Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model

Outline
1 Description 4
1.1 Bridge Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2 Modeling Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2 Introduction 6
2.1 Normative Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.1 Permanent Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.2 Traffic Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3 Combination of actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4 Average Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3 Finite Element Model 13
3.1 Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1.1 Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1.2 Composed Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.1.3 Reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.1.4 Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.2 Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.2.1 Safety Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.2.2 Concrete Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.2.3 Reinforcements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.2.4 Composed Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.3 Boundary Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.4 Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.4.1 Combination of actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.4.2 Permanent Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.4.3 Traffic Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.4.4 Traffic Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.5 Shape Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.6 Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.7 Mesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4 Checking Design Analysis 48
4.1 Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.1.1 Average Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.1.2 Shift Moments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.1.3 Normative Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.1.4 Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.2.1 Ultimate Limit State - Model Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.2.2 Ultimate Limit State - Fundamental6-10A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 2/64

 4.2.3 Ultimate limit state - Fundamental6-10B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.2.4 Normative Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Appendix A Additional Information 63

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 3/64

1 Description
1.1 Bridge Characteristics
In this example we perform a design analysis of a bridge. The bridge has two spans, each with 11 m long. The total length is 22 m and the width is 12 m. The geometry of the bridge is
illustrated in Figure 1.
The bridge is a skew plate with support beams and the thickness of the deck varies linearly over the span. The height is 1.2 m thick at the support beams and 0.6 m thick at mid span. The
width of the Support beam1 and Support beam3 is of 1000 mm and of Support beam2 is of 800 mm.
On both sides of the bridge, we have an edge load of 1 m width. The carriage way width is of 10 m as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 1: Dimensions of the bridge Figure 2: Width of the bridge

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 4/64

1.2 Modeling Approach

We have the following modeling approach:

• create a 3D model with volume elements

– composed surface elements are used to calculate the required distributed forces and moments in the design analysis
• run a design analysis to calculate the worst case scenario from all load combinations, including the traffic load
– we use the Normative Loading option
• for normative loading we only have to model all permanent and traffic loads as separate load cases
– in design analysis all load combinations and envelopes are automatically created
• run only the Ultimate Limit State (and toggle of the Serviceability Limit State)
• create material and load safety factor for ULS
• use quadrilateral force loads for modeling distributed loads on the bridge independently of the mesh
• in design analysis the moments and shear capacity are calculated based on the Eurocode
• unity checks for both moments and shear forces are presented in contour plots to check the resistance of the bridge
• use Eurocode equation 6-10A en 6-10B for ULS to check if the bridge is well designed

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 5/64

2 Introduction
2.1 Normative Loading
In this tutorial we apply permanent load and traffic loads on the bridge according to Eurocode 2. We use the option Normative loading in DianaIE which is part of the Checking Design
application. Normative loading automatically calculates all possible load combinations, envelopes, etc., to get te worst load case scenario which results in the extreme values for the shear
forces and reinforcement moments.
For normative loading the following is required:

• the action type of every load set

– a load set can be either a permanent, variable, unique or traffic action type
• the combination factors ψ0 , ψ1 and ψ2 are required for variable loads
– this is defined per load set where also the action type is set
• the combination of actions
– the partial load factors per action type are defined here and the type of combination of actions, SLS or ULS, with its corresponding parameters

In this tutorial we run only the Ultimate Limit State. We use the combination of actions Fundamental of the Eurocode with both equations 6-10A and 6-10B.
The steps within normative loading, creating load combinations and envelopes, depends on the action type and combination of actions. The effect per load case per action type will be
calculated and, finally, all effects of all load cases will be combined to get these extreme results.

Fcritical = FG critical + FQ critical + FQu critical + Ftraf f ic critical

in which:

FG critical = critical load combination due to all permanent load cases

FQ critical = critical load combination due to all variable load cases, dominant and secondary
FQu critical = critical load combination due to unique load cases
Ftraf f ic critical = critical load combination due to traffic load

The combination factors ψ0 , ψ1 and ψ2 are automatically applied to the load sets depending on the combination of actions and action type. In this tutorial we run a ULS calculation so only
ψ0 is used for all action types. Also, the partial load factor γ is automatically considered. The value of these partial load factors depend on the action type and are defined in the combination
of action Section 2.3.

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 6/64

2.2 Loads

2.2.1 Permanent Load

We consider the following permanent loads on the bridge:

• self-weight
• edge load on both sides of the bridge: a distributed load of 6.5 kN/m2
• asphalt load: there is a asphalt layer of 50 mm thick which is replaced by an uniform distributed load

We model the self-weight as a global load in DianaIE as shown in Figure 71. The edge load and asphalt load are defined by a quadrilateral force load [Fig. 73]. A quadrilateral force load
defines a force that is distributed over a quadrilateral surface. This surface is defined in Diana as a separate geometry shape. It is not necessary to imprint this sheet on the 3D geometry of
the bridge. This makes the quadrilateral force load independent of the mesh.

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 7/64

2.2.2 Traffic Load

We apply the traffic load according to Eurocode 2. The number of lanes are dependent on the carriage way width [Fig. 3]. In this tutorial the carriage way width is equal to 10.5 m, so we
should have 3 lanes, each of 3 m width.
In Eurocode 2 there are two types of traffic loads [Fig. 4]:

• TS system, tandem system which is a mobile load

• UDL system which is a uniform distributed load

As given in Figure 4 the UDL is for all lanes and remaining area equal to 2.5 kN/ m2 , except for lane with the heaviest tandem system TS of 300 kN. That is why, in this tutorial, we divide
the UDL in two parts:

• UDL of 2.5 kN/m2 for the whole carriage way width

• UDL-H (UDL-Heavy) of 6.5 kN/m2 for only the lane with the heaviest TS; so UDL-H is the additional UDL for the lane with a TS of 300 kN

Figure 3: Number and width of notational lanes (Table 4.1 Eurocode 2) Figure 4: Load model 1 - characteristic values (Table 4.2 Eurocode 2)

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 8/64

According to the Eurocode we have to position all lanes on the right side, left side and in the middle of the bridge (if we have a remaining area like in this tutorial). This means that there
should be three positions for every lane. In Figure 5 we see the position on the right side of the bridge. In this tutorial we only do the calculation for positioning all lanes to the right side of
the bridge, but the method is the same for the left side and in the middle.

As given in the Eurocode both UDL loads (UDL and UDL-H) should be applied only on those spans which results in extreme reinforcement moments and shear forces. That is why we have
to create a load case separately for every UDL per span. Normative loading in Diana calculates all possible combinations of UDL loads per span to get these maximum results.

For the traffic load we consider the following load cases, all based on positioning the lanes only on the right side of the bridge:

• TS Lane1, a mobile load for lane 1

• TS Lane2, a mobile load for lane 2
• TS Lane3, a mobile load for lane 3
• UDL1, UDL whole carriage way width for span 1 only
• UDL2, UDL whole carriage way width for span 2 only
• UDL-H1S1, UDL Heavy for lane 1 span 1 only
• UDL-H1S2, UDL Heavy for lane 1 span 2 only
• UDL-H2S1, UDL Heavy for lane 2 span 1 only
• UDL-H2S2, UDL Heavy for lane 2 span 2 only
• UDL-H3S1, UDL Heavy for lane 3 span 1 only
• UDL-H3S2, UDL Heavy for lane 3 span 2 only

These traffic loadcases are shown in Figure 6.

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 9/64

 Figure 5: The lanes positioned all to the right side of the bridge Figure 6: Traffic load as defined in DianaIE

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 10/64

2.3 Combination of actions
Combination of actions is a set of design values used for the verification of the structural reliability for a limit state under the simultaneous influence of different actions (loads). To get the
critical loading situations, the design values of the effects of actions shall be determined by combining the values of actions that are considered to occur simultaneously.
We use load factors defined according to the Eurocode 2. We assume this is a newly build bridge with consequence class 3. We check the bridge according to equation 6-10A and 6-10B of the
Eurocode. The load factors for equation 6-10A and 6-10B are given in Figure 7. The equations 6-10A and 6-10B of the Eurocode are called Combination of actions. Combination of actions
are dependent on the limit state and should be defined in Dianain geometry browser section Loads.
In the combination of actions also the partial factors for loads are defined. These partial loads factor are applied on characteristic values of the loads. The value of the partial load factor is
depending on action type. The action type is defined for every load set and can be equal to permanent, variable (dominant or secondary), unique, traffic TS or trafic UDL.

Figure 7: Eurocode 2: Equations 6-10A and 6-10B

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 11/64

2.4 Average Results

The Eurocode allows to average results, e.g. it is not necessary to design or check a construction for peak values close to the supports. In a design analysis in Diana we can average results.

According to the Eurocode we may average results and capacities over a distance perpendicular to the result item. So, for example, shear force Qxz is averaged in the y direction. In Diana
we only have to define the spread direction for the result components in the x direction. Automatically the results of y components are spread in perpendicular directions.

For skew plates we have to average parallel and perpendicular to the support lines for the elements close to these support lines. Otherwise no elements are found for averaging result. In Diana
we can define multiple directions for spreading the results for x components with a maximum of 4. In this tutorial we analyze a skew plate so we have to define two directions for spreading
results x components:

• perpendicular to the local x axis

• parallel to the support line for the elements close to the support edges

We have to define an extra direction for the component parallel to the support line, as this is not included in the default global referential.

The average distance (length) is dependent on the thickness of the construction and on the result type. In the Netherlands we may average shear forces over a length of four times the thickness,
and the moments over two times the thickness. In Diana we define a factor over the thickness for both the moments and the shear forces.

The spreading length and directions are defined in the analysis setup.

Shear forces should not be averaged over elements on both side of support lines, otherwise the different signs will average the shear force to zero. For moments we do not have this problem
so we can average these moments for all elements. To tackle this problem in Diana, average shear forces are considered per group of elements. If we model the construction with 3D solid
elements with required composed surface elements, the average is done per composed element set.

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 12/64

3 Finite Element Model
For the modeling session we start a new project. We have to toggle on the Design Analysis to run a design analysis.
DianaIE

Main menu File New [Fig. 8]

Figure 8: New project dialog

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 13/64

We choose SI unit system with meter and newton. We change the unit of angle into degrees.
DianaIE

Geometry browser Reference system Units [Fig. 9]

Property Panel [Fig. 10]

Figure 9: Geometry browser - reference system Figure 10: Property panel - units

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 14/64

3.1 Geometry
3.1.1 Bridge
We create sheets for the cross-section side view of the bridge. To get a regular mesh we create a sheet for beam 1 and half of the first span. We model a vertex in the middle of the bottom of
the support beam so that we can later support this middle line. We mirror the sheet of the first part of the span and create a sheet for half of the cross-section of the second beam.
DianaIE

Main menu Geometry Create Polygon sheet [Fig. 11] [Fig. 12]
Main menu Geometry Modify Mirror [Fig. 13]
Main menu Viewer Viewpoints Front view [Fig. 14]

Figure 11: Add polygon sheet Figure 12: Add polygon sheet
for beam 1 for first part span 1 Figure 13: Mirror sheet Span1 Part1 Figure 14: Geometry - front view

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 15/64

We create a sheet for half of the cross-section of the second beam and mirror all sheets to get the cross-section of the whole bridge.
DianaIE

Main menu Geometry Create Polygon sheet [Fig. 15]

Main menu Geometry Modify Mirror [Fig. 16] [Fig. 17]
Geometry browser Geometry Shapes Beam 2 Rename Beam 3
Geometry browser Geometry Shapes Span1 Part3 Rename Span2 Part2
Geometry browser Geometry Shapes Span1 Part4 Rename Span2 Part1

Figure 15: Add polygon sheet for Beam 2

Part1 Figure 16: Mirror all sheets Figure 17: Geometry view

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 16/64

We extrude all sheets to get the 3D geometry of the bridge.
DianaIE

Main menu Geometry Modify Extrude [Fig. 18]

Main menu Viewer Viewpoints Isometric view 1 [Fig. 19]

Figure 18: Extrude all sheets Figure 19: Geometry view

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 17/64

3.1.2 Composed Surface
We create composed surface elements which are required in a design analysis of a 3D model in order to calculate the distributed forces and moments. We model this sheet for the composed
surface elements at the top surface of the bridge. This is easier to model than to locate it in the neutral surface of the bridge. In Diana the forces and moments are calculated in the neutral
surface of the bridge, even when it is modeled at the top surface.
To create a sheet for the composed surface elements, we extract the top surfaces. Therefore we activate the select geometry faces and click on all the top surfaces of the deck and extract
these faces to get sheets. We need a separate group of composed surface elements per span for averaging the shear force because it is not allowed to average shear forces in two different spans.
The opposite signs of the shear forces at both sides of the support line will otherwise average the shear force to zero. More information on averaging is given in Section 4.1.1. So we sew the
first four sheets for compos 1 and the last four for compos 2.
DianaIE

Main menu Geometry Modify Extract [Fig. 20]

Main menu Geometry Modify Sew sheets [Fig. 21] [Fig. 22]
Geometry browser Geometry Shapes Compos 5 Rename Compos 2

Figure 21: Sew sheets for composed surface Figure 22: Sew sheets for composed surface
Figure 20: Geometry - extract top surfaces elements span 1 elements span 2

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 18/64

3.1.3 Reinforcement
We create sheets for the top and bottom reinforcement. For the top reinforcement we copy the sheets of the two composed elements and move it 44 mm in negative Z direction.
We sew these two reinforcement sheets to get one reinforcement sheet at the top.
DianaIE

Main menu Geometry Compos 1 ReinfoTop Duplicate

Main menu Geometry Compos 2 ReinfoTop2 Duplicate
Main menu Geometry Modify Sew sheets [Fig. 23]
Main menu Geometry Modify Move [Fig. 24]

Figure 23: Sew top reinforcement sheets Figure 24: Move top reinforcement

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 19/64

The bottom reinforcement follows the shape of the bottom side of the bridge. That is why we select all bottom surfaces of the bridge and extract sheets out of it.
After extracting and sewing them all to one shape, we translate this sheets 44 mm in Z direction.
DianaIE

Main menu Geometry Modify Extract [Fig. 25]

Main menu Geometry Modify Sew sheets [Fig. 26]
Main menu Geometry Modify Move [Fig. 27]

Figure 25: Geometry - extract bottom

surfaces bridge Figure 26: Sew all bottom reinforcement sheets Figure 27: Move bottom reinforcement

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 20/64

3.1.4 Loads
As described in Section 2.2.1 we model the asphalt and edge load as a quadrilateral force load. For this we only need to create a surface for the location of distributed load.
There is asphalt on the whole carriage way width [Fig. 2]. We create a rectangular sheet for the asphalt. Then we intersect this sheet with the top surface of the bridge so that we get the
skew shape. With this method we do not have to calculate the exact location of this skew sheet.
We first create two new sheets for the top surface of the deck of span1 and span2 for intersection with the loading surfaces. We cannot use the top surface of span1 because this surface is
divided in three faces and for a quadrilateral force we can only attach one face. The force load applied on this sheet is explained in Section 3.4.
DianaIE

Main menu Geometry Create Polygon sheet [Fig. 28]

Main menu Geometry Modify Array copy [Fig. 29]
Main menu Geometry Create Polygon sheet [Fig. 30]
Main menu Geometry Modify Intersect [Fig. 31] [Fig. 32]

Figure 31: Intersect sheet

Figure 28: Add dummy Figure 29: Array copy top asphalt with
sheet deck span1 surface span1 Figure 30: Add sheet asphalt deck sheets Figure 32: Geometry - shape asphalt

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 21/64

The edge load is also modeled as a quadrilateral force load. So we create again a sheet for the surfaces of the quadrilateral force load for both edge loads. This edge load is located on the deck
without asphalt.

DianaIE

Main menu Geometry Create Polygon sheet [Fig. 33]

Main menu Geometry Modify Intersect [Fig. 34]
Main menu Geometry Modify Array copy [Fig. 35] [Fig. 36]

Figure 34: Intersect sheet EdgeLoad Figure 35: Array copy sheet
Figure 33: Add sheet EdgeLoad 1 1 with deck EdgeLoad 1 Figure 36: Geometry - shapes EdgeLoad 1 and 2

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 22/64

As described in Section 2.2.2, for the traffic load we need to model three TS (tandem systems, mobile loads) and eight UDL loads.
All UDL loads are modeled with a quadrilateral force loads and, for this, we define a sheet for every UDL location.
UDL per span is on the same location as of the asphalt. We only have to duplicate this sheet and intersect it separate with each span. We delete shape Deck2 within the second intersection
because we do not need it anymore.
DianaIE

Main menu Geometry Shapes Asphalt Duplicate

Geometry browser Geometry Shapes Asphalt 1 Rename UDL1
Main menu Geometry Shapes UDL1 Duplicate
Main menu Geometry Modify Intersect [Fig. 37] [Fig. 38] [Fig. 39]

Figure 37: Intersect UDL1 with Figure 38: Intersect UDL2 with
Deck 1 Deck 2 Figure 39: Geometry - shapes DL1 UDL 2

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 23/64

We do the same for UDL H (heavy), first for lane 1 for the two spans.
DianaIE

Main menu Geometry Create Polygon sheet [Fig. 40]

Main menu Geometry Modify Intersect [Fig. 41]
Main menu Geometry Modify Array copy [Fig. 42]

Figure 41: Intersect UDL-H L1S1 with Figure 42: Array copy UDL-H L1S1 to get
Figure 40: Add sheet UDL H Lane 1 Span 1 Deck 1 UDL-H L1S2 Figure 43: Geometry - UDL-H for lane 1

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 24/64

We array copy the two sheets for UDL H L1S1 (Lane 1 Span 1) and UDL H L1S2 to get these sheets also for the other two lanes. Again we array copy 1 m in X direction and 3 m in
Y direction. We rename the new sheet.
DianaIE

Main menu Geometry Modify Array copy [Fig. 44] [Fig. 45] [Fig. 46]
Geometry browser Geometry Shapes UDL-H L1S3 Rename UDL-H L2S1
Geometry browser Geometry Shapes UDL-H L1S4 Rename UDL-H L2S2
Geometry browser Geometry Shapes UDL-H L1S5 Rename UDL-H L3S1
Geometry browser Geometry Shapes UDL-H L1S6 Rename UDL-H L3S2

Figure 44: Array copy UDL-H L1S1

and UDL-H L1S2 to get
UDL-H for lane 2 and 3 Figure 45: Geometry - UDL-H L2S1 UDL-H L2S2 (lane 2) Figure 46: Geometry - UDL-H L3S1 UDL-H L3S2 (lane 3)

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 25/64

For the mobile loads in Diana we have to define a path over which the tandem system moves over the bridge. In this case we create a straight line at the center of every lane. We create this
line for lane 1 and array copy twice to get this line for the other two lanes. We array copy it 1 m in X direction and 3 m in Y direction.

The mobile load with its axle forces are attached to these lines. This is explained in Section 3.4.3.
DianaIE

Main menu Geometry Create Line [Fig. 47]

Main menu Geometry Modify Array copy [Fig. 48] [Fig. 49]

Figure 47: Line for TS Lane 1 Figure 48: Array copy line TS1 Figure 49: Geometry - shapes TS Lane 1, TS Lane 2 and TS Lane 3

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 26/64

3.2 Properties
We created all the geometries of the model. We now proceed with assigning the properties to these geometries.

3.2.1 Safety Factors

As we will check the bridge in ultimate limit state (ULS) we have to use ULS material safety factors according to Eurocode. In DianaIE these material safety factors are defined in Safety
factors in the material section. Because we will check only in ULS we only have to create one Safety factor set for ULS. By selecting Ultimate Limit State for Limit State we get the desired
default values for these safety factors. We only change the value of the safety factor of Young’s modulus concrete to 1.5 and for reinforcements to 1.15. All the safety factors used in the
calculation are shown in Figure 51.
DianaIE

Main menu Geometry Materials Add material safety factors [Fig. 50] [Fig. 51]

Figure 50: Geometry browser - material

safety factors Figure 51: Material safety ULS

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 27/64

3.2.2 Concrete Bridge
We create a new concrete material model for the bridge according to Eurocode 2 EN 1992-1-1. The concrete grade is C30/37. As we use 3D elements we do not need to define and assign
geometrical properties to the bridge.
DianaIE

Main menu Geometry Assign Shape properties [Fig. 52]

Shape properties Material Add material [Fig. 53] Edit material [Fig. 54]

Figure 52: Shape properties for concrete bridge Figure 53: Add new material for concrete bridge Figure 54: Material properties for concrete bridge

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 28/64

3.2.3 Reinforcements
We create a new material for the reinforcement. As we run a design analysis, only a linear elastic material model is required. However, for the calculation of the moment capacities we need
the yield stress of the reinforcement. This yield stress accounts for Design check parameters. In this section we define the characteristic yield stress of the reinforcement which is equal to
500 N/mm2 (5e+08 N/m2 ).
DianaIE

<Select the correspondent reinforcement set in the Geometry browser >

Main menu Geometry Assign Reinforcement properties [Fig. 55]
Reinforcement properties Material Add material [Fig. 56] Edit material [Fig. 57] [Fig. 58]

Figure 55: Reinforcement

property assignment
- top reinforcement Figure 56: Add new material for reinforcement Figure 57: Material properties reinforcement Figure 58: Material properties reinforcement - yield stress

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 29/64

The geometrical properties are required. The diameter of the top reinforcements bars is 24 mm in X direction and 16 mm in Y direction. The center-to-center distance is 140 mm in X direction
and 200 mm in Y direction.
DianaIE

Reinforcement properties Geometry Edit geometry [Fig. 59]

Figure 59: Geometry properties for top reinforcement

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 30/64

For the bottom reinforcement we use the same material and geometrical properties, only the diameter is now 20 mm in Y direction.
DianaIE

<Select the correspondent reinforcement set in the Geometry browser >

Main menu Geometry Assign Reinforcement properties [Fig. 60]
Reinforcement properties Geometry Edit geometry [Fig. 61]

Figure 60: Reinforcement property

assignment - bottom Figure 61: Geometry properties for bottom
reinforcement reinforcement

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 31/64

3.2.4 Composed Surface
In order to calculate the design capacities, the material properties of the cross-section are taken from the solid elements related to the composed surface. So the composed surface has the
same material properties as the solid elements. We need to define and assign geometry properties to the composed surface. We define the thickness which represents the length (half thickness
above and half of the thickness below the location of the composed surface elements) over which the stresses in the 3D solid elements should be integrated to get the distributed forces and
moments. As we created the composed surface at the top face of the bridge we have to set the thickness as twice the maximum thickness of the bridge, which is 2.4 m. In this manner , the
volume elements contribute to the distributed forces and moments.
DianaIE

Main menu Geometry Assign Shape properties [Fig. 62]

Shape properties Geometry Add new geometry [Fig. 63]

Figure 62: Property assignment for composed surface Figure 63: Geometry properties for composed surface

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 32/64

3.3 Boundary Conditions
The middle line of the three support beams are supported in the vertical direction. To prevent the bridge from a rigid horizontal movement and rotation, two outer points of the bridge are
supported in both horizontal directions.

DianaIE

Main menu Geometry Assign Supports [Fig. 64] - [Fig. 66]

Main menu Viewer Viewpoints Bottom view [Fig. 67]

Figure 64: Line supports in Z direction Figure 65: Vertex supports in X direction Figure 66: Vertex supports in Y direction Figure 67: Geometry view - supports

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 33/64

3.4 Loads
3.4.1 Combination of actions
In this tutorial we only check the construction in ULS and uses the equations 6-10A and 6-10B of the Eurocode. These equations are the so called combination of actions. For every equation
we want to use, we have to create a combination of actions. Both the combination of actions 6-10A and 6-10B are shown in Figure 69 and [Fig. 70]. For 6-10A we activate the parameter
Apply combination factor for variable dominant load. For 6-10B we applied a partial factor of 1.3 for the unfavorable permanent action (see Figure 7). An alternative for 6-10B is to activate
the parameter Apply reduction factor for unfavorable permanent ξ = 0.867 in combination with a partial factor of 1.5 for the unfavorable permanent load (γ · ξ = 1.5 · 0.867 = 1.3).
DianaIE

Main menu Geometry Loads Add combination of actions [Fig. 68] – [Fig. 70]

Figure 68: Geomtery browser: combination of

action ULS Figure 69: Combination of action ULS: 6-10A Figure 70: Combination of action ULS: 6-10B

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 34/64

3.4.2 Permanent Load

We apply the self-weight, edge load and asphalt load as permanent load on the bridge. The self-weight is modeled as a global load, the edge load and asphalt load as a quadrilateral force load.
For the quadrilateral load we already made sheets Asphalt, EdgeLoad 1 and EdgeLoad 2 [Section 3.1.4]. Now we apply a total force on these sheets.

For every load case we have to define the action type. In this case all are of action type permanent. For permanent loads we do not need to define representative factor; this is only required
for variable and unique loads.

We start with the dead weight.

DianaIE

Main menu Geometry Assign Global loads [Fig. 71]

Main menu Geometry Loads Add load case [Fig. 72]

Figure 71: Attach dead weight Figure 72: Create permanent load case dead weight

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 35/64

We continue with the asphalt load. The thickness of the asphalt layer is 50 mm. The density of the asphalt is 2300 kg/m3 . So the total force of the asphalt load is equal to A×0.05×2300×−9.8
in which A is the area of sheet asphalt. You can give the command ”areaOf(sheetname)” to get the area of a sheet. For shape asphalt the area is equal to 220 m2 so the total force is -247940 N.
Again this asphalt load is of action type permanent.
DianaIE

Main menu Geometry Loads Add load case [Fig. 74]

Figure 73: Attach asphalt load Figure 74: Create permanent load case asphalt load

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 36/64

We also apply a quadrilateral force load to the sheets EdgeLoad 1 and 2 equal to 6.5 kN/m2 . The area of the two edge load sheets are the same, so the total force is the same. But we can
only attach one sheet at the time to the quadrilateral force load because the sheet of the edgeload doesn’t have a rectangular shape. So we attach the quadrilateral force load to both sheets
separately but both in the same load case.
DianaIE

Main menu Geometry Assign Loads [Fig. 75] [Fig. 76]

Main menu Geometry Loads Add load case [Fig. 77]

Figure 75: Quadrilateral force load on EdgeLoad 1 Figure 76: Quadrilateral force load on EdgeLoad 2 Figure 77: Load case EdgeLoad

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 37/64

3.4.3 Traffic Load
For the UDL and UDL heavy load we already created sheets. Now we have to attach a quadrilateral force load to these sheets. The total force for the UDL load per span is equal to
A × 2.5 kN/m2 , for UDL H this is A × 6.5 kN/m2 .
The force load on the two spans are the same because the length of span 1 is equal to span 2. As every lane has a width of 3 m, the force load of UDL-H1S1 is equal to the force load of UDL
H2S1 and UDL H3S1. We only have to attach another sheet.
We have to define for every UDL load a different load case with action type equal to traffic UDL. Separate load cases are required to create traffic sets which will be explained in the next
paragraph.
DianaIE

Main menu Geometry Assign Loads [Fig. 78] [Fig. 79]

Main menu Geometry Loads Add load case (2×) [Fig. 80] [Fig. 81]

Figure 80: Load case UDL1

Figure 78: Quadrilateral force load UDL1 Figure 79: Quadrilateral force load UDL2 Figure 81: Load case UDL2

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 38/64

We do the same for UDL-H Lane 1. Again all loads should be defined in a separate load case with action type UDL.
DianaIE

Main menu Geometry Assign Loads [Fig. 82] [Fig. 83]

Main menu Geometry Loads Add load case (2×) [Fig. 84] [Fig. 85]

Figure 84: Load case UDL-H L1S1

Figure 82: Quadrilateral force load UDL Heavy lane 1 span 1 Figure 83: Quadrilateral force load UDL Heavy lane 1 span 2 Figure 85: Load case UDL-H L1S2

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 39/64

We do the same for UDL-H Lane 2 and 3. We add the 4 loads and create a load case for every UDL-H load with action type traffic UDL (the same as shown in Figure 85 only with another
load case name).

DianaIE

Main menu Geometry Assign Loads [Fig. 86] – [Fig. 89]

Main menu Geometry Loads Add load case (4×)

Figure 86: Quadrilateral force load UDL Figure 87: Quadrilateral force load UDL Figure 88: Quadrilateral force load UDL Figure 89: Quadrilateral force load UDL
Heavy Lane 2 Span 1 Heavy Lane 2 Span 2 Heavy lane 3 span 1 Heavy lane 3 span 2

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 40/64

We have three TS systems: 300 kN, 200 kN and 100 kN [Fig. 4]. For these tandem system we have to create a mobile load. Therefore we attach a mobile load to the defined geometry, the
straight line, over which the tandem system will move. For this mobile load we have to define the axle force, wheel print, distance between the two axles, axle width as given in Figure 90.
These parameters are defined according to the Eurocode. The wheel print of 0.4 m given in de Eurocode is spread over the thickness of the asphalt layer. That is why we enter a wheel print
of 0.4 + 2 × 0.05 = 0.5 m. We define the axle force equal to 100 kN for all lanes. With the multiplication factor used in Traffic sets [Section 3.4.4] we can create on every lane a tandem
system of 300 kN, 200 kN and 100 kN. Again for every TS we create a separate load case but now with action type equal to traffic TS. Load case TS Lane is the same as for load case TS
Lane 1 [Fig. 93] only with another name.
DianaIE

Main menu Geometry Assign Loads [Fig. 90] – [Fig. 92]

Main menu Geometry Loads Add load case (3×) [Fig. 93] [Fig. 94]

Figure 93: Load case TS Lane 1

Figure 90: Mobile load tandem Figure 91: Mobile load tandem Figure 92: Mobile load tandem
system on lane 1 system on lane 2 system on lane 3 Figure 94: Load case TS Lane 2

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 41/64

3.4.4 Traffic Sets
At this moment, all load cases for traffic TS and UDL are defined. The next step is to create traffic sets. A traffic set consists of a possible combination of one tandem systems per lane with
the corresponding UDL Heavy lane per span and UDL per span. This bridge has 3 lanes and 2 spans. As described in Section 2.2.2 we divide the traffic load into TS, UDL and UDL-H. So
one traffic set consists of:
• TS1 = tandem system 1, 300 kN axle force
• TS2 = tandem system 2, 200 kN axle force
• TS3 = tandem system 3, 100 kN axle force
• UDL1 = UDL whole carriage way width in span 1, 2.5 kN/m2
• UDL2 = UDL whole carriage way width in span 2, 2.5 kN/m2
• UDL H1 = UDL Heavy in the lane with TS1 in span 1, 6.5 kN/m2
• UDL H2 = UDL Heavy in the lane with TS1 in span 2, 6.5 kN/m2

According to the Eurocode we must locate the 3 lanes in 3 positions (right, middle and left). In this tutorial we only focus on the position on the right side of the bridge. Furthermore the 3
tandem systems should be placed in all lanes in all possible sequences. So a TS1 should be placed in lane 1, 2 and 3 and TS2 and TS3 should vary in the other remaining lanes. TS2 should
always be placed next to TS1. This results in 4 possible sets which are visualized in Figure 95 to Figure 98:

• Set R123 = Positioned on the right, Lane 1 has TS1, Lane 2 has TS2 and lane 3 TS3 [Fig. 95]
• Set R213 = Positioned on the right, Lane 1 has TS2, Lane 2 has TS1 and lane 3 TS3 [Fig. 96]
• Set R312 = Positioned on the right, Lane 1 has TS3, Lane 2 has TS1 and lane 3 TS2 [Fig. 97]
• Set R321 = Positioned on the right, Lane 1 has TS3, Lane 2 has TS2 and lane 3 TS1 [Fig. 98]

Figure 95: Set R123 Figure 96: Set R123 Figure 97: Set R312 Figure 98: Set R321

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 42/64

We create the 4 sets in the geometry browser in section Loads by clicking on the icon Open traffic sets table . In this table, only the names of the load cases that are traffic TS and traffic
UDL are visible in the header of the columns. We click on the Add traffic set icon and fill in the required multiplication factors per load case. When we defined the mobile loads [Section
3.4.3] we created all TS mobile loads with 100 kN axle force in every lane. To get TS2 and TS3 in the traffic sets we use multiplication factors of 2 and 3 to get the 200 kN and 300 kN. We
create the 4 traffic sets as shown in Figure 99.
We activate the option Dominant traffic sets so that all traffic sets are interpreted as dominant variable load in normative loading. We enter the values for the combination factors: combination
value ψ0 = 0.7, frequent value ψ1 = 0.7 and quasi-permanent value ψ2 = 0.4.
DianaIE

Main menu Geometry Loads Open traffic sets table [Fig. 99]
Add traffic set (4×)

Figure 99: Create 4 traffic sets

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 43/64

3.5 Shape Sets
To organize the model we select the shapes and create a new shape set from selection. In this way we create four new shape sets and rename them as Permanent load, UDL Heavy Lane, UDL
per span and Tandemsystem.
DianaIE

Geometry browser Select shapes New shapeset from selection

Figure 100: Geometry browser with Figure 101: Geometry browser with
several shape sets several shape sets
(folders closed) (folders open)

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 44/64

3.6 Directions
We add one direction parallel to the support lines. This is required for averaging results for elements located close to the support lines. More information on averaging results is given in
Section 2.4.
DianaIE

Main menu Mesh Reference system Add direction [Fig. 102] [Fig. 103]

Figure 102: Add parallel direction Figure 103: Geometry browser - reference system

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 45/64

3.7 Mesh
We define an element size of 0.25 m to the bridge and composed surface. But we want four elements over the thickness of the deck and over the thickness of the support beams. So we select
all vertical lines of the 3D bridge and set a division of four to these lines. To reduce the calculation time we use only four elements over the thickness instead of the minimum of six elements.
DianaIE

Main menu Geometry Mesh Mesh properties [Fig. 104] [Fig. 105]

Figure 104: Mesh properties: element size equal to 0.25 m Figure 105: Mesh properties: 4 divisions for vertical lines Figure 106: Selected edges for division

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 46/64

Then we generate the mesh.
DianaIE

Main menu Geometry Mesh Generate mesh [Fig. 107]

Figure 107: Finite element mesh

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 47/64

4 Checking Design Analysis
4.1 Commands
We perform a checking design analysis. In this analysis the shear force and bending moment capacities are calculated. These capacities are compared with the maximum shear force and
reinforcement moments. We use the Normative loading in DianaIE. Normative loading automatically calculates the worst case scenario to get the maximum value for the shear forces and
reinforcement moments. The results are presented as Unity Checks so that we can easily check the safety state of the bridge.
DianaIE

Main menu Analysis Add analysis [Fig. 108]

Analysis browser Analysis1 Add command Checking design [Fig. 109] [Fig. 110]

Figure 108: Analysis browser Figure 109: Command menu Figure 110: Analysis browser

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 48/64

4.1.1 Average Results
According to the Eurocode we may average results over a distance perpendicular to the result component. As described in Section 2.4 we define in Diana a factor over the thickness for the
average distance. In the Netherlands we use a length of twice the thickness for the moments and four times the thickness for the shear forces.
We add the average command by selecting ”Checking Design” right-click and selecting Add Average reinforcement moments and shear force.
With a skew plate we also have to average results parallel and perpendicular to the support edge for the elements close to this support edge as described in Section 2.4. That is why we have
to define one extra spreading direction for x results which is parallel to the support edge. We defined this direction in Section 3.6. The results in y direction will automatically be averaged
normal to the defined spread direction of x results.
In the property panel we define the number of the direction for spreading the x results. So, in this case, this is direction number 2 (global Y direction) and number 4 (parallel to edge support).
We can add these spread direction for x results by selecting Average reinforcement moments and shear forces in the analysis browser and edit the property panel.
DianaIE

Analysis browser Checking Design Add command Add average reinforcement moments and shearforces [Fig. 111]
Property Panel [Fig. 112] [Fig. 113]

Figure 111: Add average reinforcement moments and shear forces Figure 112: Analysis browser - selecting average Figure 113: Property panel - spread directions

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 49/64

4.1.2 Shift Moments

According to the Eurocode we have to shift the bending moments over a distance equal to useful height d in the direction of the result component. This shift of moments is illustrated in
Figure 114. This option can be activated by ticking on the option Shift moments in the property panel of Checking Design.

DianaIE

Property Panel [Fig. 115] [Fig. 116]

Figure 115: Analysis browser - select Figure 116: Property panel - option Shift
Figure 114: Shifting moments Checking design moments on

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 50/64

4.1.3 Normative Loading
Normative loading calculates all possible load combinations, envelopes etc. to get te worst loading case scenario with the extreme values for the shear forces and reinforcement moments.
Two calculations are created: one for serviceability limit state and one for the ultimate limit state. In this tutorial we only run the ULS calculation so we toggle of the serviceability limit
state. Here for we select serviceability limit state in the results tree, right-click and select toggle on/off.
DianaIE

Analysis browser Select Serviceability toggle on/off [Fig. 117] [Fig. 118]

Figure 117: Analysis browser - toggle of Serviceability limit state analysis Figure 118: Analysis browser - toggled off SLS

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 51/64

4.1.4 Output

We use the default output for a Design Analysis. This means that output is generated that for all combinations of actions, in this case, for 6-10A and 6-10B. In this tutorial we only run a
ULS calculation, so only default ULS output will be stored. We want to check the distributed shear forces and reinforcement moments, capacity shear force and moments, both unity checks
(UC) and the normative loading output for the tandem systems and UDL load.
We run the analysis.

DianaIE

Main menu Analysis Run all analyses

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 52/64

4.2 Results
4.2.1 Ultimate Limit State - Model Data
The result case Ultimate limit state - Model data contains results for the Ultimate Limit State analysis which are independent of the loading. Here we can find the capacities, for both shear
forces and bending moments.
The moment capacity is calculated according to the Eurocode. The ultimate bending moment is calculated based on a bi-linear stress-strain curve for compression. Tension in concrete is
neglected. The ULS-Fundamental material safety factors are used in this calculation Figure 51.
The focus of this tutorial is on the results in the x direction. First we analyze MRdxx+: the positive ultimate bending moment in X direction, with tension at the positive z side (normal) of
the composed elements. We create a contour plot.
We examine MRdxx+ averaged in two directions: SPRDIR = 2 (Y global) and SPRDIR = 4 (parallel to support edge).
We change the units to KN.

For elements close to the support beams, we have to average in the direction parallel to the support line. When spreading parallel to the support line (SPRDIR=4) we see, as expected, the
high constant values at the location of the beams.
DianaIE

Results browser Case Ultimate limit state - Model Data

Results browser Output results Element results Ultimate Surface Bending Moments (Capacity) - Spreading length = 2.000*d MRdxx+ Averaged SPRDIR=2 [Fig. 119]
Results browser Output results Element results Ultimate Surface Bending Moments (Capacity) - Spreading length = 2.000*d MRdxx+ Averaged SPRDIR=4 [Fig. 120]

Figure 119: Model data: MRdxx+ average direction 2 Figure 120: Model data: MRdxx+ average direction 4

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 53/64

Now we analyze MRdxx-, the negative bending moments in the X direction, spread in the Y direction and parallel to the support edge. The most negative bending moments occurs at mid
spans. At mid span the capacity MRdxx- has its minimum (less negative) due to the smallest thickness of the deck.

DianaIE

Results browser Output results Element results Ultimate Surface Bending Moments (Capacity) - Spreading length = 2.000*d MRdxx- Averaged SPRDIR=2 [Fig. 121]
Results browser Output results Element results Ultimate Surface Bending Moments (Capacity) - Spreading length = 2.000*d MRdxx- Averaged SPRDIR=4 [Fig. 122]

Figure 121: Model data: MRdxx- Average direction parallel to Figure 122: Model data: MRdxx- Average direction parallel to
support lines support lines

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 54/64

We analyze the ultimate shear force (capacities) also based on the Eurocode 2. First we view the results of VRdxz+ which is the shear force capacity in x direction with tension in the
reinforcement grids at positive z direction (related to positive moment). We also visualize VRdxz-.

DianaIE

Results browser Output results Element results Ultimate Surface Shear Forces (Capacity) - Spreading length = 4.000*d VRdxz+ Averaged SPRDIR=4 [Fig. 123]
Results browser Output results Element results Ultimate Surface Shear Forces (Capacity) - Spreading length = 4.000*d VRdxz- Averaged SPRDIR=4 [Fig. 124]

Figure 123: Model data: VRdxz+ Average direction 4 Figure 124: Model data: VRdxz- Average direction 4

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 55/64

4.2.2 Ultimate Limit State - Fundamental6-10A

In result case Ultimate limit state - Fundamental6-10A the results are stored for equation 6-10A of the Eurocode. Here the shear forces and reinforcement moments are given but also the
unity checks for shear force and bending moments. First we start to analyze the shear force Qxz.

The maximum and minimum value for Qxz occur close to support line. That is why we have to examine the results of Qxz and later UCVx averaged in direction parallel to the support line
(SPRDIR=4).
DianaIE

Results browser Case Ultimate limit state - Fundamental6-10A

Results browser Output results Element results Distributed Shear Forces-Spreading length = 4.000*d Qxz Average SPRDIR=2 [Fig. 125]
Results browser Output results Element results Distributed Shear Forces-Spreading length = 4.000*d Qxz Average SPRDIR=4 [Fig. 126]

Figure 126: Eq. 6-10A: Qxz average direction parallel to

Figure 125: Eq. 6-10A: Qxz averaged in Y direction support line

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 56/64

We analyze the unity check UCQxz. This unity check is equal to the shear force divided by its shear force capacity. If the value of the unity check is lower than 1.0 then the bridge can resist
the load.

The values of the unity checks are lower than 1.0. According to equation 6-10A of the Eurocode, the bridge is well designed for the shear force.

DianaIE

Results browser Output results Element results Unity Check Shear Forces-Spreading length = 4.000*d UCQxz Average SPRDIR=2 [Fig. 127]
Results browser Output results Element results Unity Check Shear Forces-Spreading length = 4.000*d UCQXZ SPRDIR=4 [Fig. 128]

Figure 127: Eq. 6-10A: UCQxz averaged in Y direction Figure 128: Eq. 6-10A: UCQxz average direction 4

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 57/64

We do the same for the reinforcement moments. We start with the positive reinforcement moment in X direction (MRxxS+) and its corresponding unity check UMxxS+.
Because the maximum MRxxS+ occurs close to the supports, we have to examine the result MRxxS+ averaged in the direction parallel to the support line (SPRDIR=4).

The unity check has values below 1.0 so the bridge is well design for positive bending moments according to equation 6-10A of the Eurocode.

DianaIE

Results browser Output results Element results Reinforcement moments - Spreading length = 2.000*d MRxxS+ Average SPRDIR=4 [Fig. 129]
Results browser Output results Element results Unity Check Bending Moments-Spreading length = 2.000*d UMxxS+ Average SPRDIR=4 [Fig. 130]

Figure 129: Eq. 6-10A: Reinforcement moments MRxxS+ Figure 130: Eq. 6-10A: Unity check bending moments UMxxS+
Average direction 4 Average direction 4

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 58/64

The minimum of the negative reinforcement moment in X direction (MRxxS-) occurs in the middle of the span. So the results MRxxS- and UMxxS- are analyzed averaged in the Y direction
(SPRDIR=2).

The unity check has values below 1.0 so the bridge is well design for negative bending moments according to equation 6-10A of the Eurocode.

DianaIE

Results browser Output results Element results Reinforcement moments - Spreading length = 2.000*d MRxxS- Average SPRDIR=2 [Fig. 131]
Results browser Output results Element results Unity Check Bending Moments-Spreading length = 2.000*d UMxxS- Average SPRDIR=2 [Fig. 132]

Figure 131: Eq. 6-10A: Reinforcement moments MRxxS- Figure 132: Eq. 6-10A: Unity check bending moments UMxxS-
average direction 2 averaged in direction 2

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 59/64

4.2.3 Ultimate limit state - Fundamental6-10B

Now we check if the bridge can resist the load according to equation 6-10B of the Eurocode 2. Equation 6-10B of the Eurocode 2 uses another loading factor for the permanent load than in
equation 6-10A. Furthermore the representativity factor of the dominant traffic load is not applied in equation 6-10B [Fig. 7]. We only analyze the unity checks averaged in direction 4 for the
shear force Qxz and reinforcement moment MRxxS+ and in Y direction for MRxxS-.

The unity checks for bending moments and shear force have all values smaller than 1.0 so this bridge is also well design according to equation 6-10B of the Eurocode.
DianaIE

Results browser Case Ultimate limit state - Fundamental6-10B

Results browser Output results Element results Unity Check Shear Forces-Spreading length = 4.000*d UCQxz SPRDIR=4 [Fig. 133]
Results browser Output results Element results Unity Check Bending Moments-Spreading length = 2.000*d UMxxS+ Average SPRDIR=4 [Fig. 134]
Results browser Output results Element results Unity Check Bending Moments-Spreading length = 2.000*d UMxxS- Average SPRDIR=2 [Fig. 135]

Figure 133: Eq. 6-10B: Unity check UCQxz Figure 134: Eq. 6-10B: Unity check-UMxxS+
average direction parallel to average direction parallel to Figure 135: Eq. 6-10B: Unity check UMxxS-
support lines support lines average in Y direction

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 60/64

4.2.4 Normative Loading

The location of the tandem systems and which UDL is activated to get the extreme shear forces and reinforcement moments, are given as results for both equation 6-10A and 6-10B. These
results are presented as external forces and can be plotted as vector or contour plot. These are nodal results.
For equation 6-10B we show the location of the tandem systems and UDL for Qxz SPRDIR = 4. Because these are results of solid elements we have to hide the element sets of the composed
surface elements which are located on top of the solid elements. We start with analyzing the positions of the tandem systems.

In all these figures we can see that TS1 is located in lane 1, TS2 in lane 2 and TS3 in lane 3. The absolute maximum value of Qxz occurs when TS1 is close to the second support beam
[Fig. 136]. Tandem systems located in the mid span results in extreme values reinforcement moments [Fig. 137 to 138].

DianaIE

Mesh browser Mesh hide elementset Compos 1 and Compos 2

Results browser Output results Nodal results Normative loading for Qxz SPRDIR=4 FEZts [Fig. 136]
Results browser Output results Nodal results Normative loading for MRxxS+ SPRDIR=4 FEZts [Fig. 137]
Results browser Output results Nodal results Normative loading for MRxxS- SPRDIR=4 FEZts [Fig. 138]

Figure 136: Normative loading for Qxz Figure 137: Normative loading for Figure 138: Normative loading for
SPRDIR=4 MRxxS+ SPRDIR=4 MRxxS- SPRDIR=4

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 61/64

We analyze which span should be loaded with an UDL and UDL-Heavy as a result of the Normative Loading.
UDL and UDL-H should be activated in both spans to get the maximum value for shear force Qxz and reinforcement moment M1RS+. But for minimum value M1RS- span 2 should not be
loaded with UDL and UDL-H.

DianaIE

Results browser Output results Nodal results Normative loading for Qxz SPRDIR=4 FEZudl [Fig. 139]
Results browser Output results Nodal results Normative loading for MRxxS+ SPRDIR=4 FEZudl [Fig. 140]
Results browser Output results Nodal results Normative loading for MRxxS- SPRDIR=4 FEZudl [Fig. 141]

Figure 139: Result - Normative loading for Qxz Figure 140: Result - Normative loading for MRxxS+ Figure 141: Result - Normative loading for MRxxS-
SPRDIR=4 SPRDIR=4 SPRDIR=4

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 62/64

Appendix A Additional Information

Folder: Tutorials/BridgeDesign

Number of elements ≈ 22440

Keywords:
analys: design.
constr: suppor.
elemen: compos grid hx24l q4cmp reinfo solid taper.
load: mobile quadfo weight.
materi: concre crack elasti en1992 harden isotro rotati soften totstr.
option: direct units.
pre: dianai.

Design Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Bridge Model | https://dianafea.com 63/64

 DIANA FEA BV DIANA FEA BV
Thijsseweg 11 Vlamoven 34
2629JA Delft 6826 TN Arnhem
The Netherlands The Netherlands
T +31 (0) 88 34262 00 T +31 (0) 88 34262 00

WWW.DIANAFEA.COM
© DIANA FEA BV
Disclaimer: The aim of this technical tutorial is to illustrate various tools, modelling techniques and analysis workflows in DIANA.
DIANA FEA BV does not accept any responsibility regarding the presented cases, used parameters, and presented results.