Practical Design Methods for

Skewed Bridges
Travis Butz, PE
Burgess & Niple, Inc.

Ohios Skew Problems:

Recurring constructability problems during deck pours
Predicted deflections disagree with field results

Decks with exposed rebar, poor finish, inconsistent

thickness
Excessive girder twist in one case, capacity of the
structure was compromised
A study was commissioned to identify causes and to
recommend solutions
- Why is this happening?
- What analysis methods are appropriate?
- How can we prevent these problems?

Skewed Bridge Behavior

Out-of-plane effects occur in skewed bridges that cannot
be predicted by line girder analysis methods (neglecting
crossframe effects).
AASHTO/NSBA Guidelines for Design for
Constructability identifies two separate issues:

Intermediate Crossframe Effects

End Crossframe Effects

Test Case, Intermediate Crossframe Effects:

FRAMING PLAN

TRANSVERSE SECTION

Test Structure, Deflection Due to Deck Weight

Line Girder
Analysis Results
Crossframe Effects
Ignored
Results Show:
Large differential
deflections between
interior and exterior
girders

Crossframe
Locations

5
Deflection (in)

Abrupt changes in
differential
deflection across
the width of the
bridge

4
3
2
G5

G4

G3

G2

G1

1
0
0.00

50.00

100.00

Length (ft)

150.00

200.00

Line Girder
Analysis Results
Crossframe Effects
Ignored

D
Framing Plan
Differential Deflection (in)

Girder Deflection (in)

Section D-D
Deflections Exaggerated x 12

Line Girder Analysis Results

Crossframe Effects Ignored
Differential Deflection (in)

Deflections
Exaggerated x 12

Section D-D

Girder Deflection (in)

Problem: If the girders are assumed to stay

vertical, the crossframes will not permit
differential deflections of this magnitude.
Conclusion: Crossframe interaction needs to be
included to accurately model structure behavior.

Lengthened

Shortened

Differential vertical deflection causes crossframes to

deform if the girders do not twist.
Large forces are needed to create axial deformations
in the crossframe members, so resistance to this type
of deflection is very high.

Undeformed

Undeformed

Twisting of the girders allows differential deflection to

occur without deforming the crossframe.
The torsional stiffness of the girders is low compared
to the stiffness of the crossframes, so this behavior
is dominant.

Test Structure, Deflection Due to Deck Weight

Refined Analysis
Results
Intermediate
Crossframe Effects
Included
Results Show:

Crossframe
Locations

5
Deflection (in)

More uniform
differential deflection
across the width of
the bridge at
crossframe locations
(compared to line
girder analysis)

4
3
2
G5

G4

G3

G2

G1

1
0
0.00

50.00

100.00
Length (ft)

150.00

200.00

Line Girder
Analysis Results
Crossframe Effects
Ignored

Differential Deflection (in)

Section D-D

Refined Analysis
Results
Intermediate
Crossframe Effects
Included

Girder Deflection (in)

Differential Deflection (in)

Girder Deflection (in)

Section D-D

Deflections
Exaggerated x 12

Deflected Shape Due to Intermediate Crossframe Effects (Refined Analysis):

A

A
Differential
Vertical
Deflection
(inches)

Section A-A

Deflections
Exaggerated x 12

Deflected Shape Due to Intermediate Crossframe Effects (Refined Analysis):

B

B
Differential
Vertical
Deflection
(inches)

Section B-B

Deflections
Exaggerated x 12

Deflected Shape Due to Intermediate Crossframe Effects (Refined Analysis):

C

C
Differential
Vertical
Deflection
(inches)

Section C-C

Deflections
Exaggerated x 12

Deflected Shape Due to Intermediate Crossframe Effects (Refined Analysis):

D

D
Differential
Vertical
Deflection
(inches)

Section D-D

Deflections
Exaggerated x 12

Deflected Shape Due to Intermediate Crossframe Effects (Refined Analysis):

E

E
Differential
Vertical
Deflection
(inches)

Section E-E

Deflections
Exaggerated x 12

Deflected Shape Due to Intermediate Crossframe Effects (Refined Analysis):

F

F
Differential
Vertical
Deflection
(inches)

Section F-F

Deflections
Exaggerated x 12

Deflected Shape Due to Intermediate Crossframe Effects (Refined Analysis):

G

G
Differential
Vertical
Deflection
(inches)

Section G-G

Deflections
Exaggerated x 12

Deflected Shape Due to Intermediate Crossframe Effects (Refined Analysis):

H

H
Differential
Vertical
Deflection
(inches)

Section H-H

Deflections
Exaggerated x 12

Deflected Shape Due to Intermediate Crossframe Effects (Refined Analysis):

J

Differential
Vertical
Deflection
(inches)

Section J-J

Deflections
Exaggerated x 12

Deflected Shape Due to Intermediate Crossframe Effects (Refined Analysis):

K

Differential
Vertical
Deflection
(inches)

Section K-K

Deflections
Exaggerated x 12

Deflected Shape Due to Intermediate Crossframe Effects (Refined Analysis):

L

L
Differential
Vertical
Deflection
(inches)

Section L-L
Deflections
Exaggerated x 12

Deflected Shape Due to Intermediate Crossframe Effects (Refined Analysis):

M

M
Differential
Vertical
Deflection
(inches)

Section M-M

Deflections
Exaggerated x 12

Support Reactions Due to Wet Concrete Weight, Refined Analysis:

Forward
Bearings
(Exp.)
Rear
Bearings
(Fixed)

Rear Bearings
(Fixed)

Forward Bearings
(Exp.)

End Crossframe Effects

To illustrate end crossframe behavior, we will examine a 2girder structure with end crossframes only (no intermediate
bracing).

This illustration is adapted from Beckmann & Medlock, 2005

PLAN VIEW

2-Girder Structure:

ISOMETRIC VIEW (PARTIAL)

The end diaphragm can be thought of as a pair of rigid

links connecting the top flange of one girder to the
bottom flange of the adjacent girder.

Deflection of a Cambered Girder:

When a girder deflects, the top flange moves

longitudinally relative to the bottom flange at the
beam ends. We will define this distance as .

2-Girder Structure:

GIRDER A

GIRDER B

Dx
PLAN VIEW (PARTIAL)

The end crossframe of a skewed structure restrains

the longitudinal translation of the top flange.

2-Girder Structure:

GIRDER A

Dy

GIRDER B

Dx
PLAN VIEW (PARTIAL)

The end crossframe forces the top flange to move

radially about the adjacent bearing point. The
resulting motion produces twist in the girders.

2-Girder Structure:

Dx

GIRDER B

Dy

Dy

GIRDER A

Dx

PLAN VIEW (PARTIAL)

The movement of the top flange is approximately

perpendicular to the centerline of bearings.

Test Structure, Girder End Twist

End Crossframes Only:

Forward

Sign Convention: (+ Clockwise, Looking Forward

- Counterclockwise, Looking Forward)

Intermediate Crossframes Only:

Forward

Sign Convention: (+ Clockwise, Looking Forward

- Counterclockwise, Looking Forward)

Combined Effects: Girder End Twist

End Crossframes Only / Intermediate Crossframes Only:

Forward

Sign Convention: (+ Clockwise, Looking Forward

- Counterclockwise, Looking Forward)

Combined effects:
Forward

Sign Convention: (+ Clockwise, Looking Forward

- Counterclockwise, Looking Forward)

Evaluation of Analysis Methods

Parametric Study:

Parametric Study, Analysis Methods:

Girder modeled using
beam elements

Mz

Line Girder Analysis

Parametric Study, Analysis Methods:

Study Conclusions:
When the effects of intermediate crossframes are considered,
significant redistribution of shear and moment occurs across
the width of the structure.
For the structures studied, line girder analysis can be used to
conservatively calculate member forces for skews up to 45.

2D Grid Analysis vs. 2D Grid Analysis w/ Truss Crossframes:

Little variation was observed between the girder and intermediate crossframe forces
obtained from 2D grid analysis with truss crossframes.
The use of 2D grid analysis was shown to be generally accurate in the calculation of
moments and shears for the cases investigated.
Note that higher levels of analysis provide more precise results, and are
recommended when higher precision is needed, or with more complex structures
(variable skews, partial length girders, etc.).

2D Grid Analysis w/ Truss Crossframes vs. 3D FEM:

The moment and shear results obtained from 3D FEM analysis show general
agreement with the results obtained from 2D grid analysis with truss crossframes..
Although the 2D grid was found to be generally accurate for calculating moments and
shears for the structures investigated, 3D FEM analysis does provide more precise
results.
3D FEM is recommended for more complex structures.

Detailing Methods
Method 1 Steel dead load fit members are detailed to fit with webs
plumb with steel dead load on the structure, but not the deck load

Erect girders plumb

Install crossframes
Girders rotate out of plumb during deck placement
Girders will be permanently twisted

Question: How much twist is acceptable?

Detailing Methods
Method 2 Full dead load fit members are detailed to fit with webs
plumb with full non-composite dead load of steel and concrete.
Erect girders out-of-plumb
Install crossframes
Girders rotate to vertical during deck placement
Girders webs will be vertical in the finished structure

Detailing Methods
Method 2 Full dead load fit members are detailed to fit with webs
plumb with full non-composite dead load of steel and concrete.
This method is generally recommended for skewed bridges by
industry experts.

ODOT is not comfortable with erecting girders in an out-of-plumb

position. Steel Dead Load fit is required by ODOT policy.

Detailing Methods
Method 3 Lean-on Bracing
Use of an alternative lateral bracing system to minimize or
eliminate intermediate crossframe effects.
Some crossframes are replaced with top and bottom struts only
during the deck pour

Lean-on braces allow differential vertical deflection to occur

between girders without inducing twist.

Lean-on Bracing
Two types: Internal and External

In an Internal Lean-on System, bracing is provided by a

crossframe located within the portion of the structure that is
being loaded.

Lean-on Bracing
Internal Lean-on System
In an internal system, crossframe locations can be selected
strategically to minimize twist in the system. Designers
must perform calculations to ensure adequate strength and
stiffness are provided.
A

X
X

Section A-A

Lean-on Bracing
External Lean-on System

In an External Lean-on System, the structure is braced

against an external support or a portion of the structure
that will not be loaded during the deck pour.

Can girder twist be calculated using line girder results?

For low skews, girder twist can be

estimated using line girder analysis.
From AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge
Erection Guide Specification, erection
tolerance = 1/8 per foot of web depth
Data shows this method to be conservative
up to a 45 skew.

30 < Skew 45

Perform Line Girder

Analysis

Differential
Deflections
< S/100

ODOT Policy:
Skewed Bridge Design Process
No

Stiffen Design:
0% to 25%
Additional Steel

No

Stiffen Design: No
0% to 25%
Additional Steel

Girder Twist
< 1/8/ft?

Yes
Check That Design
Rates Using PC-BARS

Implement External
Lean-on Bracing

No

Perform
Refined
Analysis

Yes

Yes
Design Using Line
Girder Analysis

Differential
Deflections
< S/100

Skew > 45

Yes

Implement Internal
Lean-on Bracing with
Refined Analysis

No

Girder Twist
< 1/8/ft?

Girder Twist
< 1/8/ft?

Finish Design
Using Refined Analysis:
Erect Girders Vertical
And Allow To Rotate

Yes

Check That Design

Rates Using PC-BARS

30 < Skew 45

Perform Line Girder

Analysis

ODOT Policy:
Skewed Bridge Design Process

Differential
Deflections
< S/100

Yes

Design Using Line

Girder Analysis

Check That Design

Rates Using PC-BARS

S
f

30 < Skew 45

Perform Line Girder

Analysis

Differential
Deflections
< S/100

ODOT Policy:
Skewed Bridge Design Process
No

Stiffen Design:
0% to 25%
Additional Steel

Differential
Deflections
< S/100

Yes
Design Using Line
Girder Analysis

Check That Design

Rates Using PC-BARS

Stiffen design: Increase

Optimized steel design
0% to 25% (By Weight)
Increase depth
Increase flange sizes
Add girder(s)

30 < Skew 45

Perform Line Girder

Analysis

Differential
Deflections
< S/100

ODOT Policy:
Skewed Bridge Design Process
No

Stiffen Design:
0% to 25%
Additional Steel

Differential
Deflections
< S/100

No

Perform
Refined
Analysis

f
Girder Twist
< 1/8/ft?

1
1/8

Yes

Finish Design
Using Refined Analysis:
Erect Girders Vertical
And Allow To Rotate

Check That Design

Rates Using PC-BARS

30 < Skew 45

Perform Line Girder

Analysis

Differential
Deflections
< S/100

ODOT Policy:
Skewed Bridge Design Process
No

No

Stiffen Design:
0% to 25%
Additional Steel

Differential
Deflections
< S/100

Stiffen Design: No
0% to 25%
Additional Steel

Girder Twist
< 1/8/ft?

Implement Internal
Lean-on Bracing with
Refined Analysis

Girder Twist
< 1/8/ft?

No

Perform
Refined
Analysis

Girder Twist
< 1/8/ft?

Finish Design
Using Refined Analysis:
Erect Girders Vertical
And Allow To Rotate

Yes

Check That Design

Rates Using PC-BARS

30 < Skew 45

Perform Line Girder

Analysis

Differential
Deflections
< S/100

ODOT Policy:
Skewed Bridge Design Process
No

No

Check That Design

Rates Using PC-BARS

Implement External
Lean-on Bracing

Stiffen Design:
0% to 25%
Additional Steel

Girder Twist
< 1/8/ft?

Implement Internal
Lean-on Bracing with
Refined Analysis

No

Girder Twist
< 1/8/ft?

Differential
Deflections
< S/100

Stiffen Design:
0% to 25%
Additional Steel

No

Perform
Refined
Analysis

Girder Twist
< 1/8/ft?

30 < Skew 45

Perform Line Girder

Analysis

Differential
Deflections
< S/100

ODOT Policy:
Skewed Bridge Design Process
No

Stiffen Design:
0% to 25%
Additional Steel

No

Stiffen Design: No
0% to 25%
Additional Steel

Girder Twist
< 1/8/ft?

Yes
Check That Design
Rates Using PC-BARS

Implement External
Lean-on Bracing

No

Perform
Refined
Analysis

Yes

Yes
Design Using Line
Girder Analysis

Differential
Deflections
< S/100

Skew > 45

Yes

Implement Internal
Lean-on Bracing with
Refined Analysis

No

Girder Twist
< 1/8/ft?

Girder Twist
< 1/8/ft?

Finish Design
Using Refined Analysis:
Erect Girders Vertical
And Allow To Rotate

Yes

Check That Design

Rates Using PC-BARS

ODOT Policy: End Crossframes

For skews > 30 degrees, do not install end crossframe diagonals
until deck placement in the adjacent span is complete
End Armor

Condition at Deck
Placement:
Note that the girder
ends are unbraced.
Temporary bracing
may be required.

End Armor

Final Condition:
Diagonals installed

Bottom Chord
Diagonals

Bottom Chord

Refined Analysis using Midas Civil:

In midas civil user can model the construction sequence considering
the girder lift, installation and the deck pouring sequence.
The shell elements works well in determination of the girder twist. A
study has been done in midas civil for the determination of the girder
twist during the deck pouring.
The following pouring sequence has been assumed:

Stage 1

Stage 3

Stage 2

The following Stages were modeled:

1. Stage 1: Steel Girders are installed and self weight of steel is activated.
2. Stage 2: The scaffolding load is activated. The load is activated in the
following fashion for the overhangs:

3. Stage 3: The deck dead load is activated for the deck pour 1.
4. Stage 4: The deck dead load is activated for the deck pour 2.

5. Stage 5: The deck dead load is activated for the deck pour 3.

Deformation Results:
Twisting during deck 1 pouring

Deformation Results:
Twisting during deck 2 pouring

Deformation Results:
Twisting during deck 3 pouring

=> Twisting can be accurately

estimated by Midas Civil so
that proper measures can be
taken

Questions?
travis.butz@burgessniple.com