Case Study

Failure Analysis on a Curved Girder Bridge Collapse under

Eccentric Heavy Vehicles Using Explicit Finite Element
Method: Case Study
Xuefei Shi, Ph.D.1; Zhen Cao2; Haiying Ma, Ph.D., P.E.3; and Xin Ruan, A.M.ASCE4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Middle East Technical University on 10/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: In recent years, several similar bridge overturning and collapse accidents have occurred in China. All of them occurred on bridges
with continuous monolithic box girders and single-column piers that were eccentrically overloaded by heavy vehicles. In this study, an explicit
nonlinear dynamic finite element method is used to analyze an accident occurred on an expressway exit ramp bridge. The entire overturning
and collapse process is simulated. The results show a girder revolving around the overturning axis, which is a straight line between two sup-
ports for a bridge eccentrically loaded by heavy vehicles. When the rotation of the main girder is larger than the friction limit rotation, the slid-
ing force is greater than the friction force between the girder and the support. This causes the main girder to slide obliquely, which can induce a
horizontal reaction force, pushing the piers down and collapsing the whole bridge. This underestimates the anti-overturning ability of a bridge,
based on the criterion that no support disengagement occurs under overloading conditions. Second-order effects due to girder rotation (includ-
ing the increase of the overturning moment arm) must be taken into account when calculating an anti-overturning stability factor based on the
overturning axis between two supports. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001201. © 2018 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Curved girder bridge with single-column piers; Explicit nonlinear dynamic finite element; Overturning reasons;
Collapse mechanism; Second-order effect.

Introduction
Continuous box girder bridges with single-column piers or small-
distance double piers are often used for viaducts. Such bridges are
advantageous, because they use less space and have simple con-
figurations. Note that overturning stability under eccentric vehi-
cle load must be considered during the design process. However,
currently there are no related specifications for the lateral over-
turning stability of monolithic box girders for highway bridges in
China. Article 3.6.8 of the General Specifications for Design of
Highway Bridges and Culverts (Ministry of Communication of
China 2015) suggests that support disengagement shall be consid-
ered for supports in the lateral direction. In Article 9.7.4 of the
Code for Design of Highway Reinforced Concrete and Prestressed
Concrete Bridges and Culverts (Ministry of Communication of
China 2004), it is specified that no support disengagement shall
occur during the service life of the bridge. In Article 5.5.4.3 of the
AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications (AASHTO 2012), it
is suggested that a structure and its components should resist over-
turning, sliding and uplift, and that the effects of eccentric loads shall
1
Professor, Dept. of Bridge Engineering, Tongji Univ., Shanghai
200092, China. E-mail: shixf@tongji.edu.cn
2
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Bridge Engineering, Tongji Univ.,
Shanghai 200092, China. E-mail: caozhenshandong@qq.com
3
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Bridge Engineering, Tongji Univ.,
Shanghai 200092, China (corresponding author). E-mail: mahaiying@
tongji.edu.cn
4
Associate Professor, Dept. of Bridge Engineering, Tongji Univ.,
Shanghai 200092, China. E-mail: ruanxin@tongji.edu.cn
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 27, 2017; approved on
September 14, 2017; published online on January 11, 2018. Discussion pe-
riod open until June 11, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702.
be considered during the analysis and design phases, while the corre-
sponding design methods are not given.
In recent years, several bridge collapse accidents have occurred
in China because of vehicle overloading. On October 23, 2007,
three heavy overloaded vehicles caused a viaduct to overturn and
collapse in Baotou (Peng et al. 2014b). On July 15, 2009, five
vehicles parked close together on the right side of a bridge caused a
ramp bridge collapse in Tianjin (Huang et al. 2012). On February
21, 2011, four trucks simultaneously loaded on the right caused an
interchange ramp to collapse in Zhejiang Province (Peng et al.
2014a). On August 24, 2012, four overloaded trucks traveling on
one side of a bridge caused a ramp to collapse in Harbin (Fan et al.
2015). On June 19, 2015, an interchange ramp overturned and col-
lapsed on the Yuegan Expressway in Guangdong Province, killing
one person and injuring four. Field investigation results indicated
that this collapse occurred because of overloaded vehicles driving
too near to the guardrail (Xinhua News Agency 2015). Additionally,
several bridges were damaged because of support disengagement
induced by overloaded trucks driving on one side. On May 26,
2016, support disengagement was found on a viaduct on the
Shanghai Middle Ring Line, caused by one-sided heavy vehicles;
fortunately, no collapse occurred (Ding 2016). Similar accidents
have occurred in India. On the Basantpur–Kingal defense road in
the Shimla district, on July 3, 2010, a freak accident killed two
people on a newly constructed bridge that had four loaded trucks
parked on one side, which overturned the bridge (Makhaik 2010).
Additionally, a section of the Ultadanga flyover in Calcutta col-
lapsed on March 3, 2013; this was induced by a truck loaded with
marble slabs (Bhabani 2013).
The overturning accidents described in the preceding paragraph
have the following features in common: heavy vehicles were driving
or parking on one side to cause the accidents; continuous monolithic
box girders were used for the bridges; multiple single-supports or
small-distance double supports were used for the bearings; and the
bridges collapsed and fell to one side.

© ASCE 05018001-1 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(3): 05018001

 Currently, analyses of bridge anti-overturning are primarily per-
formed using support reactions calculated from a member model.
Then, a determination of bridge structure anti-overturning behavior
is made based on support disengagement (Qi 2013; Wang 2014b;
Wang 2014a; Zhuang 2013; Chen et al. 2014). Sarode and
Vesmawala (2014) analyzed and calculated curved box girder
bridges for different spans and curvatures. Their results showed that
interior support disengagement occurs more easily on curved
bridges with larger spans and smaller curvature radii. A lateral anti-
overturning safety factor greater than 1.5 is proposed. The criteria
are simple for determining main girder overturning safety consider-
ing only support disengagement. For statically indeterminate bridges,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Middle East Technical University on 10/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
beams; the present researchers propose two ultimate states during
the overturning process, including a rotation ultimate state and
overturning ultimate stability state. The ultimate state of the rota-
tion corresponds to supporting disengagement conditions. In the
overturning ultimate stability state, a box girder rotation axis closes
to the bearing side; the girder collapses when it can no longer move
outward. The researchers propose an overturning stability assess-
ment approach based on energy.
A bridge collapse is a dynamic chain reaction, starting with sup-
port disengagement and ending with overall bridge overturning.
Few studies have simulated the whole process. To discover the
cause of a bridge overturning and determine the ultimate state dur-

single-support disengagement does not indicate that bridge col- ing the overturning process, it is necessary to study the whole pro-
lapse will occur immediately. Peng et al. (2016a, 2016b, 2017) cess, from support disengagement to bridge collapse. During a col-
assumed that single-column bridge collapses primarily occur lapse, there are always changes in boundary contact conditions,
because of the support squeezing-out and sliding of integral box material yielding with nonlinear displacement features, nonlinear

Fig. 1. Layout of the modeled bridge: (a) elevation and plan view of the collapsed bridge (unit: cm); (b) cross section dimensions (unit: cm); (c) cross
section of P3 and P4 (unit: mm)

© ASCE 05018001-2 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(3): 05018001

 materials, and nonlinear contacts, which can be easily handled by
explicit nonlinear dynamic analysis. An explicit dynamic finite ele-
ment method (EFEM) is often used to simulate a structure collapse
process, and it can capture transient states during collapse.
Tang and Hao (2010) numerically simulated the dynamic
responses of a large cable-stayed bridge under explosive loadings
using EFEM. Xu et al. (2012) performed an EFEM analysis of a
stone arch bridge collapse, and concluded that a shortage of arch
strength led to the collapse. Bi et al. (2015) analyzed a viaduct
domino-type collapse during demolition using EFEM and found
that collapse occurred because of the pounding force created by
demolishing slabs larger than the shear strength of the piers. All of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Middle East Technical University on 10/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
these indicate that it is feasible to use EFEM for a collapse process
simulation.
Shi et al. (2016) developed a static analysis to explore the
causes and mechanisms of a straight bridge collapse. In this
method, static concentrated forces in the vertical direction are
directly applied to the bridge deck. The contact between the com-
ponents is ignored in the implicit finite-element simulations; and
the connections between the piers and girder are modeled by
coupled node displacements rather than solid model of bearings.
This study suggests that the noticeable lateral horizontal interaction
forces between the piers and girders in the straight bridge leads to
bending failures in the piers that later causes the collapse of the
superstructure. These second-order effects of girder rotation on the
anti-overturning stability factor are ignored in Shi et al. (2016).
In this study, a dynamic simulation analysis of a curved ramp
bridge collapse accident on the Yuegan Highway is performed, the
reasons for the overturning are obtained, a collapse mechanism is
proposed for curved bridges (the mechanism is different from that
Fig. 2. Accident scene of the bridge: (a) accident scene (image by Xuefei Shi); (b) vehicle locations (unit: cm)
© ASCE 05018001-3
J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(3): 05018001
for a straight bridge), the ultimate state during the collapse process
is determined, and design recommendations are provided for pre-
venting similar accidents.
Bridge Overview and Site Investigation
Fig. 1 shows a structural schematic diagram of the ramp bridge.
This ramp is composed of two prestressed concrete continuous box
girder bridges with spans of 2
25 m and 3
25 m; the latter is the
one that collapsed during the accident. In the plan view, abutment
A0 and pier P2 lie on a straight line, pier P2 and P3 lie on a transi-
tion curve, and pier P3 to A5 lie on a circular curve with a radius of
200 m. The depth of the box girder is 1.4 m, with an 8.5-m-wide top
flange and a 4.5-m-wide bottom flange. These are made of C50 con-
crete. The heights of Piers P2, P3, and P4 are 9 m, 10.5 m, and
5.5 m, respectively. A single column with a circular cross section is
used for P2, P3, and P4. The diameters of these circular cross sec-
tions are 1.5 m, 1.3 m, and 1.3 m, respectively. All piers are made of
C30 concrete, and each pier is reinforced by 32 U25 mm steel bars
with a yielding strength of 335 MPa. Pier P2 has a cap beam on top
and double supports (B2-1 and B2-2); the distance between the sup-
ports is 2.5 m. Pier P3 and P4 have single supports directly located
on the girder axis (B3 and B4). Abutment A5 has three supports
(B5-1, B5-2, and B5-3) and retainers on both sides. Laminated rub-
ber is used for all supports. The dimensions of all supports are
shown in Fig. 1(a). All piers and abutments have pile foundations,
and the piles are directly linked with the piers.
The scene of the accident after the bridge collapse is shown in
Fig. 2. Four tractor trailers were present during the accident; they
J. Bridge Eng.
 are denoted as T1, T2, T3, and T4, respectively. Among them, T1
through T3 rolled to the west outside of the main girder, and T4
rolled to the east on the main girder. The weights of the four trailers
were 117.7 t, 111.4 t, 78.7 t, and 116.7 t, respectively. Some of the
goods in T3 were lost due to water washing; from the monitoring
video, it can be observed that the goods were the same as in the
other trailers. According to the field investigation, T4 fell on the
girder after the bridge collapsed.
During overturning failure, piers P3 and P4 broke at the bot-
tom and fell toward the east. As shown in Figs. 3(a and b), the
steel bars were pulled apart and the concrete was completely bro-
ken into pieces. Pier P2 did not fall during the accident, but the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Middle East Technical University on 10/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
west end of its cap beam was damaged by the friction and impact
effects of girder displacement. Scratches were left on the pier sur-
face because of the friction effects from girder deformation, and
the flange of the box girder was damaged when it was extruded
with the pier, as shown in Figs. 3(c and d). Because the west
retainer of abutment A5 was crushed, the girder exhibited a hori-
zontal translation to the west, and the west flange of the box
girder had obvious damage, as shown in Fig. 3(e). Impact traces
Fig. 3. Condition of piers and abutment after collapse (images by
Xuefei Shi): (a) P3 bottom; (b) P4 bottom; (c) P2 top; (d) P2 bottom;
(e) A5 and retainer; (f) trace of wheel collision with guardrail
© ASCE 05018001-4
J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(3): 05018001
were observed on the west barrier, induced by the tractor trailer
wheels, as shown in Fig. 3(f).
Numerical Analysis
An EFEM is developed using Abaqus/Explicit; it can easily analyze
complicated contact problems of interaction among many individ-
ual objects and can model material degradation and failure.
Material Model
The concrete parameters conform to the specification requirements of
China JTG D62 (Ministry of Communication of China 2004). The
main girder is made of C50 concrete with a density of 2,500 kg/m3,
Young’s modulus of 35.5 GPa, and Poisson ratio of 0.2. All piers
and abutments are made of C30 concrete, with a density of
2,500 kg/m3, Young’s modulus of 30 GPa, and Poisson ratio of
0.2. C40 concrete is used in the bridge deck pavement and has a
density of 2,500 kg/m3, Young’s modulus of 33.5 GPa, and
Poisson ratio of 0.2.
According to the field investigation results, the bottoms of
piers exhibit obvious fracture failure. Therefore, a brittle concrete
cracking model is adopted in the analysis. The model can
adequately simulate the flexure, flexure-shear, and direct shear
failure of a reinforced concrete (RC) structure under dynamic
loading. Many researchers have used this model to study RC
structures under large dynamic loads. Chen et al. (2008) simu-
lated the response of an RC girder under severe dynamic loads;
Zhou et al. (2014) studied the dynamic response and failure
modes of a launching pad during missile launches, and discussed
the resulting generation and propagation of cracks; Wang et al.
(2015) numerically simulated the process of steel plate-grout
shear failure and obtained the failure mode.
The brittle cracking concrete model assumes that the material
exhibits linear-elastic behavior in compression and tension prior to
cracking. A simple Rankine criterion is used to detect crack initia-
tion. This criterion states that a crack forms when the maximum
principal tensile stress exceeds the tensile strength of the brittle ma-
terial. The later failure characteristics of concrete after cracking fol-
low the method of Hillerborg et al. (1976), and the stress-
displacement relationship of the concrete after cracking is presented
in Table 1. When the local cracking displacement components at a
node reach the value defined as the failure displacement, the node
fails, and all the stress components are set to zero. If all the nodes in
an element fail, the element is removed from the mesh. Abaqus can
automatically determine whether to remove elements.
The supports are modeled as elastic materials with a density of
2,200 kg/m3 and Young’s modulus of 400 MPa, according to article
8.4.1 in (Ministry of Communication of China 2004). An elastic
perfectly plastic constitutive model is used for the steel bars, which
have a density of 7,800 kg/m3, Young’s modulus of 210 GPa, and
yield strength of 335 MPa. Ductile damage with a fracture strain of
0.33 is used to model the cracking of the steel bars.
Table 1. Stress-Displacement Relationship of Concrete after Cracking of
Hillerborg Method
Displacement (10−3) Tensile stress (MPa)
0 3
0.5 1
2 0
J. Bridge Eng.
 Boundary Conditions and Contacts
The piers and abutments are fixed to the piles in the practical bridge
structure. According to the accident scene investigation, the soil
around the pile top did not exhibit any deformation, indicating that
there was no displacement at the top of the piles. The pile diameters
were 20 cm larger than the pier diameters, resulting in the piles
being stiffer than the piers. Therefore, the bottoms of the piers can
be treated as being fixed by the stiffer piles. Thus, fixed constraints
to the bottom of piers P2, P3, and P4 and abutment A5 are applied
in the FEM model. In the practical bridge structure, the supports sit
on piers, and the main girder sits on the supports. In the FEM model,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Middle East Technical University on 10/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
a surface-to-surface contact method is used to model and output the
contact force between the girder and the supports and between the
supports and piers. Whether the contact is maintained can be deter-
mined by whether the contact force is zero; then, the occurrence of
support disengagement can be ascertained. Possible collision
among the elements during the bridge collapse process is modeled
by a general contact algorithm (Abaqus Analysis User’s Guide
2014).
When contact occurs on the surface, a Coulomb friction model is
used to simulate the friction. The Coulomb model relates the maxi-
mum allowable frictional (shear) stress across an interface to the
contact pressure between contacting bodies. In the basic form of the
Coulomb friction model, two contact surfaces can carry shear
stresses up to a certain magnitude across their interface before they
start sliding relative to each another; this state is known as sticking.
The Coulomb friction model defines this critical shear stress as
t crit , at which the sliding of the surfaces starts as a fraction of the
contact pressure p between the surfaces (t crit ¼ m p). The stick/slip
calculations determine when a point transitions from sticking to
slipping or from slipping to sticking. The fraction m is known as the
friction coefficient. In this study, the friction coefficients of the
surfaces between the concrete and rubber bearings and the deck and
tires are set to 0.3, based on article 8.4.1 of China JTG D62
(Ministry of Communication of China 2004).
Elements
The main girder, piers, and supports are modeled as solid elements,
according to their actual dimensions. The model uses a three-
dimensional reduced integration first-order element type (C3D8R).
The vehicles are modeled using solid elements. The trailer is 17 m

2.6 m
2 m, with a density of 1,474 kg/m3. Rubber blocks at the bot-
tom are used to model tires. The trailer weighs 115 t, in accordance
with the given real weight. The steel reinforcement uses truss ele-
ments. A perfect bond is assumed in the study to model the connec-
tions between the reinforcement and concrete. It is assumed in the
model that the bond between the reinforcements and the concrete is
perfect. Therefore, the bond slip between the reinforcements and
concrete is taken to be fully dependent on the failure of the concrete
material. An embedded constraint is used to simulate the bond
between the reinforcements and concrete.
For P2, P3, P4, A5, and all of the bearings, a mesh size of
approximately 0.1 m is used. The reinforcements in the piers have
the same mesh size. To prevent penetration between surfaces, a
mesh size of approximately 0.1 m is also used for the box girder bot-
tom slab. Relatively coarse meshes of approximately 0.5 m are
applied to the other parts of the girder and tractor trailer.
Loads
According to the investigation of the drivers, T4 fell on the girder
after the bridge collapsed, which was irrelevant to the bridge
© ASCE 05018001-5
J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(3): 05018001
overturning. Thus, the numerical analysis only includes T1 through
T3 on the bridge. In this study, the trailers are considered to be sta-
tionary on the deck. The longitudinal position of each trailer is
shown in Fig. 2(b). The minimum distance between the tires and
barrier is 0.5 m, according to the tire trace investigation. Because an
explicit solver is used, the gravity load is dynamically applied in the
analysis. The acceleration due to gravity is taken as 9.8 m/s2. If a
gravity load is applied quickly, it can induce the bridge structure to
vibrate; thus, the load amplitude factors for dead load and vehicle
load are monotonically and dynamically increased to 1. The dead
load is applied from 0 s to 1 s, and the vehicle load is applied from
1 s to 2 s, with a linear increase.
Analysis Results
Bridge Collapse Process
Three stages are identified during the bridge collapse process analy-
sis. Stage 1 is the small rotation stage. During this stage, disengage-
ment occurs as the vehicle load is applied, and a girder rotation
mechanism system then forms when supports B2-2, B3, B4, and
B5-3 are located on a line supporting the girder. Stage 2 is the large
rotation stage. Girder rotation increases continuously to a critical
sliding angle, and then sliding occurs between the girder and sup-
ports. Stage 3 is the collapse stage. The sliding force between the
girder and the support induces a horizontal force, which pushes the
pier down, leading to bridge collapse.
Small Rotation Stage
The bridge maintains its balance under self-weight, and no support
disengagement occurs, as shown in Fig. 4(a). When the applied load
is 47% of the total vehicle load (total weight of T1 through T3), sup-
port B5-1 begins to disengage. With the increase in applied load,
bearing B5-2 disengages, and when the applied load is 67% of the
total vehicle load, B2-1 also disengages. When the girder rotation is
only 0.56°, the main girder is supported only by B2-2, B3, B4, and
B5-3, and begins to rotate toward the west.
Large Rotation Stage
After the girder rotation mechanism system is formed, girder rota-
tion increases significantly. When the girder rotation reaches 7.4°,
the west web of the girder touches the west retainer of abutment A5,
and the retainer breaks as the girder rotation increases [Fig. 4 (b)].
When the girder rotation reaches 8.9°, the bottom of the girder con-
tacts the west top corner of pier P2. B2-2 disengages when the
girder rotation reaches 11.4°, as shown in Fig. 4(c). B5-3 disen-
gages when the girder rotation reaches 16.3°, and the main girder is
primarily supported by B3 and B4, as shown in Fig. 4(d).
Collapse Stage
When girder rotation reaches 16.7°, the bottom of the girder slides
between B3 and B4, and the girder starts to fall. With the girder
turning continuously, the bottom of the girder touches the west top
corners of P4 and P3 when the girder rotation reaches 19° and
21.1°, respectively, and the reaction of B3 and B4 starts to decrease,
as shown in Fig. 4(e).
The top of the pier carries a large horizontal force toward east
due to the effect from the inclined and sliding girder. The concrete
of piers P3 and P4 begins to crack when the girder rotation reaches
21.1° and 22.2°, respectively. The steel rebar breaks when the girder
rotation reaches 25.2°, and the piers falls toward the east.
Simultaneously, the supports fall out (the reaction forces decrease
to zero), as shown in Fig. 4(f).
J. Bridge Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Middle East Technical University on 10/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. Bridge overturning collapse process: (a) self-weight complete; (b) web contact with retainer; (c) B2-2 disengage; (d) girder supported by B3
and B4; (e) bottom of girder contact pier; (f) fracture of pier
After the girder body falls and P3 and P4 break, the girder part at
abutment A5 first falls on the cap beam. Then, girder rotation begins
to be restored. As the girder near P2 falls, the contact force increases
between the girder bottom and west top corner of P2, which leads to
the damage of P2 [Fig. 3(c)]. The girder continues to slide, and its
flange crashes into P2, leaving scratches as rotation is restored, as
shown in Fig. 3(d). The wheels collide with the barrier as the girder
and vehicles fall, and impact traces are left on the guardrail.
Force Analysis during Bridge Collapse
Small Girder Rotation Stage
According to the analysis of the bridge collapse process, supports
B5-1, B5-2, and B2-1 are already disengaged when the applied load
reaches 67% of the total vehicle load. At this point the girder rota-
tion is not large (only 0.56°) as shown in Figs. 5(a and b). However,
supports B2-2, B3, B4, and B5-3 continue to function, and are
located approximately in a line. At this time, the restoring moment
induced by the dead load could resist the overturning moment
induced by the applied live load.
Large Girder Rotation Stage
The author studied the overturning of a straight continuous girder
bridge (Shi et al. 2016), and suggested that the inclined girder
deformed not only vertically but also horizontally because of the
© ASCE 05018001-6
J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(3): 05018001
girder rotation. The horizontal displacement induced a horizontal
force to the middle pier, which pushed the pier down and caused the
bridge to collapse, as shown in Figs. 5(c and d). Collapse occurred
depending on the condition that there was no support disengage-
ment at the girder ends to balance the reaction force of the middle
support. However, the curved bridge in this study is slightly differ-
ent. Because of its horizontal curvature, the reaction forces at B2-2
and B5-3 decrease with increasing girder rotation. Thus, the hori-
zontal forces to P3 and P4 decrease, and decrease to zero when the
girder rotation is 7.4°. At this time, the girder contacts the retainer,
and the girder moves toward the east at A5, because the west web of
the girder is blocked by the retainer of abutment A5. Therefore, the
horizontal force (toward the east) to P4 increases, as shown in
Fig. 6(b). After the retainer is broken, the reaction horizontal force
of the abutment decreases. The supports at B2-2 and B5-3 start to
disengage with the increase in girder rotation. Therefore, curved
bridge collapses are different from straight bridge collapses.
After the vehicle load is applied, the increasing girder rotation
causes the length of the overturning arm to increase. Therefore, the
overturning moment increases rapidly. When the overturning moment
is larger than the resistance moment, girder overturning occurs.
Horizontal Force Caused P3 and P4 Failure
When the girder rotation reaches 16.3°, the girder is supported only
by supports B3 and B4, because of the horizontal curvature, as
J. Bridge Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Middle East Technical University on 10/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Force diagram with small and large girder rotation: (a) small girder rotation stage; (b) support disengagement; (c) large girder rotation stage;
(d) diagram of horizontal force due to horizontal deformation

shown in Fig. 3(d). The girder is formed as a rotation mechanism
that can rotate about the line between B3 and B4. Fig. 6(a) shows
the cross-section perpendicular to the rotation axis. The compres-
sion force R induced by the girder to the support can be divided into
the normal force Fn and tangential friction force Ff .
As in the contact defined in the previous section, the girder does
not slide on its bearings when the girder rotation u is less or equal to
16.7°. The horizontal components of Fy and normal components of
Fn (that is, Ff cos u and Fn sin u ) can be in balance. When the girder
rotation u is larger than 16.7°, the tangential friction force Ff between
the girder and support reaches its limit. The horizontal component of
Fn increases, which causes the girder to slide. Therefore, the horizon-
tal force (eastward) to the top of piers Fh can be calculated as follows:
Fh ¼ Fn sin u  Ff cos u ¼ R cos u sin u  R m cos2 u (1)
The girder contacts the west top corner of P3 and P4 after sliding.
Thus, it induces a direct eastward horizontal force to the piers, as
shown in Fig. 6(b). The piers bend because of the horizontal force.
Because the height of P4 is less than that of P3, P4 has a larger trans-
verse resistance stiffness and carries a larger horizontal force. Fig.
6(b) also shows the horizontal force variation applied to the abutment
for the different girder rotation. The results show that the reaction
force between the girder and A5 decreases to zero after the girder rota-
tion exceeds 15°, indicating that the support has finally disengaged.
The horizontal forces calculated from Eq. (1) are presented in
Table 2. Under the horizontal force above, the moments at the
bottoms of P3 and P4 for different girder rotations are also pre-
sented. Note that the horizontal force is small for a small girder
rotation and is not shown in the table. According to AASHTO
LRFD 5.8.2.9 (AASHTO 2012), the antibending capacities of P3

© ASCE 05018001-7 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(3): 05018001

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Middle East Technical University on 10/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Horizontal forces variation in P3 and P4 with different girder rotation: (a) support reaction after slip; (b) horizontal force on piers with differ-
ent girder rotation

Table 2. Horizontal Force and Bottom Moments of Piers under Different Rotation Angles

P3 P4
Girder rotation
(degree) R from P3 (kN) R from B3 (kN) Fh (kN) Moment (kN-m) R from P4 (kN) R from B4 (kN) Fh (kN) Moment (kN-m)
20.1 0 4,876 287 3,014 173.9 6,555 442 2,431
21.2 57.3 4,649 374 3,927 1,071 4,929 737 4,054
22.2 281.9 3,614 437 4,589 1,984 3,809 1,052 5,786
23.3 409.3 3,078 485 5,093 2,977 3,115 1,421 7,816
24.3 383.3 1,598 343 3,602 2,506 2,736 1,281 7,046
25.2 0 1,462 204 2,142 2,279 1,908 1,146 6,303

and P4 are 3,170 kNm, which is not sufficient to resist all the hori- 14
zontal forces in the table.
12
The analysis above shows that the eccentric vehicle load first
Maximum Rotation (degree)

Overturning
causes support disengagement at B5-1, B5-2, and B2-1 during the
10
whole load application process, where the girder is supported by
four supports approximately in a line. As girder rotation rapidly 8
increases, the girder is supported only by supports B3 and B4,
because of the horizontal curvature of the girder. When the sliding 6
force exceeds the limit of the friction force between the supports B2-1
and girder bottom, the girder begins to slide westward, and contacts B5-2 disengagement
4 B5-1
the middle piers. The eastward horizontal force applied to the piers disengagment disengagement
as the girder slides is composed of two parts: the horizontal force 2
between the girder and support and the force between the piers and
girder. The horizontal forces push piers P3 and P4 toward the east, 0
40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90%
causing the bridge to collapse. This conclusion is different from the Applied load ( Percentage of total vehicle load)
previous conclusion for the straight girder, where the horizontal
girder deformation causes the piers to fail. Anti-overturning stabil- Fig. 7. Relationship between girder maximum rotation and applied
ity should be considered in the design of single-column bridges. load

Discussion approximately straight line, and girder rotation begins to obviously

Anti-Overturning Stability Calculation Method
Overturning problems should not occur if no supports have any ten-
sion reactions (Hirt and Lebet 2013). For normal service states, this
is reasonable. However, for the ultimate state, previous analyses of
bridge failure indicate that this is conservative. Fig. 7 shows the
relationship between applied load and the corresponding maximum
girder rotation. When the applied load reaches 47% of the total ve-
hicle load, support B5-1 disengages. When the load reaches 67% of
the total vehicle load, the nondisengaged supports are located on an
increase, though it remains in balance. When the load reaches 88%
of the total vehicle load, the girder rotation increases continuously,
and collapse occurs. From the analysis above, it can be seen that the
load that causes the girder to overturn is almost as big again as the
load that causes the supports to disengage. Therefore, for serious
overloading conditions, the requirement that no support disengage-
ment occur under the ultimate state underestimates bridge anti-
overturning ability.
An additional anti-overturning stability calculation method is
based on the ratio of overturning moment to resistance moment. An
overturning axis is observed when a bridge overturns under an

© ASCE 05018001-8 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(3): 05018001

 Fig. 8. Overturning axis
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Middle East Technical University on 10/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

eccentric load; this corresponds to the smallest anti-overturning

capacity among the arbitrary lines between any two supports (Zhou
et al. 2013). The selection of an overturning axis shall guarantee no
vertical support on the overturning side. For the bridge in this study,
the straight lines through B2-2 and B3 (axis 1), B3 and B4 (axis 2),
and B4 and B5-3 (axis 3) are all potential overturning axes, as
shown in Fig. 8. The axis with the smallest stability coefficient is
the overturning axis. Apparently, longer distances between the sup-
port and axis are correlated with larger anti-overturning resistance
moments. Therefore, axes 1 and 3 have larger anti-overturning re-
sistance moments than axis 2. The overturning moment depends
on the applied load outside the overturning axis, which can be cal-
culated from the deck area on the overturning side along the over-
turning axis. In this way, the deck overturning area along axis 2 is
larger than the deck overturning areas along axes 1 and 3.
Therefore, axis 2 has the smallest anti-overturning stability coef-
ficient. For the bridge in this study, the overturning axis is the line
Fig. 9. Moment variation with rotation of u
between B3 and B4.
Shi et al. (2016) proposed a method for calculating overturning
moment Mo1 , resistance moment Mr1 , and anti-overturning stability
factor g 1 , as follows: denotes the initial distance, and Et0 denotes the distance (for a girder
X rotation of u ) between the vehicle center of gravity and the position
Mo1 ¼ Ri xi (2) of the resulting reaction forces. Eg denotes the initial distance, and
Eg0 denotes the distance (for a girder rotation of u ) between the girder
X center of gravity and the position of the resulting reaction forces.
Mr1 ¼ Ti Eti (3) Fig. 9 shows that Et changes to Et0 , and Eg changes to Eg0 for a girder
rotation of u . Because the position of the center of gravity for the
girder is difficult to determine, the anti-overturning moment is calcu-
Mo1
g1 ¼ (4) lated based on the support reactions. When the second-order effect
Mr1 described above is included, the anti-overturning stability factor g 2
is calculated as follows for a girder rotation of u :
where Ri = reaction of supports under a constructed condition; xi =
X
perpendicular distance between the supports and overturning axis; Mo2 ¼ Ri ðxi þ Ef Þcos u (5)
Ti = weight of each vehicle; and Eti = perpendicular distance
between the vehicle mass center and overturning axis. X   
According to the method above, g 1 is 1.07 under the total vehi- Mr2 ¼ Ti Eti0  Ef cos u þ hi sin u (6)
cle load for the bridge in the accident. Therefore, the bridge should
not have collapsed.
Mo2
g2 ¼ (7)
Anti-Overturning Stability Calculation Method with Mr2
Second-Order Effects
where hi = height from the vehicle center of gravity to the top of the
The method above assumes that the overturning axis passes through supports, and Ef = distance from the modified position to the initial
the support center, and that the position of the center of gravity position of the resulting reaction forces.
for the vehicle is constant during the loading process. In reality, the Fig. 10 shows variations in the overturning moment and resistance
distance between the center of gravity of the girder and the overturn- moment, including the second-order effects from Eqs. (5)–(7). Note
ing axis and the distance between the center of gravity of vehicles that the calculation results for a girder rotation of zero are equal to the
and the overturning axis continue to change as the girder rotation results of Eqs. (2)–(4) (which do not consider second-order effects
increases. Because of the widths of the supports, the positions of the because of the girder rotation). According to the elastic modulus for
resulting reaction forces also change, as shown in Fig. 9. The calcu- the bridge in this study, the maximum offset of the resultant support
lations in Shi et al. (2016) do not include second-order effects. Et forces on B3 and B4 is 0.29 m.

© ASCE 05018001-9 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(3): 05018001

 10500

9500 100%

Resistance Moment
88%
8500

Moment(kNm)
7500

87%
6500
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Middle East Technical University on 10/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

5500 77%

67%
4500
0 5 10 15 20
Girder Rotation(degree)

Fig. 10. Overturning and resistance moment under vehicle load for different girder rotations

Table 3. Comparison of Overturning Stability with and without Rotation alia, two of the authors of this article (Shi et al. 2016). In the model
Effects of analysis for the straight girder bridge, girder-support-pier contact
is ignored. Instead, coupled horizontal displacement constraints
Without rotation were considered between certain nodes of the piers and girder. The
effects With rotation effects
Loading results show that the oblique deformation of the girder induces a
percentage (%) Mr1 Mo1 g1 uc Mr2 Mo2 g2 horizontal force on the middle piers and pushes them down. In the
67 7,879 4,900 1.61 1.3 8,222 4,825 1.70 calculation of the overturning stability coefficient, the second-order
77 7,879 5,636 1.39 3.0 8,502 5,423 1.57 effects of girder rotation are ignored. In this study, all contact
87 7,879 6,360 1.24 8.5 8,660 6,995 1.23 between components is included, and the whole overturning and
88 7,879 6,449 1.22 16.7 8,407 8,435 0.997 collapse process is simulated. The following conclusions can be
100 7,879 7,314 1.07 16.7 8,407 9,570 0.878 drawn from the results of analysis:
1. The collapse process for the bridge is obtained by EFEM analy-
sis. Because of the applied eccentric load, the girder rotates,
From Fig. 10, when second-order effects from the girder rotation causing some supports to disengage. This means that the girder
are not considered, the resistance moment is larger than the over- becomes rotatable. Because of the influence of horizontal cur-
turning moment, even under the total vehicle applied load. vature when the girder rotation is large, only two supports work
In contrast, when second-order effects are considered, the resist- effectively. Then, the rotation reaches its limit, and the girder
ance moment begins to decrease after reaching its maximum limit begins to slide on the supports. The horizontal reaction forces
with increasing girder rotation. The overturning moment continues generated by sliding push the single-column piers down side-
to increase. Table 3 presents a comparison of the anti-overturning ways, and the whole bridge collapses.
stability coefficient results calculated from Eqs. (4) and (7) for dif- 2. For bridges with several supports not in a line along the span (partic-
ferent loading conditions. When the applied load reaches 88% of ularly horizontally curved bridges), the occurrence of disengage-
the total vehicle load, g 1 is 1.22 when second-order effects are not ment of only some support does not lead to bridge collapse.
considered. Despite this, g 2 is smaller than 1 when second-order However, when several supports disengage and the others are
effects due to girder rotation are considered, indicating collapse. u c located along a line, the girder exhibits large rotation and overturns.
is the maximum girder rotation when the girder is in balance or just 3. For bridges with single-column piers, horizontal reaction forces
before it loses balance. during girder sliding are the main effect pushing piers down.
Therefore, when determining the anti-overturning stability, in addi- Sliding between the girder and supports cannot be allowed in
tion to choosing a reasonable overturning axis, second-order effects bridge anti-overturning design.
caused by girder rotation must be considered. Otherwise, the anti- 4. The minimum overturning stability coefficient can be used to
overturning resistance of the structure will be overestimated. If only a determine girder overturning stability. Second-order effects
few support disengagements under the ultimate condition are accepta- generated by girder rotation should be included in the calcula-
ble, the anti-overturning stability calculation must include second- tion of the overturning and resistance moment. Additionally,
order effects, or the maximum girder rotation will be restricted. the maximum girder rotation should be restricted under the
ultimate state to reduce second-order effects during the
design.
Conclusions

In this study, an EFEM is used to analyze an overturning accident Acknowledgments

for a curved ramp bridge on the Yuegan Highway, and the conclu-
sions differ from the results concerning an accident on a straight Research funding provided by the National Natural Science
continuous bridge obtained in a previous study conducted by, inter Foundation of China (Grant 51438010) is gratefully acknowledged.

© ASCE 05018001-10 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(3): 05018001

 References
AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials). (2012). “AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications.”
Washington, DC.
Abaqus [Computer software]. SIMULIA, Providence, RI.
Abaqus/Explicit [Computer software]. SIMULIA, Providence, RI.
Abaqus Analysis User’s Guide. (2014). Abaqus 6.14 documentation,
Dassault Systèmes, SIMULIA, Providence, RI.
Bhabani, S. (2013). “Accident or building blunder? Trinamool and left
Front play the blame game after newly-built flyover collapses in
Kolkata.” Daily Mail, hhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews
/article-2287544/Accident-building-blunder-Trinamool-Left-Front-play
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Middle East Technical University on 10/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
-blame-game-newly-built-flyover-collapses-Kolkata.htmli (Mar. 3,
2013).
Bi, K., Ren, W.-X., Cheng, P.-F., and Hao, H. (2015). “Domino-type pro-
gressive collapse analysis of a multi-span simply-supported bridge: A
case study.” Eng. Struct., 90, 172–182.
Chen, L., Fang, Q., and Huan, Y. (2008). “Finite element analysis of failure
modes of R/C beams subjected to severe dynamic loads.” J. Beijing
Univ. Tech., 34(6), 580–585 (in Chinese).
Chen, Y., Xin, G., Li, Y., and Luo, Z. (2014). “Anti-overturning stability
study of a continuous steel-concrete composite girder bridge with single
column piers.” Challenges and advances in sustainable transportation
systems, ASCE, Reston, VA, 571–579.
Ding, Y. (2016). “Severe accident blocked Zhonghuan line.” Eastday.
com, hhttp://english.eastday.com/Shanghai/u1ai8547264_K23558.htmli
(May 23, 2016).
Fan, Y., Zhu, J., Pei, J., Li, Z., and Wu, Y. (2015). “Analysis for
Yangmingtan Bridge collapse.” Eng. Fail. Anal., 56, 20–27.
Hillerborg, A., Modeer, M., and Petersson, P.-E. (1976). “Analysis of crack
formation and crack growth in concrete by means of fracture mechanics
and finite elements.” Cem. Concr. Res., 6(6), 773–782.
Hirt, M., and Lebet, J.-P. (2013). Steel bridges: Conceptual and structural
design of steel and steel-concrete composite bridges, Taylor and
Francis, Boca Raton, FL.
Huang, G. Y., Lan, C. Q., and Lan, X. (2012). “Analysis on overturning of
single pier bridge and reinforcement design method.” Appl. Mech.
Mater., 105–107, 1338–1341.
Makhaik, R. (2010). “4 loaded trucks overturn defense bridge in Himachal.”
Hill Post, hhttp://hillpost.in/2010/07/4-loaded-trucks-overturn-defence
-bridge-in-himachal/21241/i (Jul. 30, 2010).
Ministry of Communication of China. (2004). “Code for design of highway
reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete bridges and culverts.” JTG
D62-2004, Beijing (in Chinese).
Ministry of Communication of China. (2015). “General code for design of
highway bridges and culverts.” JTG D60-2015, Beijing (in Chinese).
Peng, W., Cheng, B., and Shi, X. (2014a). “Research on mechanism of over-
turning failure of single column pier beam bridge.” J. Nat. Disasters,
(5), 98–106 (in Chinese).
© ASCE 05018001-11
J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(3): 05018001
Peng, W., Dai, F., and Taciroglu, E. (2014b). “Research on mechanism of
overturning failure for single-column pier bridge.” Computing in civil
and building engineering (2014), ASCE, Reston, VA, 1747–1754.
Peng, W., Pan, R., and Ma, J. (2016a). “Study of overturning failure modes
and anti-overturning calculation methods for single-column pier beam
bridges.” Bridge Constr., 46(2), 25–30 (in Chinese).
Peng, W., Xu, W., and Chen, G. (2016b). “Calculation method for anti-
overturning capacity of single column pier girder bridge.” China J.
Highway Trans., 28(3), 66–72 (in Chinese).
Peng, W., Zhao, H., Dai, F., and Taciroglu, E. (2017). “Analytical
method for overturning limit analysis of single-column pier bridges.”
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000999,
04017007.
Qi, Z. (2013). “Analysis of urban continuous box girder transverse overturn-
ing stability.” Master’s thesis, Central South Univ., Changsha, China (in
Chinese).
Sarode, A. B., and Vesmawala, G. R. (2014). “Parametric study of horizon-
tally curved box girders for torsional behavior and stability.” Int.
Refereed J. Eng. Sci., 3(2), 50–55.
Shi, X., Zhou, Z., and Ruan, X. (2016). “Failure analysis of a girder bridge
collapse under eccentric heavy vehicles.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061
/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000964, 05016009.
Tang, E. K. C., and Hao, H. (2010). “Numerical simulation of a cable-
stayed bridge response to blast loads, Part I: Model development and
response calculations.” Eng. Struct., 32(10), 3180–3192.
Wang, G., Cheng, Z., and Wang, Z. (2015). “Shear capacity of compos-
ite member of high strength grouted cement paste and steel plate
with shear keys.” J. Zhejiang Univ. (Eng. Sci.), 2015(7), 1282–1287
(in Chinese).
Wang, W. (2014a). “Research on stability against overturning of single col-
umn pier curved bridge.” Master’s thesis, Chongqing Jiaotong Univ.,
Chongqing, China (in Chinese).
Wang, Z. (2014b). “The research of anti-overturning and structural-
reinforcement analysis on a girder bridge with single pedestal piers.”
Master’s thesis, Chang’an Univ., Xi’an, China (in Chinese).
Xinhua News Agency. (2015). “Investigation into deadly Guangdong high-
way collapse.” Xinhuanet.com, hhttp://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015
-06/21/c_134344410.htmi (Jun. 21, 2015).
Xu, Z., Lu, X., Guan, H., Lu, X., and Ren, A. (2012). “Progressive-collapse
simulation and critical region identification of a stone arch bridge.” J.
Perform. Constr. Facil., 27(1), 43–52.
Zhou, X., et al. (2014). “Dynamic response and failure mode of a missile
unsupported random launching site.” Ordnance Mater. Sci. Eng., 2014,
2, 024 (in Chinese).
Zhou, Z., Ruan, X., and Shi, X. (2013). “Selection of overturning axis in lat-
eral stability calculation of girder bridge.” J. Chongqing Jiaotong Univ.
(Nat. Sci.), 32(5), 907–910 (in Chinese).
Zhuang, Q. (2013). “Research on overturning stability and anti-overturning
of continuous steel box girder bridge.” Master’s thesis, Chang’an Univ.,
Xi’an, China (in Chinese).
J. Bridge Eng.