 Research
 Open Access
Effect of beam joinery on bridge structural stability
 Doungporn Wiwatanapataphee^{1},
 Nathnarong Khajohnsaksumeth^{2, 3}Email authorView ORCID ID profile and
 Yong Hong Wu^{1}
https://doi.org/10.1186/s1366201921585
© The Author(s) 2019
 Received: 2 February 2019
 Accepted: 27 May 2019
 Published: 11 June 2019
Abstract
In this paper, we analyze the load deflection behavior of the superstructure elements of beam bridges under two different beam–beam connection designs. We present a mathematical model for beam–bridge structural analysis and apply the finite element method to solve the problem. We investigate the effects of beam–beam connection design on the response and behavior of the bridge system. We also present the effect of liveloads and deadloads on structural deformation, stress, and internal strain energy. We perform computer modeling of the beam bridge using ANSYS 19.2.
Keywords
 Beam–beam connection
 Beam bridge
 Structure analysis
 Liveload force
 Deadload force
1 Introduction
Bridges have always been an important part of our communities since the beginning of human civilization. The main objective of bridge construction is providing passages over natural barriers such as rivers and valleys, or infrastructures such as roads and railways. In modern bridge engineering, bridges can be classified by several different approaches, such as functions, materials, and types of structural elements. The notable bridge types include beam bridges, truss bridges, cantilever bridges, arch bridges, and suspension bridges [6]. The beam bridge is the most common form that has been used more extensively than others. Beam bridges or girder bridges are the simplest and also the oldest type of bridges. Similarly to many kinds of physical structures such as ships or building, they involve two components, superstructure and substructure. The superstructure refers to the beam itself, where the live load such as traffic loads are endured, and the substructure refers to a supporting structure to the bridge such as foundation, abutment, and piers where the live loads, dead load, and other loads are tolerated [14]. In their most basic form, beam bridges usually consist of a relatively short horizontal beam with supports at each end.
The use of structural modeling and analysis plays a crucial role in predicting and determining the loaddeflection behavior. For evaluation of existing bridges, structural models such as lumpedparameter models (LPMs), structural component models (SCMs), and finite element models (FEMs) are used to study the internal forces, stresses, and fracture of structures under various load conditions. Especially, the finite element method has been remarkably used in the area of structural analysis over the past 60 years. The finite element analysis (FEA) is also used in an accuracy assessment of the design rules [16]. A growing body of research has numerically investigated the structural performance of different types of bridges and their components exposed to various loadings using FEMs. A study on the ultimate load behavior of slab on a steel stringer bridge superstructure using a threedimensional nonlinear finite element analysis based on the ABAQUS software was conducted by Barth and Wu [2].
Brackus et al. [3] used both experimental and numerical models to determine the load distribution between the steel girders and the precast deck panels. They found that the loaddeflection data obtained from their numerical analysis corresponded very well with experimental results. Cobo del Arco and Aparicio [4] formulated a set of governing equations to study the deflection behavior of suspension bridges under concentrated loading. Nakamura, Tanaka, and Kazutoshi [13] carried out a static analysis of a new type of bridge called the cablestayed bridge with concrete filled steel tubes (CFT) arch ribs. They compared structural deformation between the cablestayed CFT arch bridge and a conventional steel cablestayed bridge at various ultimate loads. It was found that the cablestayed CFT arch bridge has higher flexural rigidity with less deflection than the conventional bridge.
The superstructure of the bridge usually consists of multiple spans to prevent any possible cracking. Due to the importance of the connections of bridge elements, a great deal of research has been carried out, based on both experimental and numerical models, to study the behavior of beamtocolumn connections and beamtobeam connections. Mashaly et al. [11] studied numerically the behavior of beamtocolumn joints in steel frames subjected to lateral loads using a 3D finite element model. Zhu and Li [19] used beamtocolumn welded connections in steel structures to study the resistance of steel structure after a fire. Jia et al. [8] performed experiments to investigate the effects of gusset stiffeners at the beamwebtocolumnweb joint on seismic performance of the beam–column connections in existing piers with welded box sections. Liu et al. [9] investigated experimentally the weld damage behavior using various local welded connections representing beamtocolumn connections under monotonic and cyclic loads. As the beamtobeam connection plays a tremendous part in the deformation of the bridge, several studies [5, 18] on beamtobeam connections have been carried out. Dessouki et al. [5] performed bolt force analysis using two different designs of endplate configurations, four bolts and multiple rows extended end plates, for Ibeam extended endplate moment connection. Yam et al. [18] analyzed the block shear strength and behavior of coped beams with welded end connections using the finite element model. However, no attempt has been done on the structural analysis of the beam bridge with main beam connections.
Hence the objective of this paper is to study the loaddeflection behavior of beam bridges with connections on the main beams. A finite element model of the beam bridge structure is presented to analyze the structural behavior of the beam bridge with main beam connections under deadload and liveload forces. The model is used to conduct a parametric study on two different designs of the connections including the full beam–beam and the half beam–beam geometries. Effects of the connection design on bridge behavior are investigated. We also present the total deformation, distributions of equivalent (von Mises) stresses, and internal strain energy obtained from the domain with different beamtobeam connection geometries.
2 Governing equation

Each Ibeam is pinned to its support.

The bases of all footings do not experience any deflection, that is, \(\underline{u} = \underline{0}\).
3 Finite element simulation
Model parameters. Properties of materials at temperature 22°C
Material  Density kg⋅m^{−3}  Isotropic Elasticity  Reference 

Concrete (unconfined compression strength 2.0E+7 Pa)  2286  Young’s modulus 2.3E+10 Pa  Murray (2007) [12] 
Poisson’s ratio 0.15  
Bulk modulus 1.1E+10 Pa  
Shear modulus 1E+10 Pa  
Asphalt concrete  Patel et al. (2011) [15]  
 semidense  2360  Young’s modulus 6.98E+8 Pa  
Poisson’s ratio 0.4  
Bulk modulus 7.48E+8 Pa  
Shear modulus 2.49E+8 Pa  
 dense  2330  Young’s modulus 2.17E+9 Pa  
Poisson’s ratio 0.4  
Bulk modulus 1.693E+9 Pa  
Shear modulus 7.75E+8 Pa  
Structural Steel  7860  Young’s modulus 2.05E+11 Pa  Luecke et al. (2005) [10] 
Poisson’s ratio 0.288  
Bulk modulus 1.6667E+11 Pa  
Shear modulus 7.96E+10 Pa 
Live load. Weights (Kg) of three different classes of trucks
Class  Light truck  Medium truck  Heavy truck 

1  0–2722  6361–7257  11,794–14,969 
2  2723–4536  7258–8845  >14,969 
3  4537–6360  8846–11,793 
Structural analysis. Loaddeflection behavior of bridge structure with different shaped geometries of the main beam connection
Load–deflection behavior (MIN, MAX)  Half beam–beam shaped geometry  Halffull beam–beam shaped geometry 

Total deformation (mm)  (0, 0.1545)  (0, 0.489) 
Equivalent (von Mises)  
Stress (MPa)  (0.1289, 0.4796)  (0.5949, 8.837) 
Total Energy (mJ)  (0, 5674)  (0, 2.527E+4) 
4 Conclusion
The computer bridge model was developed to study the effect of beam–beam connection geometry on the loaddeflection behavior of beam bridges. Two designs of halffull beam–beam shape and half beam–beam shape were chosen in this study. The results indicate that the model with halffull beam–beam connection design leads to higher values of bridge deformation, (von Mises) stress, and total strain energy compared with the bridge model with half beam–beam connections. The results of this research may help structural engineers in the optimization of the main Ibeam connection system design.
Declarations
Funding
The first author would like to thank for the 2018 SAE summer scholarship from the faculty of Science and Engineering, Curtin University, Perth WA, Australia. The second author would like to thank for partial financial support from the Centre of Excellence in Mathematics, Commission on Higher Education, Thailand. The last author would like to thank the Australia research council for the financial support and WA Main Road for providing some data for the work.
Authors’ contributions
The main idea of this paper was proposed by YHW and NK. DW prepared the manuscript initially and performed all the steps of the proofs in this research. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 ANSYS Inc.: User’s Manual R18.2: Theory Guide (2017) Google Scholar
 Barth, K.E., Wu, H.: Efficient nonlinear finite element modeling of slab on steel stringer bridges. Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 42, 1304–1313 (2006) View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Brackus, T.R., Barr, P.J., Cook, W.: Liveload and shear connection testing of fullscale precast bridge panels. J. Bridge Eng. 18(3), 210–219 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.19435592.0000343 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Cobo del Arco, D., Aparicio, A.C.: Preliminary static analysis of suspension bridges. Eng. Struct. 23, 1096–1103 (2001) View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Dessouki, A.K., Youssef, A.H., Ibrahim, M.M.: Behavior of Ibeam bolted endplate moment connections. Ain Shams Eng. J. 4, 685–699 (2013) View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Elloboy, E.: Finite Element Analysis and Design of Steel and SteelConcrete Composite Bridges. Elsevier, Oxford (2014) Google Scholar
 Hughes, T.J.R.: The Finite Element Method: Linear Static and Dynamic Finite Element Analysis. Dover, Newburyport (2012) Google Scholar
 Jia, L.J., Ikai, T., Ge, H., Hada, S.: Seismic performance of compact beam–column connections with welding defects in steel bridge piers. J. Bridge Eng. 22(4), 04016137 (2017) View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Liu, X.Y., Wang, Y.Q., Xiong, J., Shi, Y.J.: Investigate on the weld damage behavior of steel beamtocolumn connection. Int. J. Steel Struct. 17(1), 273–289 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s1329601500708 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Luecke, W.E., McColskey, J.D., McCowan, C.N., Banovic, S.W., Fields, R.J., Foecke, T., Siewert, T.A., Gayle, F.W.: Mechanical Properties of Structural Steels. NIST NCSTAR13D (2005) 324 pages Google Scholar
 Mashaly, E., ElHeweity, M., AbouElfath, H., Osman, M.: Finite element analysis of beamtocolumn joints in steel frames under cyclic loading. Alex. Eng. J. 50, 91–104 (2011) View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Murray, Y.D.: Users Manual for LSDYNA Concrete Material Model 159. The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161. FHWAHRT05062, 89 pages Google Scholar
 Nakamura, S., Tanaka, H., Kato, K.: Static analysis of cablestayed bridge with CFT arch ribs. J. Constr. Steel Res. 65, 776–783 (2009) View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Nilson, A.H., Darwin, D., Dolan, C.W.: Design of Concrete Structures. McGrawHill, Boston (2010) Google Scholar
 Patel, A., Kulkarni, M.P., Gumaste, S.D., Bartake, P.P., Rao, K.V.K., Singh, D.N.: A methodology for determination of resilient modulus of asphaltic concrete. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2011, Article ID 936395 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/936395 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 State of California Department of Transportation: Bridge Design Practice, 4th ed. (2015) http://www.dot.ca.gov/des/techpubs/bdp.html. Accessed 22 Feb 2018
 Troyano, L.F.: Bridge Engineering: A Global Perspective. Thomas, London (2003) View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Yam, M.C.H.M., Grondin, G.Y., Wei, F., Chung, F.: Design for block shear of coped beams with a welded end connection. J. Struct. Eng. 137(8), 1398–1410 (2011) View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Zhu, M.C., Li, G.Q.: Behavior of beamtocolumn welded connections in steel structures after fire. Proc. Eng. 210, 551–556 (2017) View ArticleGoogle Scholar