BRCM COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING &

TECHNOLOGY

MAJOR PROJECT PRESENTATION

ON
SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED
CONCRETE SKEW BRIDGES

Guided by Presented by
Mr. Nishant Sharma(Asst. Prof.) Parmod Kumar
Department Of Civil Engineering 7259367
 CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION.

2. OBJECTIVES.

3. SKEW BIRDGE.

4. GEOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF MODELS.

5. LOADS .

6. DECK DISPLACEMENT RESULTS.

7. BENT D-C RATIOS.

8. COLUMN FORCES.

9. CONCLUSION.

10. REFRENCES.
INTRODUCTION
Bridge are important and costly
component of transportation network
Over past few decades, bridge are
severely damaged during earthquake.
Skew Bridge Constructed due to
unavailability of space and they more
susceptible to earthquake damage.
Damage To Bridge
Unseating At Expansion Joints

Showa Bridge collapse in 1964 Nigatta Earthquake

Damage To Superstructure

Santa Clara River Bridge Abutment pounding damage in 1994

Northridge earthquake.
Damage To Columns

Column failure in 1995 Hyogo-Ken Nandu Earthquake

Damage To Other Parts

Bearing.
Cap beams.
Diaphragms.
Joints .
Abutments.
.

Foundations.
Approaches
OBJECTIVE
To study the deck displacement.
Determining bent overstress condition.
To identify the columns forces at top and
bottom.
To study the bearing deformation.
Find out the most suitable skew angle.
Skew Bridge
Angle between normal to centerline of
bridge and centerline of abutment or pier
cap.
Skew bridge importance
Maintain a relatively straight alignment of
a roadway above or below the bridge.
Constructed where unavailability of
space for square span.
Geometric Properties of Model
Number of span – 3
Span length – 15 m each
Deck width – 12 m
Thickness of deck slab – 250 mm
Bent cap beam – 1.070m x 1.985m
Column – 1.5 m diameter
Column height – 8 m
Abutment – 1.220m x 2.440m.
I-beam girder.
Top width - 0.330 m. Depth – 0.990 m.
Bottom width - 0.430 m .
Two types of bearing.
Schematic sketch of representative model of 15˚ skew bridge
Material Properties
•Concrete compressive strength - 4000 Psi (27 KN/m2)
•Concrete density – 25 KN/m3
•Steel tensile strength – 640 N/mm2
Loads considered
Dead load
Superimposed load
Seismic load
Models Analysis and Results
 Deck unseating
Deck Longitudinal displacement Deck transverse displacement

 Minimum seat length  Maximum limit of the

required as per AASHTO transverse displacement is
LRFD (2012). taken as 430 mm.
N= (8+0.02L+0.08H)
(1+0.000125S2)
Minimum seat length required according
to AASHTO-LRFD Bridge (2012)

Skew 0˚ 15˚ 30˚ 45˚ 60˚

angle

Length 0.331 m 0.357 m 0.368 m 0.415 m 0.480 m

(m)
 Maximum deck displacement results

Skew angle 0˚ 15˚ 30˚ 45˚ 60˚

Structure Abutment Abutment Abutment Abutment Abutment

Component

Maximum 0.106 m 0.113 m 0.114 m 0.125 m 0.157 m

Displacement
(m)
From the above table we can confirm
that

With increase in skew angle,

displacement of deck in longitudinal
direction increase. As compare to normal
bridge, nearly 50 % deck displacement is
more for the 60˚ skew bridge.
15˚and 30˚ bridges are almost same value
of displacement.
Bent D-C ratio
Skew Bent D-C ratio
Angle Number Trans. Long.

0˚ 1 0.2500 0.7465
2 0.2500 0.7463
15˚ 1 0.2529 0.7814
2 0.2529 0.7813
30˚ 1 0.2501 0.7498
2 0.2499 0.7499
45˚ 1 0.2501 0.7653
2 0.2499 0.7654
60˚ 1 0.5803 0.9487
2 0.5804 0.9480
From above results we can say that
For these models all bents are having
adequate capacity i.e. D-C ratios are
below one
 Column forces and moments
Skew P V2 V3 T M2 M3
Angle
KN KN KN KN-m KN-m KN-m

0˚ 3896.502 2735.318 2516.152 133.693 2350.053 10981.50

5
15˚ 3899.791 2874.062 2635.513 149.836 21666.86 10981.50
2 5
30˚ 3315.580 2776.094 2540.068 195.755 20836.88 11189.83
3 8
45˚ 2787.300 2981.672 2635.237 338.791 21484.40 12139.96
7 9
60˚ 2374.789 3928.516 3508.166 825.812 28233.54 16428.98
6 7
Bearing rotation and deformation

For 0˚, 15˚ and 30˚ skew bridge model

maximum bearing translation occur in direction
along the layout line and maximum rotation
occurs about normal to layout line.
For 45˚ and 60˚ maximum translation take place
normal to layout angle line and maximum
rotation occurs along layout line.
Conclusion

Maximum longitudinal displacement is

0.157 m for 60˚ skew model.
Longitudinal displacement increases with
increase of skew angle.
Stress in bents increases with increases of
skew angle.
Axial force in column is decrease with
increase of skew angle.
.

Shear force, torsion, moments are increase

with increase of skew angle.
Finally as compare to normal bridge 15˚ and
30˚ skew angle are more significant than the
45˚ and 60˚ skew angle.
References

AASHTO-LRFD
 (2012). “AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications”. American
Association of State Highway and Transportation.
A.A. Kerciker, S. Bhattacharya, Z.A. Lubkowski and H.J. Burd. “Failure of showa

bridge during the 1964 Niigata earthquake”. Proceeding, 14th World conference on
Earthquake Engineering.
Barker R. And Puckett, J. (1997). “ Design of highway bridge based on AASHTO

LRFD bridge design specification”. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
Caltrans (2010). “ Seismic Design Criteria Version 1.6”. California department of

transportation, California, USA.
Jack P.Moehle and Marc O. Eberhead. “ Earthquake damage to bridges”. Bridge

engineering handbook.
W.F. Chen, Lian Duan (2003). “ Bridge engineering : seismic design”.

Yao T. Hsu and Chung C. Fu. “ Study of Damaged Wushi Bridge in Taiwan 921

earthquake”. Journal of structure engineering.
Sindhu B.V., Ashwin KN, Dattatreya JK, SV Dinesh. “ Effect of skew angle on static

behaviour of reinforced concrete slab bridge deck”. International journal research in
engineering and technology .
References
 CSI Bridge v16.0.2 (2014). “ Computers and Structures Inc. Berkeley,
California, USA.
 Ghobarah, A. And Tso, W. (1973). “ Seismic analysis of skew Highway
Bridges with Intermediate supports”. Earthquake engineering and
structural dynamics.
 Kalantari, A. and Amjadian, M. (2010). “ An approximate method for
dynamic analysis of skew highway bridge with continuousm rigid”.
Engineering structure.
 Maragakis, E. (1984). “ A model for rigid body motions of skew bridges”.
PhD thesis, California Institue of Technology, Pasadena.
 Zhiqiang, W. and Lee, G. (2009). “ A comparative study of bridge damage
due to the Wenchuan, Northridge, Loma Prieta and San Fernando
Earthquakes”. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration
Thank You
QUERIES ??