanshin Expressway Public
Corporation and Steel Struct Study Com; 1988 [in Japanese]. [27]
[22] British Standards Institute. BS5400: Parts 3, British standard for the design of steel,
concrete and composite bridges. London, UK; 2000. [28]
[23] Kuhlmann U, Braun B, Feldmann M, Naumes J, Martin PO, Galea Y, et al. COMBRI
design manual. Stuttgart, Germany: University of Stuttgart; 2008. [29]
[24] Ministry of Transport of the People's Republic of China. Specifications for design of
17
Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110291
highway steel bridges. JTGD64-2015. Beijing: China Communications Press; 2015
[in Chinese].
MSC. Marc Version 2015. MSC. Software Corp., Santa Ana, CA; 2015 [Computer
software].
Ashiquzzaman MD, Calvo CM, Hui L, Ibrahim A, Lindquist W, Hindi R. Effectiveness
of different bracing systems to prevent exterior girder rotation during bridge deck
construction. Eng Struct 2017;142:272–89.
Helwig T, Yura J, Herman R, Williamson EB, Li D. Design guidelines for steel tra-
pezoidal box girder systems. FHWA 2007. (No. FHWA/TX-07/0-4307-1).
Fan Z, Helwig T. Brace forces due to box girder distortion. J Struct Eng
2002;128(6):710–8.
Kim K, Yoo CH. Effects of external bracing on horizontally curved box girder
bridges during construction. Eng Struct 2006;28(12):1650–7.