Indian Highways, Volume 44, Issue Number 2 Feb 2016

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF SKEW BOX UNDERPASS BRIDGE

– FEW OBSERVATIONS

Authors: V. Raghava Kumar* and R.K. Ingle**

ABSTRACT

In urban areas, construction of an underpass, below railway tracks using a system of pushing a
precast reinforced concrete box structure with jacks is an ideal solution over Road Over Bridge
(ROB). Construction details often calls for skew box underpasses. These skew boxes are
typically analysed as two dimensional frames. Three dimensional finite element analysis
represents the actual behaviour of these type of skew underpass box structure that a two
dimensional frame cannot capture. These box structures are pushed in segments rather than as
a whole. From the finite element analysis, it has been found that the analysis of the box
considering full length is not conservative if the boxes are pushed as segments with skew angle
greater than 30o.

In this paper an attempt has been made to propose some factors that user can directly convert
the results from the given plane frame analysis to similar as Finite Element analysis. SAP2000
is used for the modelling and analysis of box structure. The effect of height on the behaviour
of the skew underpass box has been reviewed using both finite element and plane frame
analysis. From the analysis it is observed that the frame analysis overestimates the actual
moments in the middle box segments for the considered section.

Keywords: Skew underpass box, finite element analysis.

* M.Tech. Scholar, vanama.raghavakumar@gmail.com,+91 7768022952 (m)

** Professor, rkingle@rediffmail.com, +91 9822574061 (m) (IRC membership
No. LM37463)
[Department of Applied Mechanics, V.N.I.T, Nagpur, Maharashtra 440010]

Indian Roads Congress (ISSN: 0376-7256)

Indian Highways, Volume 44, Issue Number 2 Feb 2016

NOTATIONS
FE Finite element
Fr Frame
L Length of the underpass (m)
L(SK) Skew length of the underpass (m) = L/Cos(α)
B Clear carriage way width of the underpass (m)
B(SK) Skew width (m) = B/Cos(α)
α Skew angle (Degrees)
+M Maximum principal positive moment (kN-m)
-M Minimum principal negative moment (kN-m)
Mmax Maximum principal positive moment (kN-m)
Mmin Minimum principal negative moment (kN-m)
Vmax Maximum shear = √VX 2 + VY 2 (kN)

INTRODUCTION

In design practice, underpasses skew bridge structures are typically analysed as simplified two-
dimensional plane frames. However three dimensional finite element analysis represents the
actual behaviour of skewed structures that a plane frame analysis cannot represent. An attempt
has been made for finding the conversion factors to get the results similar to finite element
result using the plane frame analysis. Firstly, finite element analysis has been performed on an
underpass bridge with geometric parameters as shown in Fig. 1 with skew angle varied from
0o to 75o at an interval of 15o.

10 m

0.6 m

5.5 m

0.6 m
0.6 m 7m

Fig. 1 Dimensions of Underpass box taken for FE analysis

With increase in skew angle, it’s necessary to increase the skew length of the underpass to
maintain the same span to length ratio as shown in Fig. 2. In the similar way to maintain the
same clear carriage way width, skew width will increase with increase in skew angle.

Indian Roads Congress (ISSN: 0376-7256)

Indian Highways, Volume 44, Issue Number 2 Feb 2016

Fig. 2 Increase in length and width with skew angle (Plan view)
The skew length L(SK) = L/Cos(α) and skew width B(SK) = B/Cos(α) can be calculated for a
given skew angle.

MODELLING

SAP2000 is used to model the skew underpass box structure using the ‘quick bridge’ option in
which skew angle can be assigned with respect to abutments. Three dimensional finite element
(FE) models were developed in which bottom slab is assigned with hinge restraints as shown
in Fig. 3. Two dimensional frame (Fr) models are developed by taking span length as skew
width of the underpass. Bottom element of the model is divided into finite frames and hinge
restraint was assigned to each joint as shown in Fig. 4. Instead of hinge, soil stiffness can also
be assigned to have the results with soil structure interaction. However in this paper, only hinge
boundary condition is considered. Material properties assigned for the reinforced-concrete
elements of the frame and finite element models are M35 grade concrete having modulus of
elasticity E = 2.958E+7 kN/m2 with Poisson’s ratio as 0.2. Unit weight of reinforced concrete
is considered as 25 kN/m3.

Fig 3. FE model Fig. 4 Fr model

Indian Roads Congress (ISSN: 0376-7256)

Indian Highways, Volume 44, Issue Number 2 Feb 2016

The developed models are analysed for the dead loads considering the skew angle (varied from
0o to 75o). In FE model, two sections at 0.0L and 0.5L were considered as shown in Fig. 5. In
Fr model, two critical sections one at edge and other at centre were considered as shown in Fig
6.

Fig. 5 Sections considered in FE model Fig. 6 Critical sections considered in Fr model

Conversion factors have been calculated using the equation (1), which gives approximates
results from frame analysis (Fr) similar to FEM analysis (FE) after multiplying by factors.

FE = Factor x Fr …(1)

The two sections considered in the FE analysis are to represent the end box segments and
middle box segments. Finite element and frame analysis results and corresponding factors at
section 1-1 are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Finite element and frame analysis results and corresponding factors at section 1-1
FE analysis
Fr analysis Factor
(at section 1-1)
Skew +M -M V max Mc Me SFe +M/Mc -M/Me SF/SFe
angle kN m kN m kN kN m kN m kN F1 F2 F3
0 56.3 -50.1 53.9 57.9 -50.4 57 1 1 0.9
15 56.6 -51.1 60 61.2 -54.2 58.8 0.9 0.9 1
30 58 -53.1 74 73 -68.3 65.1 0.8 0.8 1.1
45 59.6 -59.4 97.9 101.3 -104.9 78.7 0.6 0.6 1.2
60 60 -77 133 182.3 -217.2 109.5 0.3 0.4 1.2
75 57.9 -140 207.7 579.5 -852.9 207.3 0.1 0.2 1

Indian Roads Congress (ISSN: 0376-7256)

Indian Highways, Volume 44, Issue Number 2 Feb 2016

Factors F1, F2 and F3 for section 1-1 are formulated using MS excel Trend line and the same
are shown in Figure 7 (a), Figure 7 (b) and Figure 7 (c).

Fig. 7(a) Factor F1 at section 1-1 Fig. 7(b) Factor F2 at section 1-1

Fig. 7(c) Factor F3 at section 1-1

Finite element and frame analysis results and corresponding factors at section 2-2 are shown
in Table 2.

Table 2 Finite element and frame analysis results and corresponding factors at section 2-2
FE analysis
Fr analysis Factor
(at section 2-2)
Skew +M -M V max Mc Me SFe +M/Mc -M/Me SF/SFe
angle kN m kN m kN kN m kN m kN F1 F2 F3
0 59.5 -53.4 46.5 57.9 -50.4 57.0 1.0 1.1 0.8
15 60.2 -72.3 142.9 61.2 -54.2 58.8 1.0 1.3 2.4
30 62.9 -108.1 361.1 73.0 -68.3 65.1 0.9 1.6 5.5
45 68.5 -163.2 770.0 101.3 -104.9 78.7 0.7 1.6 9.8
60 79.5 -267.2 1706.0 182.3 -217.2 109.5 0.4 1.2 15.6
75 223.1 -453.7 3978.0 579.5 -852.9 207.3 0.4 0.5 19.2

Factors F1, F2 and F3 for section 2-2 are formulated using MS excel Trend line and the same
are shown in Figure 8 (a), Figure 8 (b) and Figure 8 (c).

Indian Roads Congress (ISSN: 0376-7256)

Indian Highways, Volume 44, Issue Number 2 Feb 2016

Fig. 8(a) Factor F1 at section 2-2 Fig. 8(b) Factor F2 at section 2-2

Fig. 8(c) Factor F3 at section 2-2

The formulated Fr to FE conversion factors are shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Formulated Fr to FE conversion factors

Factor At Section 1-1 At Section 2-2

F1 -0.0001α2 - 0.0036 α+ 0.9873 -4E-05α2 - 0.0066α + 1.0586
F2 -7E-05α2 - 0.0065α + 1.0189 -0.0006α2 + 0.0369α + 1.0024
F3 -4E-06α3 + 0.0003α2 + 0.0011α + 0.9464 0.0016α2 + 0.135α + 0.4399

Factors were proposed at two sections of the box as it was observed that only obtuse corners
are subjected to the maximum stresses compared to the rest of the structure. In the process of
proposing the conversion factors, effect of height on the behaviour of the skew box was not
included.

To check the effect of height on the behaviour of skew box, parametric analysis has been done
considering two different heights for the same length and width. Both finite element and frame
analysis were carried out to check the effect of height. In Finite element analysis, two sections
were considered one at 0L and other at 0.5L as shown in Fig. 5. In Fr model, two critical
sections one at edge and other at centre were considered as shown in Fig 6. An underpass skew
bridge of length 10 m and clear carriage width of 7 m with 0.6 m slab and wall thickness is

Indian Roads Congress (ISSN: 0376-7256)

Indian Highways, Volume 44, Issue Number 2 Feb 2016

analysed for varying heights of 3.5m and 5.5m for varying skew angle of 0 o to 75o with 15o
interval. Results obtained are plotted in Fig. 9-17.

Fig. 9 Variation of Mmax with height Fig. 10 Variation of Mmin with height
at section 1-1 FE analysis at section 1-1 FE analysis

Fig. 11 Variation of Vmax with height Fig. 12 Variation of Mmax with height
at section 1-1 FE analysis at section 2-2 FE analysis

Fig. 13 Variation of Mmin with height Fig. 14 Variation of Vmax with height
at section 2-2 FE analysis at section 2-2 FE analysis

Indian Roads Congress (ISSN: 0376-7256)

Indian Highways, Volume 44, Issue Number 2 Feb 2016

Fig. 15 Variation of Mc with height Fig. 16 Variation of Me with height

Fr analysis Fr analysis

Fig. 17 Variation of SFe with height Fr analysis

From both FE and Fr analysis at section 1-1 and section 2-2, it can be observed that the height
shows not much effect on the behaviour of the underpass box structure with varying skew
angle.
Validation
These factors are validated considering an underpass bridge of height 5.5 m, span length 9 m having
10 m width. Finite element analysis and frame analysis have been performed. Factors have been
applied to the frame analysis results. Percentage error between factor method and finite element
analysis results are calculated and shown in Table 4 and Table 5.

Table 4 Percentage error between FE method and Factor method at Section 1

Fr analysis at section1 Factor method FE analysis Error in %

Me x SFe
Mc Me SFe Mc xF1 M+ M– SF
Skew F2 x F3
M+ M- SF
angle kN kN kN
kN m kN kN m kN m kN kN
m m m
0 87 86 72 85 85 68 84 86 68 0.2 0.4 0.0
15 92 92 74 85 87 76 86 87 74 0.4 0.3 2.8
30 110 116 82 88 90 94 89 91 92 1.9 1.3 2.1
45 155 178 100 91 101 124 95 102 123 4.7 1.1 0.8
60 282 366 140 93 130 169 104 140 172 11.1 7.3 1.7
75 919 1426 265 92 234 266 103 229 267 11.1 2.2 0.5

Indian Roads Congress (ISSN: 0376-7256)

Indian Highways, Volume 44, Issue Number 2 Feb 2016

Table 5 Percentage error between FE method and Factor method at Section 2

Fr analysis at section
Factor method FE analysis Error in %
2
Me x SFe
Mc Me SFe Mc xF1 M+ M– SF
Skew F2 x F3
M+ M- SF
angle kN kN kN kN
kN kN m kN m kN kN
m m m m
0 87 86 72 89 91 59 89 80 53 0.4 14.1 10.2
15 92 92 74 91 123 181 91 120 159 0.1 2.4 13.4
30 110 116 82 95 184 457 95 181 392 0.3 1.5 16.7
45 155 178 100 104 277 978 103 284 1237 1.2 2.6 20.9
60 282 366 140 123 450 2174 120 457 1853 2.5 1.4 17.3
75 919 1426 265 354 758 5089 456 796 4068 22.4 4.7 25.1

From the above study it can be observed that the factors can be used for different spans, within
practical variation.

Analysis of complete box versus segment

In this section, an attempt has been made to observe the variation in results of analysis as
segment w.r.t. analysis considering its whole length. An underpass skew bridge of length 11.85
m and clear carriage width of 7 m with slab and wall thickness 0.6 m is analysed for varying
segment lengths (1m, 3.95m, 5.925m and 11.85m) for varying skew angle of 0 o to 60o with 15o
interval as shown in Fig. 18.

Fig. 18 FE models representing the varying segmental lengths

Principal moments obtained from the analysis are plotted in Fig. 19-20.

Indian Roads Congress (ISSN: 0376-7256)

Indian Highways, Volume 44, Issue Number 2 Feb 2016

Fig. 19 Variation of Mmax for Fig. 20 Variation of Mmin for

varying segmental lengths varying segmental lengths

It can be observed that the boxes which are analysed considering its total length will
underestimates the moments that are actually developing when the boxes are pushed in
segments. It can also be observed that the effect is considerable only if the skew angle is greater
than 30o.

OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMMANDATIONS

The above study indicates the fallows

i. Boxes which are analysed considering its total length underestimates the moments that
are actually developing when the boxes are pushed in segments, especially when skew
angle is more than 30 o. In case of skew boxes, it is recommended to analyse the box
segment instead of complete box structure.
ii. Finite element results at section 2-2 indicate that obtuse corners are subjected to more
moments. So, only the end segments of box can be provided with extra reinfrcement.
iii. Frame analysis overtimates the actual moments in middle box segments.
iv. Frame to finite element covrsion factors proposed do not include the height effect. But,
parametric study indicates that height has no effect on the behaviour of the skew
underpass box.

Indian Roads Congress (ISSN: 0376-7256)

Indian Highways, Volume 44, Issue Number 2 Feb 2016

REFERENCES

1. Raghava kumar V and R. K. Ingle (2015), “Parametric Study on Skew Underpass

Bridge”, International Journal of Mechanical and Production Engineering (IJMPE),
Vol (3), no 7.
2. D. N. Farhey, and M. Zogh. “In-service analytical investigation of precast-concrete,
short-span, skewed bridges with integral abutment walls.” Adv. Struct. Eng., 9(2), 213–
227.
3. D. A. Niday, “A finite-element analysis and field test of skewed, three-sided concrete
box culverts.” MS thesis, Dept. of Civil and Environment Engineering and Engineering
Mechanics, Univ. of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio.
4. H. J. Dagher, M. Elgaaly and J. Kankam “Analytical investigation of slab bridges with
integral wall abutments.” Transportation Research Record. 1319, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, D.C., 115–125.

Indian Roads Congress (ISSN: 0376-7256)