ABDEL RAHIMl: BRIDGE GRILLAGE ANALYSIS USING FINITE ELEMENT METHODS 141

Bridge Grillage Analysis using Finite Element

Methods
Khalid Abdel Naser Abdel Rahim*
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.

ABSTRACT: This paper introduces a two dimensional bridge deck for a cantilever bridge with a 15 m long span that
has been modelled and analysed using computational modelling software (LUSAS) to obtain maximum moments and
shear forces. The significance of the problem is to determine the worst scenario case within the deck in terms of highest
bending moment and shear force, for example, the most affected parts of deck under load. The problem was tackled
with the aid of LUSAS Bridge Plus which is part of LUSAS software package. Generally, LUSAS Bridge Plus works
by analysing equations and allowing combinations of load case results.
KEYWORDS: Bridge Engineering, Structural design, Structural analysis, FEA, LUSAS Bridge Plus.

[Received March 14, 2019; Revised May 01, 2019; Accepted May 01, 2019] Print ISSN: 0189-9546 | Online ISSN: 2437-2110

I. INTRODUCTION  To present and discuss the results obtained for the

analysed bridge deck.
A. Scope of work
This report is about bridge grillage analysis of a problem II. LITERATURE REVIEW
using LUSAS Bridge Plus. The grillage analysis is considered
Wang and Huang et al. (1996) did a study on the
to be one of the famous methods used for analysing bridge
dynamical behaviour of highway girder bridges under different
decks. One of the most reliable ways of grillage analysis is the
loads. They applied different dimensional simulations on nine
usage of computer-aided method. This is due to many reasons
girder bridges with span lengths ranging from 40 to 120ft. The
such as its accuracy in conducting analysis for different types
design of the girder bridge was referenced to the AASHTO
of bridges, easy to use and cost effective (Hambly et al., 1991).
standard highway bridges. Their findings showed that there is
In the first section of this report, the analysis specification
a direct correlation between the roughness of the road surface
is presented with a description of the structure and analyses
and the maximum impact factors. However, their study was
carried out such as, explanation of the analysis stages and work
majorly based on numerical calculations and lack of software
done by the author from modelling the structure, creating
FEA modelling.
grillage, applying loads and carrying out load combinations.
Linzell and Shura et al. (2009) investigated the rates of
The results obtained for the structure will be presented, along
accuracy and reactional response of girders by modelling
with a brief discussion on what they indicate and mean.
grillage models and analysing the bending stress elevations.
Furthermore, the results will be discussed in terms of
They recommended further study on the selection of modelling
maximum shear forces and bending moments. Finally, the
techniques to find a response prediction of the already existing
conclusions will be stated clearly with an answer to the client
curved bridges.
question and reliability of results obtained.
Adamakos and Vayas et al. (2010) has focused on
B. Aims of the paper numerical modelling of curved bridges with steel I-girders.
The main objectives of the manuscript are: They concluded that using FEA modelling for analysing the
 To analyse the structure using LUSAS Bridge Plus in structural behaviour of curved and straight bridges cannot
an effective manner. provide an efficient prediction of bridges in real life situations.
 To calculate the maximum bending moments and Moreover, more 3D bridge modelling with a refined meshes
shear forces within deck. are needed to be analysed on different types of bridges and
more research on using alternative methods.
 To find the associated forces and moments
Kwasniewski et al. (2006) has numerically modelled a
experienced by deck.
case study of a highway bridge in Florida – US 90 using FEA
 To design appropriate cantilever bridge deck,
method. However, the study was based only on a multi-girder
applying Eurocode loadings to it and determining the
bridge. The study carried out by Barth et al. (2006) illustrated
bridge behaviour under these loadings.
plastic ultimate load behaviour for a bridge of a slab on top of

*Corresponding author: khalid.ar@outlook.com doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/njtd.v16i4.1

142 NIGERIAN JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT, VOL. 16, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2019

a steel stringer using FEA. He used ABAQUS software to Figure 1. Also the pavement of the deck has a height of 0.25
model, mesh refining and structural analysis of a 3D FE model. m, 2 m in width and a road surface thickness of 0.1 m. Figure
Alaylioglu et al. (1997) presented a numerical analysis 2 demonstrates the cantilever cross section through the deck
and calculations to assist the plastic response of a highway with relative dimensions of sections.Initially the LUSAS
bridge using FE hybrid model. He validated his assessment Bridge Plus was selected and the units set for the model was
method to effectively predict the stiffness properties of the (kN, m, t, s, c) and a vertical axis to Z. After that the cantilever
highway bridge. Similarly, Kirsch et al. (1998) has suggested section was divided into several sections to make it simpler to
a developed a method for grillage structures in general to apply them on the deck. The section properties created
approximate the rigidity using stiffness analysis formulations. consisted of six sections.
Brien and Keogh et al. (1998) did a 3D bridge deck model
with 2 spans using FEA method. They used a new upstand
technique to indorse their model and to proof the accuracy of
the method in forecasting the longitudinal bending stresses.
Lu, Xie and Shao et al. (2012) has conducted both
numerical and experimental studies on a composite bridge.
They designed a 3D FEA composite curve interface bridge and
validated the results with the experimental part to demonstrate
the efficiency of their model in predicting the structural
stability and serviceability when compared with a real life
situations.

III. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

A. Description of the problem
The distribution of loads applied on deck is variable and
obviously would be different in some zones than others. It is
known that the bridge deck will have various forces and
moments at different parts by which some zones will have low
magnitudes and other parts would have high magnitudes. Thus, Figure 2: Cantilever section properties.
the problem is associated with the most affected parts of the
structure with respect to maximum forces and moments.
B. Characteristics of the problem IV. ANALYSIS SPECIFICATION
The deck is made from Concrete BS5400, Short Term C50 A. Purpose of carrying out the analysis
with a footway density of 2400 kg/m3 and a surface density of The main purpose of the analysis is to calculate the
2000 kg/m3. The deck is 15 m long (span), 11m in width and maximum forces and moments which are most likely to be
with a diaphragm height of 0.5 m as revealed in experienced by the bridge deck under various loads which will
be discussed further in more details in the next section of the
report. The worst case situation from the load combinations
used will have the most attention and discussion. Another
important aspect of the analysis is to produce a reasonable
modelling of the deck.
B. Section properties
The first section (longitudinal section 1) was a simple
rectangular solid (standard section) and it was created using
section property calculator, with a height of 0.25m and a width
of 1.5m as revealed in figure 3 After that the section was added
to local library to be used later in the deck. Mackie et al. (2011)
has stated that “the section property calculator tools in LUSAS
software automatically calculate the section properties of a
certain section once the dimensions are identified”. Table 1
shows the list of section properties that were created.

Figure 1: Shows longitudinal section along deck and cross-

section through deck.
ABDEL RAHIMl: BRIDGE GRILLAGE ANALYSIS USING FINITE ELEMENT METHODS 143

Table 1: List of section properties. dimensions and divided for assembling. The surface was then
selected and the section type chosen was arbitrary section from
______________________________________________________________
Description Area Iyy Izz Jxx the section property calculator, by which the Max. elts/line was
(m2) (m4) (m4) 10. After that the section was added to local library. The
______________________________________________________________ procedure of creating the third section (longitudinal section 3)
Longitudinal (Sec.1) 0.375 1.953E-3 0.070 3.496E-3 was same as that carried out in section 1 since it is also simple
Longitudinal (Sec.2) 1.75 0.074 0.801 0.121
rectangular solid (standard section). The dimensions of section
Longitudinal (Sec.3) 0.75 3.906E-3 0.562 7.402E-3 3 are presented in figure 5.
Transverse Section 0.375 1.953E-3 0.070 3.496E-3
Right diaphragm 0.437 0.021 0.015 0.020
Left diaphragm 0.437 0.021 0.015 0.020
______________________________________________________________

Figure 5: Longitudinal section 3.

Moreover, the fourth section (transverse section) is

exactly the same as first section in terms of dimensions and
properties as shown in Figure 6.
Figure 3: Longitudinal section 1.

The second section (longitudinal section 2) was irregular

section and it was not possible to form the section using section
property calculator. Thus, the section was drawn by identifying
coordinates of a new surface as demonstrated in Figure 4. The
coordinates of this section was identified according to

Figure 6: Transverse section.

Figure 4: Longitudinal section 2.

*Corresponding author: khalid.ar@outlook.com doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/njtd.v16i4.1

144 NIGERIAN JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT, VOL. 16, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2019

Figure 8: Left diaphragm section.

C. Grillage
The grillage wizard had some problems due to the student
version software, thus, the grillage was carried out manually.
Figure 9 shows the grillage used with the arrangement used
and relevant dimensions. The horizontal arrangement is 15m
which is the span of deck; it was decided to divide it into 10
equal parts where each part is 1.5m. The vertical distance is
9.5m and the arrangement is 2m, 2.75m, 2.75m and 2m. This
arrangement was carried by taking the distance of centre of
section 1 to centre of section 2 which is 2m. The 2.75m is the
distance from centre of section 2 to centre of section 3, by
which it is also the same distance as that from centre of section
Figure 7: Right diaphragm section.
3 to centre of section 4. Finally, the distance from centre of
section 4 to centre of section 5 is 2m. Figure 10 demonstrates
the distance of the vertical arrangement of grillage.
The fifth section (right diaphragm section) was performed
Initially the grillage was done by creating a line with a
in the same manner as section 2. Since this section is irregular
coordinates of (0, 0) and (1.5, 0). The line was then selected
in shape its coordinates was initially identified and it was then
and copied 9 times by 1.5m in x-direction. The next step was
drawn as a surface. Figure 7 shows the coordinates and
selecting everything and sweeping it by 2m in y-direction. The
dimensions of the section. Additionally, section 6 (left
upper line was then selected and sweep twice by 2.75m in y-
diaphragm section) is the same as section 5 with respect to its
direction. The last part of conducting the grillage was selecting
dimensions and properties but facing left side (Fig. 8). After
the upper line and sweeps it again by 2m. The above procedure
creating the sections they were all added to local library to be
has resulted in the formation of the grillage. Since the deck is
applied later on the grillage.
made of concrete, a material has been recognized as Concrete
BS5400 with a Short Term C50. After that the material was
applied along with Grillage element div=1 on all the grillage.
The diaphragms of grillage were fixed in Z support.
ABDEL RAHIMl: BRIDGE GRILLAGE ANALYSIS USING FINITE ELEMENT METHODS 145

The first group created was Left Diaphragm and the user
section applied on this group was section 6 (left diaphragm
section). Additionally, the second group was right diaphragm
and the user section applied on this group was section 5 (right
diaphragm section). The third group was transverse lines and
the user section assigned to this group was section 4 (transverse
section). The fourth group was top and bottom longitudinal
lines and the user section allocated to this group was section 1
(longitudinal section 1). The fifth group was section 2
longitudinal lines and the user section applied on this group
was section 2 (longitudinal section 2). The sixth group was
middle longitudinal lines and the user section assigned to this
group was section 3 (longitudinal section 3).

E. Loading points

PP (7.5, 9.25)
Figure 9: Refined mesh with the geometry of structure to be analysed.

RP (7.5, 8)

TP (7.5, 6.5)
*CP *CP *CP *CP * CP
NU (7.5, 6.25)

NL (7.5, 3.25)

TP (7.5, 3)

AL (7.5, 1.5)

2m 2.75m 2m 2.75 m PP (7.5, 0.25)

Figure 11: Shows the position and coordinates of loading nodes on the
* Centre Point refined mesh.
Figure 10: Shows the distances of the vertical arrangement.
The loading points were identified and plotted on the
D. User sections grillage to apply the appropriate loads to them. Those points
The grillage was divided into six groups in order to assign are not part of the grillage; they are just used for assigning
the appropriate user sections to them. But before creating the loads. In this case there are eight different points which are two
groups, the user sections were modified from geometric pavement points, one remaining point, two tarmac points, and
section library. The modification of all the user sections normal upper, normal lower and abnormal lower. Figure 11
included setting usage of section to grillage and half the torsion presents these points on the grillage with their coordinates.
value. According to Mackie (2011) “Half of the torsion (J) Additionally, the grillage was sketch on AutoCAD Civil in
value should be included in section property, otherwise, the order to find the position of loading points. The x-coordinates
torsion value may be calculated twice” Therefore, the J value of loading point are all the same 7.5m which is half the span.
was edited and half of it was included in properties of user
sections. The user sections were then assigned to relevant parts F. Loading
of the grillage by copying the section from attributes and Two types of loadings were applied on the deck which is
pasting it in the appropriate group under groups tab. dead load and traffic loads. Initially this was done by creating
*Corresponding author: khalid.ar@outlook.com doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/njtd.v16i4.1
146 NIGERIAN JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT, VOL. 16, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2019

gravity loading from bridge loading and applying it just on the G. Load combinations
longitudinal members. The load case 1 was then renamed as Although several load combinations has been carried out,
Dead load. The tarmac (deals with loading due to the road the main aim was to take the worst case scenarios into
surface) was then recognized from bridge loading surfacing consideration. The first combination was the Normal load
with properties set as 2t/m2 for density, 15m for length (span), combination which was named as Normal – both lanes basic.
3.5m for width and 0.1 for thickness. This surface load was It is a basic combination which includes Normal Upper and
assigned to the two tarmac points with coordinates (7.5, 6.5) Normal lower and the load factor that has been used for each
and (7.5, 3) as illustrated in figure 11. Moreover, the load was load is 1.35. This load factor was chosen with respect to
applied to Dead Load. Another load was created for pavement Eurocode 1: Actions on structures / Part 2: Traffic loads on
surface which has been also identified from bridge loading bridges. Another basic combination was recognized with same
surfacing with properties set as 2.4t/m2 for density, 15m for procedures carried out as that in normal load combination. This
length (span), 2.0m for width and 0.25 for thickness. This combination includes Normal upper and abnormal lower and
surface load was assigned to the two pavement points with was named as Abnormal Lower, Normal Upper. The load
coordinates (7.5, 9.25) and (7.5, 0.25) in Fig. 11. Furthermore, factor used in this combination was also 1.35. Then the live
the load was applied to Include Full Load. load combinations (Normal both lanes and Abnormal Lower,
normal upper) were enveloped. Basically this was carried out
The vehicle loading that has been chosen was Eurocode by using the Envelope tool in Utilities, changing the file
Bridge Loading. This was carried out by identifying the extension from *.mys to Model and adding combination
Tandam System for Load Model 1 – Tandem as Lane number (Normal both lanes and Abnormal Lower, normal upper). The
1 – 300kN and the loading data for Load Model 1 – lane Load envelope was then named as Live load envelope. According to
was set as 15m for length and 9.0 for surface load. Mackie (2011) “the envelope utility creates a minimum and a
Additionally, the abnormal loads were recognized from Load maximum load cases for a specified entity”. After that a new
Model 3, where the vehicle type selected was 1800/200. After combination was identified and performed. This combination
this the remaining load was adjusted as a patch type from was a smart one and it was named as Design Combination. The
Attributes/Loading tool with a 4 node patch and -7.5, 7.5, 7.5, combination included the Dead Load, Live Load Envelope
-7.5 in the X column, -0.25, -0.25, 0.25, 0.25 in the Y column, (Max) and Live Load Envelope (Min). During the
zeroes in the Z column and intensity of the load -2.5 kN/m2 in commencement of this combination the factors included in the
the Load column. The loads were applied to suitable grid were set as presented in table 3 below:
construction points (loading points) as demonstrated in table 2
below: Table 3: Factors set in grid for loads used in design combination.

Table 2: List of loads applied to the structure. ______________________________________________________________

Type of factor Dead load Live load Live load
______________________________________________________________ Envelope Envelope
Load node Load applied Set to (Max.) (Min.)
______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________
PP (7.5, 9.25) Surfacing 15m x 2m Full load Permeant 1 0 0
Density = 2.4t/m3 Variable 0.275 1 1
RP (7.5, 8) Remaining load Dead load ______________________________________________________________
TP (7.5, 6.5) Surfacing 15m x 3.5m
Density = 2t/m3 Dead load
NU (7.5, 6.25) 5: Eurocode Lane
V. RESULTS
9kN/m2 Load Normal upper A. Results presentation
4: Eurocode Load
Model 1 300kN Normal upper Table 4: Maximum shear force for Max and Min combinations and
NL (7.5, 3.25) 5: Eurocode Lane envelopes.
9kN/m2 Load Normal lower
4: Eurocode Load ______________________________________________________________
Model 1 300kN Normal lower Combination Maximum Node
6: Eurocode Load Shear force
Model 3 1800/200 Abnormal lower (kN)
TP (7.5, 3) Surfacing 15m x 3.5m ______________________________________________________________
Density = 2t/m3 Dead load Design (Max.)
AL (7.5, 1.5) Remaining load Dead load Combination 1.605E3 Gauss point 11 of element 30
PP (7.5, 0.25) Surfacing 15m x 2m Design (Min.)
Density = 2.4t/m3 Full load Combination -1.605E3 Gauss point 11 of elementLive
______________________________________________________________ load
Envelope (Max.) 965.658 Gauss point 1 of element 30
Live load
Envelope (Min.) -965.658 Gauss point 1 of element
The model was run successfully after assigning the
appropriate Loadings to loading and construction points as ______________________________________________________________
shown in Table 2.
ABDEL RAHIMl: BRIDGE GRILLAGE ANALYSIS USING FINITE ELEMENT METHODS 147

Table 5: Maximum bending moment for Max and Min combinations Max and Min design combinations. Table 4 shows the results
and envelopes.
of maximum shear forces for all combinations and envelopes.
______________________________________________________________
Combination Maximum Bending Node
moment (kNm)
______________________________________________________________
Design
Combination -2.072E3 Gauss point 1 of element 94
(Max.)
Design
Combination -6.921E3 Gauss point 1 of element 86
(Min.)
Live load
Envelope -3.562E3 Gauss point 1 of element 94
(Max.)
Live load
Envelope -4.279E3 Gauss point 11 of element 63
(Min.)
______________________________________________________________

B. Discussion of the results

The results were obtained from LUSAS Bridge Plus as a
contour map which shows haw the shear forces and bending
moments are distributed in all regions of the deck. Moreover,
the contour map provides maximum shear forces and bending
moments which is the case of interest in this problem. The
analysis of the deck was carried out with two design
combinations (Max and Min) and two live load envelopes
(Max and Min). Each combination and envelope had different
maximum bending moment magnitudes. It was discovered that
the maximum bending moment for design combination (Max)
was in the middle of the deck (Figure 12) with a value of -
2.07241E3 kNm. Furthermore, the maximum bending moment
for design combination (Min) was -6.92183E3 kNm (Figure
14). Additionally, the maximum bending moment for live load
envelope (Max) was -3.56281E3 kNm (Figure 16) and for live
load envelope (Min) it was -4.27951E3 kNm (Figure 18).
Therefore, the worst case scenario was the design combination
(Min) with highest bending moment magnitude of -6.92183E3
kNm at gauss point 1 of element 86. Table 5 shows the results
of maximum bending moments for all combinations and
envelopes.

Conversely, the results obtained for maximum shear forces

were in a totally different situation than that for bending
moments in terms of magnitude when comparing combinations
and envelopes. For instance, the design combination (Max)
had a magnitude of 1.60548E3 kN (Figure 13) and design
combination (Min) had a magnitude of - 1.60548E3 kN (Figure
15). Also live load envelope (Max) had a magnitude of 965.658
kN (Figure 17) and live load envelope (Min) had a magnitude
of -965.658 kN (Figure 19). This demonstrates that there is a
modulus or absolute value relationship in the magnitudes (lxl)
between combinations and envelopes, which indicates that the
value is the same regardless of the sign. Therefore, the worst
case scenario was the design combination (Min and Max) with
highest shear forces value of l1.60548E3l kN at gauss point 11
of element 30 and gauss point 11 of element 72 with respect to Figure 12: Maximum bending moment diagram (Design Combination
Max).

*Corresponding author: khalid.ar@outlook.com doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/njtd.v16i4.1

148 NIGERIAN JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT, VOL. 16, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2019

Figure 14: Maximum bending moment diagram (Design Combination

Figure 13: Maximum shear force diagram (Design Combination Max). Min).
ABDEL RAHIMl: BRIDGE GRILLAGE ANALYSIS USING FINITE ELEMENT METHODS 149

Figure 15: Maximum shear force diagram (Design Combination Min). Figure 16: Maximum bending moment diagram (Live load envelope
Max).

*Corresponding author: khalid.ar@outlook.com doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/njtd.v16i4.1

150 NIGERIAN JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT, VOL. 16, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2019

Figure 18: Maximum bending moment diagram (Live load envelope

Figure 17: Maximum shear force diagram (Live load envelope Max). Min).
ABDEL RAHIMl: BRIDGE GRILLAGE ANALYSIS USING FINITE ELEMENT METHODS 151

VI. CONCLUSION
The bridge engineering analysis of a problem using LUSAS
Bridge Plus (Figure 20) was set to find the worst load
combination/envelope case of the deck in terms of maximum
shear force and bending moment for a cantilever bridge type.
The grillage analysis using computer-aided software was
carried out because it is considered to be one of the most
reliable and efficient methods used for analysing bridge decks.
Accordingly, the grillage analysis was conducted in an
effective manner for the sake of accurate results. Two types of
loadings were applied on the deck which is dead load and
traffic loads.

Moreover, the analysis included two design combinations

(Max and Min) and two live load envelopes (Max and Min). It
was found that there is a variance in the maximum bending
moments experienced by the deck from one combination and
envelope to another. Additionally, the maximum shear forces
were modulus which means that there is an absolute value
relationship in terms of the magnitudes. Thus, there values at
different combinations and envelopes were the same regardless
of the sign.

Figure 20: The analysed bridge grillage overall contour map view.

The results obtained revealed that design combination

(Min) was the worst case scenario in the structure with a
maximum bending moment magnitude of -6.92183E3 kNm at
gauss point 1 of element 86. Moreover, the worst situation for
maximum shear forces was at design combinations (Max and
Min) with a magnitude of l1.60548E3l kN. According to
results the following has been concluded:
Figure 19: Maximum shear force diagram (Live load envelope Min).

*Corresponding author: khalid.ar@outlook.com doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/njtd.v16i4.1

152 NIGERIAN JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT, VOL. 16, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2019

 The shear forces and bending moments given by the Barth, K. and Wu, H. (2006). Efficient nonlinear finite
grillage only acts for a certain grid line by which it is element modeling of slab on steel stringer bridges, Finite
part of bridge deck. Elements in Analysis and Design, 42: 1304-1313.
 The maximum bending moment is variable at Hambly, E.C. (1991). Bridge Deck Behaviour, E & FN
different load combinations/envelopes. Spon, UK.
 The maximum bending moment experienced by the Kirsch, U. and Moses, F. (1998). An improved reanalysis
part of bridge deck (grid line) was -6.92183E3 kNm. method for grillage-type structures, Computers & Structures
 The maximum shear forces for different 68: 79-88.
combinations and envelopes were similar. Kwasniewski, L.; H. Li; J., Wekezer and J.
 The maximum shear force experienced by the part of Malachowski. (2006). Finite element analysis of vehicle-
bridge deck (grid line) was 1.60548E3 kN. bridge interaction, Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 42:
 The bridge deck using grillage analysis showed that 950-959.
deck is behaving in a logical manner under loading. Linzell, D. G. and Shura, J. F. (2010). Erection behavior
and grillage model accuracy for a large radius curved bridge,
It is believed that the results are accurate to some extend and
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 66: 342-350.
could have been improved if more load cases is to be applied, Lu, P.; X. Xie and C. Shao. (2012). Experimental study
by using the full version of LUSAS Bridge Plus software since and numerical analysis of a composite bridge structure,
it allows more than 10 load cases which is the case when using Construction and Building Materials, 30: 695-705.
student version (evaluation limit of 10). Also due to variety of Mackie, I. (2011). Bridge Deck Analysis. Lecture 15
loading that can be applied on the bridge, the author believes Notes Advanced Structural Engineering, Department of Civil
that extending the analysis by applying further loadings on the Engineering, University of Dundee, UK.
bridge such as wind, hydraulic, impact and seismic loading can O’Brien, E. J. and Keogh, D. L. (1998). Upstand finite
element analysis of slab bridges, Computers & Structures 69:
improve the results and give more information and details
671-683.
about the behaviour of the structure in real life. Parke Ed, G. and Hewson, N. (2008). ICE Manual of
Bridge Engineering, “Loads and Load Distribution”, 2nd
REFERENCES Edition, UK.
Adamakos, T.; I. Vayas; S. Petridis and A. Iliopoulos. Wang, T.; D. Huang; M. Shahawy and K. Huang.
(2011). Modeling of curved composite I-girder bridges using (1996). Dynamic response of highway girder bridges,
spatial systems of beam elements, Journal of Constructional Computer & Structures, 60 (6): 1021-1027.
Steel Research 67: 462-470.
Alaylioglu, H. and Alaylioglu, A. (1997). Dynamic
structural assessment of a highway bridge via hybrid FE model
and in situ testing, Computers & Structures, 63 (3): 439-453.