Shear in Skewed Multi-Beam Bridges

20-7/Task 107 COPY NO.
_____
SHEAR IN SKEWED MULTI-BEAM BRIDGES
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Transportation Research Board
National Research Council
Modjeski and Masters, Inc.

NCHRP Project 20-7/Task 107
March 2002
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SPONSORSHIP
This work was sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, and was
conducted in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, which is administered
by the Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council.
DISCLAIMER
This is an uncorrected draft as submitted by the research agency. The opinions and
conclusions expressed or implied in the report are those of the research agency. They are
not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council,
the Federal Highway Administration, the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, or the individual states participating in the National Cooperative
Highway Research Program.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2 Research Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.2 NCHRP Project 12-26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3 Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.4 Additional Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
CHAPTER 4 STUDY FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.1 Simple Span Beam-Slab Bridge Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

4.1.1 Live Load Shear Along Exterior Beam Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.1.1.1 Influence of Skew Angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.1.1.2 Influence of Beam Stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.1.1.3 Influence of Span Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.1.1.4 Influence of Intermediate Cross Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.1.1.5 Influence of Beam Spacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.1.1.6 Influence of Slab Thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.1.1.7 Influence of Bridge Aspect Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.1.2 Live Load Shear Across Bearing Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.2 Simple Span Concrete T-Beam Bridge Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.2.2 Live Load Shear Across Bearing Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
iv
4.3 Simple Span Spread Concrete Box Girder Bridge Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.4 Two-Span Continuous Beam-Slab Bridge Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.4.1 Simple Span vs. Two-Span Correction Factors at Obtuse Corners
of Abutments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.4.2 Correction Factors at Obtuse Corners of Abutments and Piers . . . . . . . . 81
4.4.3.1 Influence of Skew Angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.4.3.2 Influence of Beam Stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.4.3.3 Influence of Span Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.4.4 Live Load Shear Across Abutment Bearing Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4.4.5 Live Load Shear Across Pier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
4.4.6 Live Load Reactions at Pier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
4.5 Skew Correction Factors from LRFD Specifications and Research Results . . . 126
CHAPTER 5 INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
5.1 Simple Span Beam-Slab Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

5.2 Simple Span Concrete T-Beam Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
5.3 Simple Span Spread Concrete Box Girder Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
5.4 Two-Span Continuous Beam-Slab Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
5.5 Application of Study Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTED RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
APPENDIX A ANALYSIS MATRICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
APPENDIX B CROSS SECTIONS AND FRAMING PLANS OF

BRIDGE MODELS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Typical Beam and Slab Superstructures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figure 2. Plan View of Typical Skewed Superstructure. Current Application

of the Skew Correction Factor for Shear per the AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Figure 3. General Truck Placement Pattern used in NCHRP 12-26/1

for Maximum Shear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 4. Bridge Plan Geometries for Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Figure 5. Schematic Diagram of BSDI Finite Element Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Figure 6. Transformation of Concrete Section to Steel Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Figure 7. Procedure for Calculation of the Normalized Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Figure 8. Effect of Skew Angle on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams . . . . . . . . . . 42
Figure 10. Effect of Girder Stiffness on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams . . . . . . . 45
Figure 14. Effect of Span Length on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams . . . . . . . . . . 48
Figure 17. Effect of Intermediate Cross Frames on Skew Corrections Along

Exterior Beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Figure 18. Effect of Intermediate Cross Frames on Skew Corrections Along

Exterior Beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
vi
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Figure 19. Effect of Beam Spacing on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams . . . . . . . . 54
Figure 20. Effect of Slab Thickness on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams . . . . . . . 56
Figure 21. Effect of Bridge Aspect Ratio on Exterior Girder Shear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Figure 22. Effect of Skew Angle on End Shear Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Figure 24. Effect of Girder Stiffness on End Shear Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Figure 28. Effect of Span Length on End Shear Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Figure 31. Effect of Intermediate Cross Frames on End Shear Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . 66
Figure 32. Effect of Intermediate Cross Frames on End Shear Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . 67
Figure 33. Effect of Slab Thickness on End Shear Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Figure 34. Complete Results for End Shear Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Figure 35. Average Variation of End Shear Skew Corrections for Simple Span
Beam-Slab Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Figure 38. Comparison of Simple Span and Two-Span Continuous Skew

Correction Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
vii
Figure 39. Comparison of Skew Correction Factors at Abutments and Pier . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Figure 40. Nomenclature for Investigation of Correction Factors Along the Length
of the Exterior Girders of Two-Span Continuous Bridge Models . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Figure 41. Effect of Skew Angle on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams
of Continuous Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Figure 42. Effect of Beam Stiffness on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams
Figure 43. Effect of Beam Stiffness on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams
Figure 44. Effect of Span Length on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams
Figure 46. Nomenclature for Investigation of Correction Factors Across the

Abutment Bearing Lines of Two-Span Continuous Bridge Models . . . . . . . . . . 94
Figure 47. Effect of Skew Angle on End Shear Skew Corrections At Abutments . . . . . . . . 95
Figure 48. Effect of Girder Stiffness on End Shear Skew Corrections At Abutments . . . . . 95
Figure 49. Effect of Girder Stiffness on End Shear Skew Corrections At Abutments . . . . . 96
Figure 50. Effect of Span Length on End Shear Skew Corrections At Abutments . . . . . . . 96
Figure 51. Effect of Span Length on End Shear Skew Corrections At Abutments . . . . . . . 97
Figure 52. Complete Results Set for End Shear Skew Corrections At Abutments . . . . . . . . 99
Figure 53. Average Variation of End Shear Skew Corrections Across Abutments
of Two-Span Continuous Beam-Slab Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Figure 54. Nomenclature for Investigation of Correction Factors Across the

Pier of Two-Span Continuous Bridge Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
viii
Figure 55. Effect of Skew Angle on Skew Corrections for Shear Across Pier . . . . . . . . . . 104
Figure 56. Effect of Girder Stiffness on Skew Corrections for Shear Across Pier . . . . . . . 106
Figure 57. Effect of Girder Stiffness on Skew Corrections for Shear Across Pier . . . . . . . 106
Figure 58. Effect of Span Length on Skew Corrections for Shear Across Pier . . . . . . . . . 108
Figure 59. Effect of Span Length on Skew Corrections for Shear Across Pier . . . . . . . . . 108
Figure 60. Complete Results Set for Skew Corrections for Shear Across Pier . . . . . . . . . 110
Figure 61. Average Variation of Skew Corrections for Shear Across Piers
of Two-Span Continuous Beam-Slab Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Figure 62. Nomenclature for Investigation of Correction Factors for Reaction at the
Pier of Two-Span Continuous Bridge Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Figure 63. Comparison of Skew Correction Factors for Shear and Reaction at Pier . . . . . 115
Figure 68. Effect of Skew Angle on Skew Corrections for Reaction Across Pier . . . . . . . 121
Figure 69. Effect of Girder Stiffness on Skew Corrections for Reaction Across Pier . . . . 123
Figure 70. Effect of Girder Stiffness on Skew Corrections for Reaction Across Pier . . . . 123
Figure 71. Effect of Span Length on Skew Corrections for Reaction Across Pier . . . . . . . 125
Figure 72. Effect of Span Length on Skew Corrections for Reaction Across Pier . . . . . . . 125
Figure 73. Results for the Variation of the Skew Correction Along the Length
of the Exterior Girders of Simple-Span Beam-Slab Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
ix
Figure 74. Average Results for the Variation of the Skew Correction Along the
Bearing Lines of Simple-Span Beam-Slab Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Figure 75. Results for the Variation of the Skew Correction Along the Length
of the Exterior Girders of Two-Span Continuous Beam-Slab Bridges . . . . . . . 136
Figure 76. Average Results for the Variation of the Skew Correction Across
Abutments and Piers of Two-Span Continuous Beam-Slab Bridges . . . . . . . . . 138
Figure 77. Proposed Variation of the Skew Correction Factors for Shear Along
the Length of the Exterior Girders in Simple Span Superstructures of
Concrete Deck, Filled Grid, or Partially Filled Grid on Steel or
Concrete Beams; Concrete T-Beams, T- and Double T Sections . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Figure 78. Proposed Variation of the Skew Correction Factors for Shear Along
the Length of the Exterior Girders in Continuous Superstructures of
Figure 79. Proposed Variation of the Skew Correction Factors for Shear Across
the Bearing Lines of Simple Span Superstructures of
Figure 80. Proposed Variation of the Skew Correction Factors for Shear Across
the Abutments and Piers of Continuous Superstructures of
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Correction Factors for Load Distribution Factors for Support Shear
of the Obtuse Corner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 2. Maximum Shear Forces at Pier Support for Three-Lane Bridge with
Different Skew Angles Predicted Using Different Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Table 3. Base Analysis Matrix for Beam and Slab Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Table 4. Average NCHRP 12-26 and Base Parameters for Beam-Slab Bridge Models . . 30
Table 5. Average NCHRP 12-26 and Base Parameters for Concrete T-beam
Bridge Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Table 6. Average NCHRP 12-26 and Base Parameters for Spread Concrete Box
Girder Bridge Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Table 7. Comparison of Maximum Live Load Shears from BSDI and an

LRFD Line Girder Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Table 8. Comparison of Skew Correction Factors for End Shear of Exterior Girders
at the Obtuse Corners of Simple Span and Two-Span Bridge Models . . . . . . . . 80
Table 9. Comparison of Skew Correction Factors for Shear of Exterior Girders

at the Obtuse Abutment Corners and Obtuse Pier Corners of
Two-Span Bridge Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Table 10. Correction Factors for Reaction at the Pier of Two-Span

Beam-Slab Bridge Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Table 11. Comparison of Skew Correction Factors from LRFD Specifications

and Research Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
xi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge and appreciate the assistance provided by Wagdy G. Wassef,
Ph.D., during the analysis and interpretation of the finite element models of this research.
Additionally, Chris W. Smith assisted in the development of the bridge models and Adnan
Kurtovic assisted in the post processing of the bridge models. Their efforts are greatly
appreciated.
The authors also appreciate the efforts of Dann Hall and Rich Lawin of Bridge Software
Development International, LTD., who performed the finite element analysis of the bridge
models in this study.
xii
ABSTRACT
This report documents an investigation of the skew correction factors for live load shear
and the development of design guidelines for the variation of the skew correction factors along
the exterior beam length and across the end bearing lines of simple span and two-span
continuous beam and slab bridges. The report also documents an investigation of skew
correction factors for live load reactions at the piers of two-span continuous bridges. The
research was performed through finite element analysis of 41 bridge models.
The study findings suggest that a reasonable approximation for the variation of the skew
correction factor along the length of exterior girders of superstructures consisting of concrete
decks, filled grids, or partially filled grids on steel or concrete beams; concrete T-beams, T- and
double T sections is a linear distribution of the factor from its value at the obtuse corner of the
bridge, determined according to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (LRFD
Specifications), to a value of 1.0 at girder mid-span. Similarly, the skew correction factor
variation across the bearing lines of those bridges may be approximated by a linear distribution
of the correction factor from its value at the obtuse corner of the bridge, determined according to
the LRFD Specifications, to a value of 1.0 at the acute corner of the bridge. The variations of the
skew correction factors for shear along the length of exterior girders and for shear across both
the abutments and piers of continuous bridges are identical to those proposed for simple span
bridges. Skew correction factors for reaction at the piers of continuous bridges are present and
are unique from those calculated for shear at the piers. From the limited data, however, accurate
empirical equations for the correction factor or its variation across the pier could not be derived.
Therefore, the development of such equations for continuous bridges is necessary.
xiii
SUMMARY
This research focused on an investigation of the skew correction factors for live load
shear defined in Article 4.6.2.2.3c of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (LRFD
Specifications)1. The LRFD Specifications stipulate that the skew correction factors for shear,
derived in NCHRP Project 12-262 for exterior beams at obtuse corners of skewed, simple span
bridges, be applied not only to the end shear of the exterior beams, but also to the end shear of
each beam in the bridge cross section. During the development of the skew correction factors,
however, variation of the effect of skew on the end shear of interior beams was not investigated.
Additionally, the effect of skew on shear along the length of exterior beams of beam and slab
bridges was not investigated in NCHRP Project 12-262.
The objective of this research, therefore, was the development of design guidelines for
the variation of the skew correction factor for shear along the exterior beam length and across the
end bearing lines of simple span beam and slab bridges. This study also investigated a limited
number of two-span continuous bridge models and the variation of the skew correction factor for
shear in these bridge types. Additionally, the need for skew correction factors for live load
reactions at the piers of continuous bridges was investigated.
The research was performed through finite element analysis of 41 bridge models,
including 25 simple span beam-slab models, 3 simple span concrete T-beam models, 4 simple
span spread concrete box girder models and 9 two-span continuous beam-slab models. The
influence of skew angle, beam stiffness, span length, intermediate cross frames, beam spacing,
slab thickness and bridge aspect ratio on the skew correction factor variation was investigated.
1
For the simple span bridge models studied, the research results indicate that:
Regardless of changes in the aforementioned bridge parameters, a

reasonable approximation for the variation of the skew correction factor
along the length of exterior girders of simple span beam-slab and concrete
T-beam bridges is a linear distribution of the factor from its value at the
obtuse corner of the bridge, determined according to the LRFD
Specifications, to a value of 1.0 at girder mid-span.
Regardless of changes in the aforementioned bridge parameters, a

reasonable approximation of the skew correction factor for live load shear
across the bearing lines of simple span beam-slab and concrete T-beam
bridges is a linear distribution of the correction factor from its value at the
obtuse corner of the bridge, determined according to the LRFD
Specifications, to a value of 1.0 at the acute corner of the bridge.
For the two-span continuous bridge models studied, the research results indicate that:
The variations of the skew correction factors for shear along the length of
exterior girders in each span and for shear across both the abutments and
piers of two-span continuous beam-slab bridges are identical to those
proposed for simple span bridges. The correction factor variation along
the exterior girder may be approximated by a linear distribution of the
factor at the obtuse corner to a value of 1.0 at girder mid-span. Likewise,
the variation across the abutments and piers is approximated by a linear
distribution of the factor at the obtuse corner to a value of 1.0 at the acute
corner.
The skew correction factor defined by the LRFD Specifications is valid for
the girder shear at the obtuse corners of both the abutments and piers of
the continuous bridges.
Skew correction factors for reaction at the piers of continuous bridges are
present and are unique from those calculated for shear at the piers. From
the limited continuous bridge model data of this study, however, accurate
empirical equations which define the correction factor or define its
variation across the pier could not be derived. Therefore, the development
of such equations for continuous bridges is necessary and is recommended
for further research.
For application of the research findings, the recommendations are as follows:
2
Skew Correction Factor for Shear, Variation Along Exterior Beam Length
For superstructure types Concrete Deck, Filled Grid, or Partially Filled Grid on
Steel or Concrete Beams; Concrete T-Beams, T- and Double T Section, within
the applicable ranges of skew angle (), spacing of beams or webs (S), span of
beam (L) and number of beams, stringers or girders (Nb) as defined by Table
4.6.2.2.3c-1 of the LRFD Specifications, the skew correction factor for shear may
be varied linearly from its value at the obtuse corner of the bridge, determined in
accordance with the empirical equation defined in Table 4.6.2.2.3c-1, to a value
of 1.0 at girder mid-span.
This approximate variation is applicable for both simple span structures and
continuous structures. For continuous structures, the skew correction factor
calculated at the obtuse corner of the abutment per Table 4.6.2.2.3c-1 is also valid
at the obtuse corners of the interior piers. Likewise, the variation of the
correction factor is applicable from both the obtuse corner of the abutment and the
obtuse corners of the interior piers to the girder mid-span.
Skew Correction Factor for Shear, Variation Across Bearing Lines
accordance with Table 4.6.2.2.3c-1, to a value of 1.0 at the acute corner of the
bearing line.
obtuse corners of the interior piers to the acute corner of the bearing lines.
Additional suggested research includes an investigation of the effects of torsion on web
shear in spread box girder bridges. The study results indicate that although torsion is typically
3
neglected in right bridges, the introduction of skew may increase torsional effects to levels that
are not negligible. Without further research, however, and given the lack of substantial field
documentation indicating problems with torsion and shear in skewed spread box girder bridges,
the current design practices are considered to be acceptable.
Finally, this study investigated only a few types of beam and slab bridges and provides
recommendations regarding only superstructures consisting of concrete decks, filled grids, or
partially filled grids on steel or concrete beams; concrete T-beams; or T- and double T sections.
Additional research is recommended, therefore, to determine the effects of skew on shear in the
remaining beam and slab bridge types included within Table 4.6.2.2.3c-1 of the LRFD
Specifications.
4
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Beam and slab bridges are basic and common elements of the national system of
roadways and bridges. Examples of typical beam and slab superstructures are shown in Figure 1,
and include structures such as beam-slab (i.e. steel I-beam, concrete I-beam and concrete T-
beam), box girder, multi-box beam and spread box beam bridges. Design procedures for these
structures are well documented and standardized through research, physical testing and
development of design codes, especially for right (i.e., non-skewed) bridges. The design of
skewed bridges, however, is often based more upon engineering experience and extrapolation of
limited analyses, rather than upon extensive research. In fact, for many years, little was done to
incorporate the effect of skew on live load distribution, with the result that many skewed bridges
were designed as right bridges. This was often the case for shear design in skewed beam and
slab structures.
Two recent NCHRP research projects, Project 12-26 and Project 12-33, focused on
updating and refining the AASHTO Bridge Design Specifications, and in doing so, refined the
shear design procedures for skewed beam and slab bridges. NCHRP Project 12-262 focused on
investigating the live load distribution in beam and slab bridges and on developing refined live
load distribution formulas to be incorporated in an updated AASHTO Bridge Design
Specification. The objective of Project 12-33 was the development of AASHTO Bridge Design
Specifications utilizing the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) methodology. This
5
project culminated with the publication of the first edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications (LRFD Specifications)3 in 1994 and incorporated the refined shear design
procedures for skewed beam and slab bridges developed in NCHRP 12-26.
6
SUPPORTING TYPE OF DECK TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION
COMPONENTS
Steel Beam Cast-in-place concrete

slab, precast concrete
slab, steel grid,
glued/spiked panels,
stressed wood
Precast Concrete I or Bulb- Cast-in-place

Tee Sections concrete, precast
concrete
Closed Steel or Precast Cast-in-place concrete

Concrete Boxes slab
Open Steel or Precast Cast-in-place concrete

Concrete Boxes slab, precast concrete
deck slab
Cast-in-Place Concrete Tee Monolithic concrete

Beam
Figure 1. Typical Beam and Slab Superstructures1.
7
The current design methodology in Section 4 of the LRFD Specifications1 for typical,
right beam and slab bridges permits the use of empirical distribution factors for determination of
the live load effects in bridge beams. For the mid-span bending moment and end shear of
exterior beams in skewed beam and slab bridges, the LRFD Specifications provide correction
factors that are to be applied to the moment and shear distribution factors, calculated for the
corresponding right bridge. These empirical skew correction factors for end shear in beam and
slab bridges, as defined in Table 4.6.2.2.3c-1 of the LRFD Specifications1 and as shown in Table
1, have been the subject of much discussion following the adoption of the LRFD Specifications
in 1993. As stated in the scope of services provided by the NCHRP for this project,
Article 4.6.2.2.3c, Skewed Bridges, in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design

Specifications, requires that shear in the exterior beam at the obtuse corner of the
bridge shall be adjusted when the line of support is skewed. The Specifications
provide correction factors for this adjustment and require that the correction
factors be applied to all beams in the cross-section.
In the development of these correction factors, the variation of the effect of skew
on the individual beam reactions was not considered. In addition, the
Specifications provide no guidance on the influence of skew on the shear along
the length of the beam. The commentary to the Specifications states that the
prescribed corrections are conservative. As a consequence of this conservatism
some beams in the bridge are overdesigned.
It is not only this conservatism that has been the topic of discussions surrounding the skew
correction factors, but also the extent to which the correction factors apply to the shear along the
length of the exterior girder.
8
Table 1. Correction Factors for Load Distribution Factors for Support Shear of the
Obtuse Corner1.
Type of Superstructure Correction Factor Range of

Applicability
Concrete Deck, Filled Grid, or 0 # 2 # 60

Partially Filled Grid on Steel or 3.5 # S # 16.0
Concrete Beams; Concrete T- 20 # L # 240
Beams, T- and Double T Nb $ 4
Section
Multicell Concrete Box Beams, 0 < 2 # 60
Box Sections 6.0 < S # 13.0
20 # L # 240
35 # d # 110
Nc $ 3
Concrete Deck on Spread 0 < 2 # 60
Concrete Box Beams 6.0 # S # 11.5
20 # L # 140
18 # d # 65
Nb $ 3
Concrete Box Beams Used in 0 < 2 # 60
Multibeam Decks 20 # L # 120
17 # d # 60
35 # b # 60
5 # Nb # 20
Where: 2 = skew angle (degrees) Nb = number of beams, stringers or girders

S = spacing of beams or webs (ft) Nc = number of cells in a concrete box girder
L = span of beam (ft) ts = depth of concrete slab (in)
b = width of beam (in) Kg = longitudinal stiffness parameter (in4)
d = depth of beam or stringer (in)
9
The development of the skew correction factors for beam and slab bridges in the LRFD
Specifications was part of NCHRP Project 12-26. The report for that project, Distribution of
Wheel Loads on Highway Bridges4, indicated that the skew correction factors were derived for
only the end shears of the exterior girders at the obtuse corners of simple span bridges. In
general, the end shear tends to increase as the skew angle of the supports increases beyond
approximately 15 to 20. For the LRFD Specifications, however, the working group for
NCHRP 12-33 conservatively extended the applicability of the correction factor to include not
only the end shear at the obtuse corner of the exterior beams, but also the end shear of each beam
in the bridge cross section5, as shown in the typical skewed bridge plan of Figure 2.
The working group for NCHRP 12-33 also assumed that it may be reasonable to extend
the correction factors for end shear of the exterior beam to the shear along the length of the
exterior beam5, but made no provisions in the LRFD Specifications to do so. During the
development of the skew correction factors in NCHRP 12-26, the effect of skew on the shear
along the length of the exterior beams was not investigated, and the current LRFD Specifications
do not address this issue.
10
C
L Girder (Typ.)
Correction Factor CL Abutment (Typ.)

Conservatively Applied to
End Shear of All Girders
(Typ.)
Skew Angle
Correction Factor Calculated for
and Applied to End Shear at
Obtuse Corner of Exterior Girder
(Typ.)
Figure 2. Plan View of Typical Skewed Superstructure. Current Application of the Skew
Correction Factor for Shear per the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications1.
11
An additional topic of discussion regarding the design of skewed bridges is the treatment
of reactions at interior supports of continuous spans. Based upon the NCHRP 12-33 working
groups previous experience with curved and simple-span skewed structures, it was speculated
that skew effects also account for the reduced reaction at interior supports, and, in some cases,
the uplift at the acute corner of skewed bridges5. Intuition may suggest, therefore, that at the
interior supports of continuous spans, where both an obtuse and acute corner exist opposite each
other, the skew effects on shear may cancel out for determination of the total reaction. This
hypothesis, however, has not yet been investigated and is not addressed in the LRFD
Specifications.
As a result of these outstanding issues regarding the skew correction factors for shear,
this project focuses on investigating and more accurately assessing the effect of skew on end
shear across bearing lines and on shear along the length of exterior beams of beam and slab
bridges. This research concentrates on simple span bridges, with a cursory evaluation of two-
span continuous beam-slab bridges. The importance of this topic lies in the fact that while
research has been performed to determine the shear correction factor for end shears at the obtuse
corners of skewed bridges, these factors also have been conservatively applied to the end shear
of all beams in the cross section and, in some cases, to the shear along the length of the exterior
girder, without supporting research. The possibility exists, therefore, that some beams in beam
and slab bridges are over-designed for shear. Further research on this topic may enable the use
of more precise skew correction factors, and hence, may result in more economical structures.
12
1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The main objective of this study is to develop practical and reasonably accurate design
guidelines for estimating the variation of the skew correction factor for live load shear along the
length of exterior beams and across the beam supports of simple-span beam and slab bridges.
This study also investigates a limited number of two-span continuous bridge models to address
the variation of the skew correction factor along the length of the exterior beams and across the
abutments and piers of these bridge types. Additionally, the continuous models are studied to
address the need for skew correction factors for live load reactions at piers. The proposed
guidelines for the skew correction factors of both simple-span and two-span continuous bridges
are intended to be developed in a manner suitable for incorporation into the current AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.
13
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Extensive research has been performed by bridge engineers in an attempt to accurately
predict the path of loads through bridges and to present the predictions in reasonably accurate,
yet practical load distribution formulas for designers. Specific to beam and slab bridges, much
research has been performed to develop approximate, algebraic equations for the distribution of
moment and shear in right bridges. A further extension of that work is the area of research
devoted to the distribution of moment in skewed beam and slab bridges. Research by Marx, et
al.6, Nutt, et al. for the NCHRP Project 12-262, Khaleel and Itani7, Bishara, et al.8 and Ebeido and
Kennedy9 has concentrated on moment distributions in skewed, simply-supported and
continuous beam and slab bridges. The research devoted to the distribution of shear and bearing
reactions in skewed bridges, however, is confined to a rather limited set of sources.
2.2 NCHRP PROJECT 12-26
One of the major comprehensive studies aimed at predicting the effect of skew on the
distribution of shear in beam and slab bridges was the work by Zokaie, et. al. for NCHRP Project
12-264. The primary objective of NCHRP Project 12-26 was to investigate the live load
distribution in beam and slab bridges and develop, where necessary, more accurate live load
distribution formulas to replace those specified in the AASHTO Standard Specifications for
Highway Bridges (Standard Specifications)10. While experiencing only minor revisions since
14
incorporation into the Standard Specifications in 1931, the S/over equations (i.e., S/5.5 or
similar equations) for live load distribution provide little guidance on the treatment of skewed
bridges. One goal of NCHRP Project 12-26, therefore, was aimed at developing distribution
factors that would account for skew effects.
The analysis of load distribution and, ultimately, the development of the new load
distribution factor formulas for right beam and slab bridges in NCHRP Project 12-26, was
initiated by construction of a database of 850 existing beam and slab bridges from a nationwide
survey of state transportation officials. From the database, the average beam and slab bridge
parameters were defined for five different bridge types: beam-slab (i.e., steel I-beam, concrete I-
beam and concrete T-beam), box girder, slab, multi-box beam and spread box beam. Parametric
analyses were performed by varying a single parameter at a time to determine each parameters
effect on the distribution of HS20 truck live load. The parametric studies utilized both finite
element analyses and grillage analyses with a number of different software packages. From the
results, new live load distribution equations for right bridges were derived to incorporate the
effects of each parameter that had a significant effect on load distribution.
The approximate equations developed in NCHRP Project 12-26 for the skew correction
factors were developed for simple span bridges utilizing the programs GENDEK5A11 and
FINITE12 for finite element analysis. The skew correction factors were developed such that they
could be applied to the newly derived distribution factors of a right bridge with the same
geometric parameters as the skewed bridge under investigation. In order to incorporate the
effects of each bridge parameter that had a significant impact on the load distribution of right
bridges, parametric studies of skewed bridges were completed, similar to those performed for the
right bridges. The live load used in the parametric studies consisted of two trucks placed
transversely on the bridge cross section to maximize the girder responses. Test models of
different live load placements confirmed that two trucks typically produced the governing girder
15
responses. The general loading condition that maximized shear at the obtuse corner of the
skewed bridges is shown in Figure 3.
16
Figure 3. General Truck Placement Pattern used in NCHRP 12-26/1 for Maximum Shear.
17
From the parametric analyses, the equations for the skew correction factors for shear
were derived from the ratio of the maximum exterior girder shear of a skewed bridge to that of a
right bridge, each with the same geometric parameters and live load positioning. These
equations, developed for the end shear of exterior beams at obtuse corners of beam and slab
bridges, are presented in Article 4.6.2.2.3c of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications1.
As discussed in Section 1.1, the LRFD Specifications require that the correction factors be
applied not only to the end shear of the exterior beams, but also to the end shear of each beam in
the bridge cross section. During the development of the skew correction factors, however,
variation of the effect of skew on the end shear of interior beams was not investigated. The
application of the skew correction factors to all beams of a cross section is considered to be
conservative; therefore, it is suspected that certain beams may be over-designed. Additionally,
the effect of skew on shear along the length of exterior beams of beam and slab bridges was not
investigated in NCHRP Project 12-26.
2.3 ONTARIO HIGHWAY BRIDGE DESIGN CODE
The treatment of skew and its effects on load distribution are handled differently in the
third edition of the Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code (OHBDC)13 than the method utilized
in the LRFD Specifications. Rather than modify the load distribution factors developed for
right bridges, the OHBDC defines a limit for the skewness of a bridge, beyond which
refined methods of analysis must be used. Prior to the third edition of the OHBDC, the Ontario
18
code implied that the measure of a bridges skewness was only its skew angle, as the skewness
limitation was defined by a skew angle of 20E (measured from centerline of bearings to a line
normal to the bridge centerline). The third edition of the OHBDC, however, incorporated the
work of Jaeger and Bakht14 which indicated that the measure of bridge skewness is also a
function of span length, bridge width and girder spacing. Hence, the skew limitation, , was
redefined in the third edition to incorporate these effects, as shown in Equation 1. Bridges
beyond the skewness limit of 1/18 must be analyzed using a refined method such as grillage
analysis, orthotropic plate theory or finite element analysis. Skewed bridges within this limit
may be analyzed using the load distribution factors developed for right bridges, with the
associated error of this procedure estimated at less than 5%.
S( Tan ) 1
= (Equation 1)
L 18
where:
S = beam spacing
L = span length
Q = skew angle
2.4 ADDITIONAL WORK
Additional work regarding skewed beam and slab bridges was reported by Ebeido and
Kennedy15,16. Their research focused on load distribution in skewed composite bridges, both
simple span and continuous, and included studies of moment, shear and reactions. Two separate
19
studies were performed regarding the distribution of shear and reactions in skewed bridges: (i)
Simply supported composite bridges, and (ii) Continuous composite bridges.
The first study analyzed the influence of skew and other bridge geometric parameters on
the distribution of shear in simply supported composite steel-concrete bridges. The parameters
investigated included: skew angle, beam number and spacing, bridge aspect ratio, number of
loaded lanes, number of intermediate diaphragms and the presence of end diaphragms. A
parametric study of over 400 bridge cases was completed using ABAQUS17 for the finite
element analysis of the bridge models. The results of the computer analyses were verified
through physical testing of six scale bridge models. Empirical formulas were developed for end
shear distribution factors of both dead load and OHBDC truck live load. The empirical
formulas were derived separately for exterior girders at the acute corner of the bridge, exterior
girders at the obtuse corner and interior girders. The effect of skew on shear along the length of
the girders was not addressed.
The second study by Ebeido and Kennedy focused on continuous skewed composite
bridges and the distribution of both shear and reactions at interior piers. Similar to the study for
simple spans, this research incorporated over 600 two-span continuous bridges with
investigation of the aforementioned parameters, as well as the ratio of adjacent span lengths.
ABAQUS was again used for the finite element modeling, and verified through physical testing
of three scale models of continuous bridges. The live load used in this research, however, was
the AASHTO HS20-44 truck. This facilitated comparison of the empirical formulas for
distribution of shear at pier supports developed in Ebeido and Kennedys research with those
from NCHRP 12-26 and the LRFD Specifications.
20
The comparison of distribution factors was limited to those for shear at interior piers, as
NCHRP 12-26 and the LRFD Specifications do not address the distribution of pier reactions in
skewed bridges. Ebeido and Kennedy used a three-lane continuous bridge with skew angles of
0, 30, 45 and 60 to compare the maximum shear force determined from the LRFD
Specifications, NCHRP 12-26, their empirical formulas and their finite element analyses. The
comparison results, shown in Table 2, indicated that the distribution factors developed by the
authors result in less conservative shear forces at the piers. These results, the authors state, are
due to the fact that NCHRP 12-26 and the LRFD Specifications do not account for intermediate
diaphragms and apply the same skew correction factors to both the interior and exterior girders.
Additionally, the factors developed by Ebeido and Kennedy account for the effect of skew on the
distribution of dead load, an effect not considered in NCHRP 12-26 and the LRFD
Specifications. Similar to the first study, however, the effect of skew on shear along the lengths
of the girders was not addressed.
21
Table 2. Maximum Shear Forces at Pier Support for Three-Lane Bridge with Different Skew
Angles Predicted Using Different Methods17
Skew Finite-
Shear force angle LRFD NCHRP Proposed element
(kN) (degrees) (1994) (1988) formulas analysis
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Maximum exterior 2=0 338 440 296 291
girder shear
force at the pier 2 = 30 376 517 315 308
support 2 = 45 405 581 353 349
2 = 60 455 657 391 382
Maximum interior 2=0 423 440 314 319
girder shear
force at the pier 2 = 30 473 517 297 288
support 2 = 45 508 581 275 268
2 = 60 569 657 253 250
22
The effects of skew angle and intermediate transverse cross frames on load distribution in
skewed, simple span are investigated by Aggour and Aggour18. Their analysis of 12 single track
railway bridges, with superstructures consisting of two steel plate girders, focused on the
distribution of bending moments. The authors findings, however, indicate that the variation in
number of intermediate cross frames had little impact on the magnitude of reactions at the acute
and obtuse corners of the bridges. The girder reactions for models with varying numbers of
intermediate cross frames did not differ from those of a model possessing only end cross frames.
The research performed by Bell19 in 1998 focused on evaluating the shear and moment
distribution factors currently specified in the Standard Specifications and the LRFD
Specifications. Bell investigated straight, skewed, simple span and continuous beam and slab
bridges, both with and without intermediate diaphragms, using both field test data and finite
element analysis with ANSYS20. The research objective was to develop empirical equations for
load distribution in continuous bridges, if it was determined that modifications to the existing
equations were required to provide more accurate distribution results. Using the AASHTO
HS20-44 truck for live load, parametric studies were performed, investigating the effects of the
number of spans, span length, span length ratio, skew angle and girder spacing. The results
indicated that the distribution factors provided in the LRFD Specifications accurately assess the
effect of skew on the distribution of shear, and therefore, no modifications to the current
equations for shear distribution were recommended.
In his research project Forces At Bearings Of Skewed Bridges, Bishara investigated 36
simply supported composite multi-stringer bridges to evaluate the reaction components at the
rocker and bolster bearings under both dead load and HS20-44 live loads21. While most design
23
codes address the vertical and horizontal reaction components at these bearings, Bishara also
addressed the remaining three rotational degrees of freedom at the bearings. Using ADINA22 for
the finite element analysis, a parametric study was performed to determine the effects span
length, deck width and skew angle on the girder reactions. Two field tests were performed, one
on a simple span bridge and one on a two span continuous bridge, to validate the results of the
finite element analysis.
The research conclusions that addressed the live load vertical reactions were: (i) Bearing
forces differ substantially between the interior and exterior girders and between the obtuse and
acute corners; (ii) The maximum live load reaction for the exterior girder is obtained when the
trucks are placed at the obtuse corner; (iii) The maximum live load reaction for the interior
girders was about 98% of the value computed per the Standard Specifications; therefore, the
design approximations in the Standard Specifications are suitable for design, and; (iv) The
maximum live load reaction for the exterior girder was less than that obtained from the
AASHTO procedures.
El-Ali investigated the internal forces in four 137-foot simply-supported, welded steel
plate girder bridges with various skew angles to determine the effect of skew on girder bending
moments, torsional moments and shears23. Finite element analyses of the four bridge models,
with skew angles of 0, 20, 40and 60, were performed using SAP IV24. The girder spacing of
each bridge model was constant and intermediate and end cross frames were included. Four
lanes of HS20-44 live load were applied in six different configurations in order to obtain the
maximum results. The research conclusions indicated that the live load shears obtained from the
finite element models did not have a definite correlation to those calculated using the distribution
24
factors from the Standard Specifications. The ratio of the shear values obtained from the finite
element analyses to those calculated according to the Standard Specifications25 varied from 0.45
to approximately 1.
25
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY
The evaluation of the effect of skew on shear along the length of exterior beams and on
shear across bearing lines of beam and slab bridges was performed through a parametric study of
a selective group of simple span and two-span continuous beam and slab bridge models.
Analysis matrices were developed based on key parameters of simple span and two-span
continuous beam and slab bridges. These analysis matrices served to guide the study, to allow
for assessment of non-linear variation in the results and to identify the major parameters that
have a significant effect on the variation of the skew correction factors. The matrices were
constructed based upon bridge plans with span lengths of 42 feet (L), 105 feet (2.5L) and 168
feet (4L), a typical curb-to-curb width of 42 feet and skew angles, , of 30 and 60. The base
case analysis matrix and bridge plan geometries are shown in Table 3 and Figure 4, respectively.
26
Table 3. Base Analysis Matrix for Beam and Slab Bridges
Beam and Slab Bridges

Skew
Angle, (I+Ae2)1 (I+Ae2)2 (I+Ae2)3
2
0 L 2.5L 4L L 2.5L 4L L 2.5L 4L

30 L 2.5L 4L L 2.5L 4L L 2.5L 4L
60 L 2.5L 4L L 2.5L 4L L 2.5L 4L
Figure 4. Bridge Plan Geometries for Analysis
27
Also included in the bridge analysis matrices were major parameters, such as I+Ae2
(where I = girder stiffness, A = the beam cross sectional area and e = the distance between the
centers of the deck and the girder), that have a significant influence on the load distribution of
beam and slab bridges. These parameters were identified during the skewed bridge sensitivity
studies performed in NCHRP 12-26 for development of the current skew correction factors in the
LRFD Specifications, and include skew angle, beam spacing, beam stiffness, span length and
slab thickness4. As a result, those same parameters, as well as bridge aspect ratio and the
presence of intermediate cross frames, were investigated in a total of 41 bridge models. This
group of 41 models was comprised of 25 simple span beam-slab bridges, 3 simple span concrete
T-beam bridges, 4 simple span spread concrete box girder bridges and 9 two-span continuous
beam-slab bridges. The expanded analysis matrices for each bridge type are provided in
Appendix A and the typical framing plans and cross sections of the bridge models are provided
in Appendix B.
The basic cross section parameters (i.e. number of beams, beam spacing, beam
inertia/beam depth, slab thickness) for the beam and slab bridges were selected using the results
of NCHRP 12-26 as a guide. The analysis of load distribution, and ultimately, the development
of the new load distribution factor formulas for right beam and slab bridges, in NCHRP 12-26
was initiated by construction of a database of 850 existing beam and slab bridges from a
nationwide survey of state transportation officials. From the database, the average beam and
slab bridge parameters were defined for five different bridge types: beam-slab, box girder, slab,
multi-box beam and spread box beam. These average bridge properties were used as a guide in
setting the base parameters of the models to be investigated in this project.
28
For the beam-slab bridge types, the average properties calculated in NCHRP 12-262, and
the base bridge model parameters used in this study are shown in Table 4. Additional beam-slab
bridge parameters, specifically, girder spacings of 4.84 ft., girder stiffnesses of 44,400 in4 and
1,870,000 in4, a slab thickness of 9 in. and a 10-girder cross section, were also selected for
additional investigations. The two-span continuous beam-slab bridge models were based upon
the same base parameters, with the addition of a second, equal span.
For the concrete T-beam models, the base bridge parameters utilized in this research
were again established using the average properties from NCHRP 12-262, as shown in Table 5.
The analysis matrix for the T-beam bridges was developed using typical span lengths for this
bridge type, determined from NCHRP 12-26, rather than the base case span lengths defined
previously. The matrix also includes a second beam with a stiffness typical of those identified in
NCHRP 12-26.
The base bridge parameters for the spread box girder bridge models were also developed
from the results of NCHRP 12-262. Table 6 contains the average properties from NCHRP 12-26
and the base parameters utilized in this study. The analysis matrix for this bridge type, found in
Appendix A, was created by selecting a two additional, typical box girders, one shallower and
one deeper than the base case girder.
29
Table 4. Average NCHRP 12-26 and Base Parameters for Beam-Slab Bridge Models
Average Base
Bridge Parameter NCHRP 12-26 Model
Parameter Parameter
Beam Spacing, ft. 7.8 7.75
2 4
Beam Stiffness (I+Ae ), in 339,000 358,000
Slab Thickness, in. 7 7
Number of Girders in X-Section 5.5 6
Table 5. Average NCHRP 12-26 and Base Parameters for Concrete T-beam Bridge Models
Average Base
Parameter Parameter
Girder Spacing, ft. 7.77 7.75
2 4
Girder Stiffness (I+Ae ), in 357,000 333,000
Slab Thickness, in. 7 7
Number of Girders in X-Section 5 6
Table 6. Average NCHRP 12-26 and Base Parameters for Spread Concrete Box Girder Bridge
Models
Average Base
Parameter Parameter
Beam Spacing, ft. 8.83 8.83
Box Depth, in. 39 39
Box Width, in. 48 48
Box Web Thickness, in. 5.5 5
Box Top Flange Thickness, in. 3.8 3
Box Bottom Flg Thickness, in. 5.8 6
Slab Thickness, in. 7.6 7.5
Number of Girders in X-Section 6 5
30
Investigation of each of the bridge models identified in the analysis matrices was
performed using finite element analyses. The services of Bridge Software Development
International, Ltd. (BSDI)26 were utilized for the finite element modeling. BSDI allows the user
to define the geometry, members, support conditions and loading conditions necessary for
construction of the finite element model. The model processing and generation of the live load
results was performed by BSDI.
The three-dimensional finite element modeling of the bridges by the BSDI software
allowed for individual modeling of the deck, beams and cross frames and optimization of the
live load placement. The deck slab was modeled with eight-node solid elements, each
possessing three translational degrees of freedom. The deck elements were modeled in their
actual position with respect to the neutral axes of the beams, which allowed the in-plane shear
stiffness of the deck to be considered in the analyses. Composite action between the deck slab
and beams was achieved through the use of rigid links prohibiting rotation of the deck with
respect to the beams. A combination of plate elements for the webs and beam elements for the
flanges were utilized to model the bridge beams. In modeling the flanges as beam elements, the
axial and lateral flange stiffness was incorporated into the models. Cross frames, X or K
configuration, were modeled with truss elements. Diaphragms were modeled with plate
elements for the webs and beam elements for the flanges, similar to the modeling of the girders.
All supports for the analysis models were free to translate laterally and longitudinally, with
restraint provided as required to ensure global stability. A schematic diagram of the bridge
modeling technique for an I-girder bridge is shown in Figure 5.
31
The BSDI software is tailored toward the analysis of steel I-girder and steel box girder
cross sections. The analysis of concrete I-girders and concrete box girders was achieved,
however, by transformation of the concrete sections into equivalent steel sections. The concrete
sections were transformed to produce steel sections which matched both the non-composite and
composite section properties of the concrete sections. The haunch depth above the girders was
modified as required in order to achieve the required composite section properties. Figure 6
displays the transformation of a concrete I-girder into an equivalent steel I-girder. A similar
procedure was utilized for transformation of the concrete box girders into equivalent steel boxes.
Transformation of the concrete T-beams was not required, as the BSDI input processor was
modified to facilitate the analysis of these bridge types
32
Solid Element for
Deck
Rigid Link (Typ.) Plate Element for Web

(Typ.)
Beam Element for Flange

(Typ.)
CL Beam (Typ.) Truss Element for Cross

Frame (Typ.)
Figure 5. Schematic Diagram of BSDI Finite Element Modeling
7" Slab
Haunch
AASHTO 28/63 Equivalent Steel

Concrete I-Beam Beam
(EI)conc beam = (EI)steel beam
(EI)composite conc beam = (EI)composite steel beam
33
Figure 6. Transformation of Concrete Section to Steel Section
34
Influence surfaces were generated and utilized by the BSDI software for calculation of
the controlling live load effects for each of the bridge beams. The construction of the influence
surfaces was achieved by individual application of unit loads at each node of the entire deck
surface. From the bridge response under each unit load, influence surfaces were created for each
element of the model for each effect under consideration (moment, shear, lateral flange bending,
etc.). An automated live loader program placed the specified live loads in the position that
created the worst case effects for each of the members.
For all models of this investigation, the applied live load was two 12-foot lanes of
AASHTO HS20 trucks26, without a concurrent uniform load. While the LRFD Specifications
utilize a live load condition that combines the truck loading with a uniform load1, it is assumed
that the omission of the uniform load does not have a significant influence on the analysis
results. The skew correction factors, based upon normalized live load responses, i.e., live load
results based upon one particular live load configuration, are assumed to be relatively insensitive
to the exact configuration of the live load. The simultaneous application of the uniform load
with the truck load, therefore, was not considered. The application of two lanes of live load was
selected based upon previous experience that this configuration typically governs the response of
the bridge types investigated in this study. For the continuous span models, an additional live
load case of two lanes of 90% of two HS20 trucks spaced 50 feet apart was included for
determination of the pier reactions, as stipulated by the LRFD Specifications1.
Processing of the live load shear results from the BSDI bridge models attempted to
recognize the complexity of the bridge analyses of this study and the likelihood that individual
analysts may arrive at unique solutions. Therefore, through consultation with BSDI, it was
35
determined that curve-fitting techniques should be utilized during processing of the BSDI output.
The Least Squares Method of curve-fitting was applied to the live load shear diagram of each
bridge girder, obtained from the raw BSDI model output. This analysis approach was
considered to be a prudent method for obtaining results representative of the range of possible
solutions from various analysts and analysis tools. Three-dimensional finite element modeling
of even the simplest of bridge structures is a complex task. The skewed bridges studied in this
project merely added to the level of complexity in the finite element analysis. To arrive at
solutions to these complex bridge models, individual engineers may employ not only different
modeling techniques and philosophies, but also different analysis tools and/or software
packages. Hence, the final solutions obtained by each analyst for the same bridge may differ
slightly, whether it be a result of the modeling philosophy, the technique or the tool.
The BSDI software, as one example, is tailored for use in the design of bridge structures.
The BSDI modeling techniques and analysis methods, therefore, are geared toward producing
accurate solutions, while retaining a high level of confidence that a conservative solution has
been obtained for a structure designed for a service life of 50, 75 or possibly 100 years. Hence,
curve-fitting the results of the BSDI analyses was viewed as a reasonable method for obtaining
results representative of the range of possible solutions.
After obtaining the live load results from BSDI and curve-fitting the shear diagrams of
each bridge girder, the influence of skew angle and other primary geometric bridge parameters
on live load shears along the length of exterior beams of skewed beam and slab bridges was
presented in terms of normalized skew corrections. The live load shear diagrams obtained from
the bridge models were used to calculate the skew correction factors for the exterior beams at
36
each 10th point along the beam length. The skew correction factors are defined as the ratio of the
live load shear at a given location of a skewed bridge to that of a right bridge with identical
geometric parameters, VLL,s / VLL,r. The actual skew correction, (VLL,s / VLL,r) -1.0, when
positive, represents an additional fraction of the right bridge shear that is present when the same
bridge is skewed. The variation of this skew correction, (VLL,s / VLL,r) -1.0, is utilized in this
study to depict the variation of the skew correction factor itself. Therefore, the skew correction
at each 10th point along the exterior girders was calculated and then normalized to the skew
correction at the end of the beam at the obtuse corner of the bridge. Figure 7 illustrates this
process for calculating the normalized skew correction at the two-tenth point of an exterior
beam.
37
RIGHT BRIDGE SKEWED BRIDGE
Girder 6 Girder 6
Girder 5 Girder 5
CL Abutment (Typ.) CL Abutment (Typ.)
Girder 4 Girder 4
Girder 3 Girder 3
Girder 2 Girder 2
Girder 1 Girder 1
VLL 25k 20k VLL 30k 22k
Skew Correction Factor 1.20 1.10
Skew Correction 0.20 0.10
Normalized Skew Correction 1.00 0.50
Exterior Beam LL End Shear, Right Bridge = 25 kips

Exterior Beam LL End Shear, Obtuse Corner, Skewed Bridge = 30 kips
Skew Correction Factor ( = 30/25) = 1.20
Skew Correction = 0.20
Exterior Beam LL Shear, Two-tenth Point, Right Bridge = 20 kips

Exterior Beam LL Shear, Two-tenth Point, Skewed Bridge = 22 kips
Skew Correction Factor ( = 22/20) = 1.10
Skew Correction = 0.10
Therefore,
Normalized Skew Correction at Two-tenth Point (0.10/0.20) = 0.50 (50%)
Thus, the normalized correction indicates that the skew correction at the
Two-tenth Point is 50% of the skew correction at the end of the beam.
Figure 7. Procedure for Calculation of the Normalized Skew Corrections
38
This procedure of calculating, and then plotting, the normalized skew corrections enabled
graphic visualization of the variation of the skew correction along the length of the exterior
beams. It also facilitated direct comparison of this variation between bridges with different
geometric parameters, and hence, different magnitudes of skew corrections. A calculated skew
correction factor of 1.0 within the length of a beam produces a normalized skew correction of
0.0, indicating that no correction for skew is necessary. A calculated skew correction factor less
than 1.0 produces a normalized skew correction less than 0.0, indicating that this point has a
negative correction for skew, i.e., the shear in the skewed bridge model is less than the shear in
the right bridge model. The normalized skew corrections were plotted at each tenth point
along the exterior girders, defining location 0.0 as the beam end at the obtuse corner of the
bridge, location 1.0 at the acute corner, exterior girder 1 at the bottom of the bridge plan
(Girder 1 in Figure 7) and exterior girder 2 at the top of the bridge plan (Girder 6 in Figure 7).
This same procedure of plotting normalized skew corrections was utilized for
investigation of both shear across the abutments and piers and reactions across the piers of the
beam and slab bridges. The skew correction factors for shear of each beam across the bearing
line were calculated as the ratio of the live load shear from the skewed bridge model to that of
the corresponding right bridge model with identical geometric parameters. The skew
correction of each beam was then normalized to the skew correction for the beam at the obtuse
corner of the bearing line. Thus, the variation of the skew correction across the bearing lines
could be directly compared for bridge models with varying geometric parameters and
magnitudes of correction factors. The data plots of the normalized correction factors were
39
constructed by defining Girder 1 at the obtuse corner of the bearing line and defining the
remaining girders in ascending order to the acute corner.
A separate comparison of the skew correction factors for bearing reactions and those for
end shear of simple span bridges was not performed. That investigation, with the intent of
studying the influence of end cross frames and the effects of various load paths present at
bearings on end shears and reactions, was not possible due to the analysis procedure employed
by BSDI. The influence surfaces for the girder reactions are utilized by BSDI for calculation of
the end shears, thus assuming that the end shear is equal to the end reaction. A study of the load
paths through end cross frames and diaphragms, and their effect on the end shears and bearing
reactions, therefore, was not feasible.
40
CHAPTER 4 STUDY FINDINGS
4.1 SIMPLE SPAN BEAM-SLAB BRIDGE MODELS
4.1.1 Live Load Shear Along Exterior Beam Length
4.1.1.1 Influence of Skew Angle
The influence of skew angle on the variation of the skew correction factor along the
length of exterior beams was investigated in two sets of beam-slab bridge models. Each set of
models was based upon a 42' span length, a six-beam cross section with beam spacings of 7.75-
ft., a 7-in. deck slab and no intermediate cross-frames. The first set of models studied girder
stiffnesses of 44,400 in4 (I + Ae2) and skew angles of 30 and 60. The second set studied girder
stiffnesses of 333,000 in4 (I + Ae2) and skew angles of 30 and 60.
The plots of the normalized skew corrections for these two sets of models display a
diminishing influence of the skew correction factor from the end of the exterior beam at the
obtuse corner to the acute corner (see Figures 8 and 9). For the models with girder stiffnesses of
44,400 in4, the skew correction falls from its normalized value of 1.0 to zero or below zero
within the length of the beam span. For both the 30 and 60 skew angles, the correction factor
falls rapidly from its normalized value at the end of the span to zero near the four-tenth point of
the span length. The model with the 30 skew does have a slight skew correction present at mid-
41
span of approximately 30% of the correction at the end of the beam, but the correction falls to
zero by the eight-tenth point of the span length.
For the models with girder stiffnesses of 333,000 in4, the data displays the same general
trend of a diminishing influence of the skew correction factor along the length of the beam;
however, at the end of the beam adjacent to the acute corner, a slight skew correction of
approximately 20-45% the value at the obtuse corner is present. One of the exterior girders of
the 30 skew model also displays a small spike in the correction factor at mid-span. These
models, however, were created using an 8-ft. deep beam with a 42-ft. span length. This
geometry produces a span length to beam depth ratio 5.25 a ratio well outside the range of
typical beam-slab bridges.
The occurrence of the correction factor at the acute corner of the bridge and the spike
in the correction factor at mid-span is not as prevalent in the models that utilized the girder
stiffness of 44,400 in4. These models possess a span to depth ratio of 21, much more
representative of actual design situations. For development of design guidelines for the variation
of the skew correction factor along the length of the exterior girders, therefore, the results of the
models with 42-ft. spans and girder stiffnesses of 333,000 in4 are not considered to be as
representative of actual design conditions, as are the results of the models with 42-ft. spans and
girder stiffnesses of 44,400 in4.
42
E F F E C T O F S KE W AN G LE O N S KE W
C O R R E C T IO N S ALO N G E XT E R IO R B E AM S
2 4
42' S i m pl e S pan , Be am -S l ab B ri dge s, I+ Ae = 44,400 i n , w/o In te rm e d. C ross
Fram e s
1.20
1.00
Normalized Skew Corrections
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Tenth Point Along S pan
Ext. Gird er 1, 30 d eg . Skew Ext. Gird er 2, 30 d eg . Skew

2 4
42' S i m pl e S pan , B e am -S l ab B ri dge s, I+ Ae = 333,000 i n , w/o In te rm e d. C ross
Fram e s
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Tenth P oint Along S pan

43
4.1.1.2 Influence of Beam Stiffness
The influence of beam stiffness on the variation of the skew correction factor along the
length of exterior beams was investigated in four sets of beam-slab bridge models. Each set of
models was based upon a six-beam cross section with beam spacings of 7.75-ft., a 7-in. deck slab
and no intermediate cross-frames. The first set of models studied girder stiffnesses of 44,400 in4
and 333,000 in4 at a span length of 42-ft. and a skew angle of 30. The second set was the same
as the first, except that a skew angle of 60 was used. The third set investigated girder
stiffnesses of 333,000 in4 and 1,870,000 in4 at a span length of 105-ft. and a skew angle of 60.
The fourth set studied girder stiffnesses of 44,400 in4, 333,000 in4 and 1,870,000 in4 at a span
length of 168-ft. and a skew angle of 60.
Each of the models displays that the variation of the skew correction factor along the
length of the exterior beams is essentially the same among the varying beam stiffnesses at each
span length, with the exception of a few anomalies (see Figures 10, 11, 12 and 13). For the
majority of the model results, the skew correction quickly drops from its value at the end of the
beam adjacent to the obtuse corner to zero near the three- or four-tenth point of the span length.
A change in beam stiffness does not have an appreciable effect on the length along the exterior
girder over which a skew correction factor applies.
An anomaly in the results occurs, however, in the 168-ft. span models. These models
indicate that a substantial percentage of the skew correction at the end of the beams may also be
effective near mid-span. The most evident case of this occurs on the 168-ft. spans with beam
44
stiffnesses of 333,000 in4. At mid-span, the skew correction is approximately equal to the end
correction. The significance of this data point, however, is amplified by the relatively small
magnitude of the shears at mid-span. In this case, for example, the shears in Exterior Girder 2 at
mid-span are 22.7 kips and 25.5 kips for the right and skewed bridges, respectively. At the end
of the beam (obtuse end for the skewed model), the live load shears are 50.9 kips and 56.7 kips
for the right and skewed bridges, respectively. Therefore, the skew correction factors at mid-
span and at the obtuse end of the beam are 1.12 and 1.11, respectively. Given that shears at mid-
span are less than one-half of the end shears, and therefore, will not control for design purposes,
the presence of this anomaly in these few models will not be considered to have a great impact
on the study conclusions. It is recognized that the mid-span shears may be utilized for
determination of reinforcing steel and beam stiffener spacing; however, significant correction
factors at mid-span occur in a very limited number of study models. Therefore, incorporation of
these corrections in a design approximation will not be pursued in detail.
The occurrence of a skew correction factor at the acute corner of the models with a span
length of 42-ft. and a beam stiffness of 333,000 in4, as evident in Figures 10 and 11, was
discussed in the previous section. The geometry of these models is well outside of the typical
bridge geometry, and therefore, the anomaly in these few models also will not be considered to
have a great impact on the study conclusions.
45
E F F E C T O F G IR D E R S T IF F N E S S O N S KE W
C O R R E C T IO N S ALO N G E XT E R IO R B E AM
42' S i m pl e S pan , Be am -S l ab Bri dge s, 30 de g. S k e w, w/o In te rm e d. C ross Fram e s
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Ext. Gird er 1, I+A e2 = 333,000 in 4 Ext. Gird er 2, I+A e2 = 333,000 in 4

Figure 10. Effect of Girder Stiffness on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams
C O R R E C T IO N S ALO N G E XT E R IO R B E AM
42' S i m pl e S pan , B e am -S l ab B ri dge s, 60 de g. S k e w, w/o In te rm e d. C ross
Fram e s
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

46
47
EFFEC T O F GIRD ER STIFFNESS O N SKEW
CO RREC TIO NS ALON G EXTER IO R BEAM S
105' S imple S pan, Be am-S lab Bridge s, 60 de g. S ke w, w/o Inte rm e d. C ross Frame s
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
-1.40
-1.60
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Ext. Gird er 1, I+A e2 = 1,870,000 in 4 Ext. Gird er 2, I+A e2 = 1,870,000 in 4
168' S i m pl e S pan , B e am -S l ab B ri dge s , 60 de g. S k e w, w/o In te rm e d. C ros s
Fram e s
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Te nth P oint Along S pan
Ext. Gird e r 1, I+A e 2 = 333,000 in 4 Ext. Gird e r 2, I+A e 2 = 333,000 in 4

Ext. Gird e r 1, I+A e 2 = 44,400 in 4 Ext. Gird e r 2, I+A e 2 = 44,400 in 4
Ext. Gird e r 1, I+A e 2 = 1,870,000 in 4 Ext. Gird e r 2, I+A e 2 = 1,870,000 in 4
48
4.1.1.3 Influence of Span Length
The influence of span length on the variation of the skew correction factor along the
length of exterior beams was investigated in three sets of models. Each set of models was based
upon a six-beam cross section with beam spacings of 7.75-ft., a 7-in. deck slab, no intermediate
cross-frames and a skew angle of 60. The first model set included bridges with beam stiffnesses
of 44,400 in4 and span lengths of 42-ft. and 168-ft. The second set investigated models with
beam stiffnesses of 333,000 in4 and span lengths of 105-ft. and 168-ft. Similarly, the third set
investigated beam stiffnesses of 1,870,000 in4 with span lengths of 105-ft. and 168-ft.
The variation of the skew correction factor along the length of the exterior beams are
essentially the same between the models of each set investigated (see Figures 14, 15 and 16).
The skew correction quickly drops from its value at the end of the beam to zero near the three- or
four-tenth point of the span length. The longer spans may tend to slightly increase the length
along the beam over which the correction factor is effective, but in all cases the correction factor
disappears between the three- and four-tenth point of the span length. As discussed in the
previous section, a correction factor approximately equal in magnitude to the end correction is
present near mid-span of the 168-ft. model with the 333,000 in4 beam stiffness, but the shear
values in this region will not govern for design purposes.
49
E F F E C T O F S P AN LE N G T H O N S KE W
2 4
S i m pl e S pan , B e am -S l ab B ri dge s, I+ Ae = 44,400 i n , 60 de g. S k e w, w/o
In te rm e d. C ross Fram e s
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Te n th Poin t A lon g S pan
Ext. Gird er 1, 42' Sp an Ext. Gird er 2, 42' Sp an

2 4
S i m pl e S pan , B e am -S l ab B ri dge s , I+ Ae = 333,000 i n , 60 de g. S k e w, w/o
In te rm e d. C ros s Fram e s
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
-1.40
-1.60
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

50
51
2 4
S i m pl e S pan , B e am -S l ab B ri dge s, I+ Ae = 1,870,000 i n , 60 de g. S k e w, w/o
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
-1.40
-1.60
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

52
4.1.1.4 Influence of Intermediate Cross Frames
The influence of intermediate cross frames on the variation of the skew correction factor
along the length of exterior beams was investigated in two sets of models. Models were
generated for cases both with and without intermediate cross frames. Each model possessed a
six-beam cross section with beam spacings of 7.75-ft., beam stiffnesses of 333,000 in4, a skew
angle of 60, 7-in. slab thickness and span lengths of 105-ft. or 168-ft.. The cross frame spacing
was set at 21-ft. for the right bridges and at approximately 13-ft. to 25-ft. for the skewed bridges,
contingent upon the model geometry. All intermediate cross frames were contiguous and
modeled as K-type cross frames, constructed from single angle members.
While the presence of intermediate cross frames produced much more uniform load
distribution between the two exterior beams of each model, as depicted by the similarity of the
data points for each exterior beam of the models with intermediate cross frames, the variation of
the skew correction factor along the length of the exterior beams are essentially the same for
models with and without intermediate cross frames (see Figures 17 and 18). The skew
correction quickly drops from its value at the end of the beam to zero near the three-tenth point
of the span. Additionally, the correction factor spike near mid-span of the 168-ft. models is
occurs regardless of the presence of intermediate cross frames. The magnitude of the spike,
however, is much smaller when intermediate cross frames are present.
Although the presence of intermediate cross frames did not effect the variation of the
skew correction factor along the length of the exterior beams, the magnitudes of the skew
correction were in the order of three times greater for models that possessed cross frames than
53
for models without cross frames. Figures 17 and 18 do not display these differences due to the
use of normalized data. The magnitude of the skew corrections may not be purely a function of
the presence of cross frames, but also of the articulation of the cross frames. The models
investigated possessed contiguous cross frames that framed directly into the girder bearings; the
effects of staggered cross frames were not investigated.
54
E F F E C T O F IN T E R M E D IA T E C R O S S
F R A M E S O N S K E W C O R R E C T IO N S A L O N G
E X T E R IO R B E A M S
2 4
1 0 5 ' S i m pl e S pa n , B e a m -S l a b B ri dg e s , I+ Ae = 3 3 3,0 0 0 i n , 6 0 de g. S k e w
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
-1.40
-1.60
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 .4 0 .5 0 .6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Te n t h Po in t A lo n g S pa n
Ext. Gird e r 1, N o X -Fra me s Ext. Gird e r 2, N o X -F ra me s

Ext. Gird e r 1, X -F ra me s Ext. Gird e r 2, X -F ra me s
Figure 17. Effect of Intermediate Cross Frames on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams
55
Figure 18. Effect of Intermediate Cross Frames on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams
4.1.1.5 Influence of Beam Spacing
The influence of beam spacing on the variation of the skew correction factor along the
length of exterior beams was investigated in one set of models. The models were constructed
with a 42-ft. span length, beam stiffnesses of 44,400 in4, a skew angle of 60, 7-in. slab thickness
and six beams spaced at 7.75-ft. or nine beams at 4.84-ft. Intermediate cross frames were not
included in the models. The variation of the skew correction factor along the length of the
exterior beams is essentially the same for the models with the two different beam spacings (see
Figure 19). The skew correction quickly drops from its value at the end of the beam to zero near
the three-tenth point along the span length. The spacing of the beams does not significantly
E F F E C T O F IN T E R M E D IAT E C R O S S F R AM E S
O N S K E W C O R R E C T IO N S ALO N G E XT E R IO R
B E AM S
2 4
168' S i m pl e S pan , B e am -S l ab B ri dge s , I+ Ae = 333,000 i n , 60 de g. S k e w
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Te n th Poin t A lo n g S pan
Ext. G irder 1, N o X -F ram es Ex t. G ird er 2, N o X -F ram es

Ext. G irder 1, X -F ram es Ex t. G ird er 2, X -F ram es
56
affect this variation.
57
E F F E C T O F B E AM S P AC IN G O N S KE W
2 4
42' S i m pl e S pan , B e am -S l ab B ri dge s, I+ Ae = 44,400 i n , 60 de g. S k e w, w/o
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
-1.40
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Ext. Gird er 1, 7.75' Beam Sp a. Ext. Gird er 2, 7.75' Beam Sp a.

Ext. Gird er 1, 4.84' Beam Sp a. Ext. Gird er 2, 4.84' Beam Sp a.
Figure 19. Effect of Beam Spacing on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams
58
4.1.1.6 Influence of Slab Thickness
The influence of slab thickness on the variation of the skew correction factor along the
length of exterior beams was investigated in one set of models. The models were investigated
for slab thicknesses of 7-in. and 9-in. with a 42-ft. span length, a six-beam cross section with
beam spacings of 7.75-ft., beam stiffnesses of 44,400 in4 and a skew angle of 60. Intermediate
cross frames were not included in the models. The variation of the skew correction factor along
the length of the exterior beams are nearly identical for the models with the two different slab
thicknesses (see Figure 20). The skew correction quickly drops from its value at the end of the
beam to zero near the three-tenth point along the span length. The thickness of the slab does not
significantly affect this variation.
59
E F F E C T O F S LAB T HIC KN E S S O N S KE W
2 4
42' S i m pl e S pan , B e am -S l ab B ri dge s, I+ Ae = 44,400 i n , 60 de g. S k e w, w/o
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Ext. Gird er 1, 7" Sla b Ext. Gird er 2, 7" Slab

Ext. Gird er 1, 9" Sla b Ext. Gird er 2, 9" Slab
Figure 20. Effect of Slab Thickness on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams
60
4.1.1.7 Influence of Bridge Aspect Ratio
A cursory investigation of the influence of bridge aspect ratio on the variation of shear
along the length of exterior girders was completed using a set of two models with 60 skew.
Different bridge aspect ratios were obtained by holding a constant span length and varying the
number of girders at a fixed spacing, and hence, the bridge width. While the bridge aspect ratio
also changes when span length is varied for a constant bridge width, these effects were addressed
in the span length investigation.
The two bridge models studied had a 42-ft. span length, 44,400 in4 beam stiffness, beam
spacing of 7.75-ft., 7-in. slab thickness, no intermediate cross frames and a skew angle of 60.
Six girders were included in the first model (Model A) and ten in the second (Model B), yielding
bridge aspect ratios of 1.0 and 1.74, respectively, calculated as the ratio of the curb-to-curb width
to the span length.
Comparison of the live load shear diagrams of the exterior girders of these skewed bridge
models, shown in Figure 21, displays nearly identical results. For both Models A and B, the
shear diagrams of Girder 1 are nearly identical. Similarly, the shear diagrams of Girder 6 of
Model A and Girder 10 of Model B are nearly identical.
While the accompanying right bridge model was not constructed for each of these
skewed bridge models, it is inferred that the live load shear diagrams of the right bridge girders
would also be very similar regardless of the number of girders in each model. It is deduced,
therefore, that the skew correction factors along the length of the exterior girders would be very
61
similar and are not greatly affected by a change in the number of girders, and hence, a change in
the bridge aspect ratio.
62
EFFECT OF BRIDGE ASPECT RATIO ON LIVE
LOAD SHEAR OF EXTERIOR GIRDERS
Aspe ct Ratios = 1.0 (Mode l A) vs. 1.73 (Mode l B)
60
50
40
30
Live Load Shear (k)
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Te nth Point Along Span Le ngth
Model A, Girder 1 Model A, Girder 6

Model B, Girder 1 Model B, Girder 10
Figure 21. Effect of Bridge Aspect Ratio on Exterior Girder Shear
63
4.1.2 Live Load Shear Across Bearing Lines
For each of the simple span, six girder beam-slab bridge models discussed in Section
4.1.1, plots of the skew correction variation for end shear across each bearing line were
constructed (see Figures 22 thru 33). These plots were constructed to investigate the influence
of skew angle (Figures 22 and 23), girder stiffness (Figures 24 through 27), span length (Figures
28 through 30), intermediate cross frames (Figures 31 and 32) and slab thickness (Figure 33) on
the variation of the end shear correction factor across the bearing lines. Comparison of the skew
correction plots does not reveal consistent, distinct relationships between changes in any of these
parameters and the variation of the end shear correction factors. Figures 25 through 27 may
indicate a slight increase in the presence of a skew correction factor across the bearing lines with
an increase in girder stiffness, but the trend is not consistent for all cases. All of the data plots
depict, however, a general decline in the influence of the skew correction factor from the obtuse
corner to the acute corner of the bearing line. In most cases, the normalized skew correction
falls from its initial value at the obtuse corner of the bearing line to a negative value at the acute
corner, indicating that the end shear at the acute corner is greater in the right bridge than in the
skewed bridge.
Figure 34 superimposes the results from each of the models of Figures 22 through 33.
Again, the general decline in the skew correction across the bearing line is evident.
Additionally, this graph displays that the deviation of the data at each girder bearing location
tends to decrease as the girders nearest the acute corner of the bearing line are reached (girders 5
and 6). The deviation in the data points is greatest at the first interior girder adjacent to the
64
obtuse corner. In some isolated cases, this location may have a skew correction greater than that
found at the obtuse corner. It is also evident from Figure 34 that girder 4 possesses a number of
fairly significant skew corrections; normalized values as great as 1.4 were obtained at this girder.
Additionally, girder 6, at the acute corner of the bearing line, possesses a number of positive
normalized skew corrections, indicating that a skew correction factor is present at this location.
However, the four greatest normalized skew corrections at girder 4 and all of the positive
normalized corrections at girder 6 were obtained from the bridge models utilizing 8-ft. deep
beams with a 42-ft. span length. As discussed in Section 4.1.1.1, this span to depth ratio is well
outside the range of typical beam-slab bridges.
Figure 35, nevertheless, condenses all of the results into a single plot of the average
variation of the skew correction for end shear across the bearing lines and superimposes on the
results a linear variation of the skew correction from its value at the obtuse corner to zero at the
acute corner. This figure reveals the conservative nature of applying the skew correction factor
at the obtuse corner to the end shear of each girder in the cross section, the current practice
defined in the LRFD Specifications. It is suggested, from the data results, that the variation of
the correction factor across the bearing lines could approximated by a linear distribution from its
value at the obtuse corner to zero at the acute corner. While select data points fall outside of this
distribution, the average results fall well within this linear variation.
65
EFFECT OF SKEW ANGLE ON SKEW CORRECTIONS
FOR END SHEAR ACROSS BEARING LINES
2 4
42' Simple Span, Beam-Slab Bridges, I+Ae = 44,400 in , w/o Intermed. Cross Frames
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder
Brg. Line 1, 30 deg. Skew Brg. Line 2, 30 deg. Skew

Figure 22. Effect of Skew Angle on End Shear Skew Corrections
EFFECT OF SKEW ANGLE ON SKEW CORRECTIONS

2 4
42' Simple Span, Beam-Slab Bridges, I+Ae = 333,000 in , w/o Intermed. Cross Frames
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder

66
67
EFFECT OF GIRDER STIFFNESS ON SKEW
CORRECTIONS FOR END SHEAR ACROSS
BEARING LINES
42' Simple Span, Beam-Slab Bridges, 30 deg. Skew, w/o Intermed. Cross Frames
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder
Brg. Line 1, I+Ae2 = 44,400 in4 Brg. Line 2, I+Ae2 = 44,400 in4
Figure 24. Effect of Girder Stiffness on End Shear Skew Corrections

BEARING LINES
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder
68
CORRECTIONS FOR END SHEAR ACROSS BEARING
LINES
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder
Brg. Line 1, I+Ae2 = 1,870,000 in4 Brg. Line 2, I+Ae2 = 1,870,000 in4

CORRECTIONS FOR END SHEAR ACROSS BEARING
LINES
1.80
1.60
Normalized Skew CorrectionS
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
-1.40
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder
Brg. Line 1, I+Ae2 = 1,870,000 in4 Brg. Line 2, I+Ae2 = 1,870,000 in4
69
EFFECT OF SPAN LENGTH ON SKEW
BEARING LINES
2 4
Simple Span, Beam-Slab Bridges, I+Ae = 44,400 in , 60 deg. Skew, w/o Intermed.
Cross Frames
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder
Brg. Line 1, 42' Span Brg. Line 2, 42' Span

Figure 28. Effect of Span Length on End Shear Skew Corrections


BEARING LINES
2 4
Simple Span, Beam-Slab Bridges, I+Ae = 333,000 in , 60 deg. Skew, w/o
Intermed. Cross Frames
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
-1.40
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder
Brg. Line 1, 42' Span Brg. Line 2, 42' Span Brg. Line 1, 105' Span
Brg. Line 2, 105' Span Brg. Line 1, 168' Span Brg. Line 2, 168' Span
70
BEARING LINES
2 4
S imple S pan, Beam-S lab B ridges , I+Ae = 1,870,000 in , 60 deg. S k ew, w/o
Intermed. Cros s Frames
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder


Figure 31. Effect of Intermediate Cross Frames on End Shear Skew Corrections
EFFECT OF INTERMEDIATE CROSS FRAMES

ON SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR END SHEAR
ACROSS BEARING LINES
2 4
105' S imple S pan, Beam-S lab Bridges , I+Ae = 333,000 in , 60 deg. S k ew
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder
Brg. Line 1, No X-Frames Brg. Line 2, No X-Frames

Brg. Line 1, X-Frames Brg. Line 2, X-Frames
71
EFFECT OF INTERMEDIATE CROSS FRAMES
ON SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR END SHEAR
ACROSS BEARING LINES
2 4
168' S imple S pan, Beam-S lab Bridges, I+Ae = 333,000 in , 60 deg. S k ew
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder
Brg. Line 1, No X-Frames Brg. Line 2, No X-Frames

Brg. Line 1, X-Frames Brg. Line 2, X-Frames
Figure 32. Effect of Intermediate Cross Frames on End Shear Skew Corrections
Figure 33. Effect of Slab Thickness on End Shear Skew Corrections
EFFECT OF SLAB THICKNESS ON SKEW

BEARING LINES
2 4
42' S imple S pan, Beam-S lab Bridges , I+Ae = 44,400 in , 60 deg. S k ew, w/o
Intermediate Cros s Frames
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder
Brg. Line 1, 7" Slab Brg. Line 2, 7" Slab Brg. Line 1, 9" Slab Brg. Line 2, 9" Slab
72
NORMALIZED SKEW CORRECTIONS
S imple S pan Beam-S lab Bridges
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
-1.40
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder
Figure 34. Complete Results Set for End Shear Skew Corrections
AVERAGE NORMALIZED SKEW CORRECTIONS

Simple Span Beam-Slab Bridges
1.00
1.00
0.80
0.60 0.49
0.40 0.25
0.20 0.08
0.00
-0.23
-0.20
-0.40 -0.54
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder
73
Figure 35. Average Variation of End Shear Skew Corrections for Simple Span Beam-Slab
Bridges
74
4.2 SIMPLE SPAN CONCRETE T-BEAM BRIDGE MODELS
A cursory investigation of simple span, monolithic, concrete T-beam bridges was made
to determine whether the effects of skew on shear in this bridge type differs significantly from
those found in the simple span beam-slab bridge models. The T-beam bridges investigated were
based upon a 42' span length, a six-beam cross section with beam spacings of 7.75-ft., a 7-in.
deck slab and no intermediate diaphragms. The T-beams utilized were 14 in. wide and 39 in.
deep, producing a stiffness of 358,000 in4 (I + Ae2). Two models were analyzed, one with a 30
skew angle and one with a 60 skew angle.
The plot of the normalized skew corrections along the length of the exterior girders,
shown in Figure 36, are very similar to those created for the beam-slab bridges. The skew
correction falls quickly from its initial value at the obtuse corner to zero by the four-tenth point
of the span length, regardless of skew angle. Similar to some of the beam-slab model results,
there is an isolated spike in the plot of the skew corrections at mid-span. This data point,
however, is produced by differences in relatively small shear values at mid-span of the skew and
right bridge models. As discussed in section 4.1, the live load shears at mid-span are less than
one-half of the end shears, and therefore, will not control for design purposes. The isolated spike
in the skew correction at this location, therefore, will not be considered to have a great impact on
the study conclusions.
75
E F F E C T O F SKE W AN G L E O N SKE W
C O R R E C TIO N S AL O N G E X TE R IO R B E AM L E N G TH
4 2 ' S i m p l e S p a n , C o n c r e t e T- B e a m B r i d g e s ,
I+A e 2 = 3 5 8 ,0 0 0 i n 4
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
0 .0 0.1 0 .2 0 .3 0.4 0 .5 0.6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .9 1 .0
T e n th Poi n t Al o n g S pa n
Ext . G ird er 1 , 30 d eg. Sk ew Ext . G irder 2, 3 0 deg. Sk ew

Ext . G ird er 1 , 60 d eg. Sk ew Ext . G irder 2, 6 0 deg. Sk ew
76
4.2.2 Live Load Shear Across Bearing Lines
For the two models described previously in section 4.2.1, the variation of the skew
correction for end shear across the bearing lines was investigated to determine whether is varied
significantly from the results of the beam-slab models. Similar to those results, Figure 37
indicates that the change in skew angle does create a consistent trend in the variation of the skew
correction across the bearings of the T-beam models. The diminishing influence of the skew
correction from the obtuse corner to the acute corner is again apparent in Figure 37.
77
C O R R E C T IO N S F O R E N D S HE AR AC R O S S
B E AR IN G LIN E S
42' S i m pl e S pan , C on cre te T -B e am B ri dge s ,
2 4
I+ Ae = 358,000 i n
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
-1.40
1 2 3 4 5 6
Gir de r
Be a rin g Lin e 1, 30 d e g . Ske w Be a rin g Lin e 2, 30 d e g . Ske w

Be a rin g Lin e 1, 60 d e g . Ske w Be a rin g Lin e 2, 60 d e g . Ske w
78
4.3 SIMPLE SPAN SPREAD CONCRETE BOX GIRDER BRIDGE MODELS
The investigation of the skew correction factors for shear in spread concrete box girder
bridges was initiated with the analysis of four 105-ft. simple span spread concrete box girder
bridges. Each bridge model possessed a cross section of five prestressed concrete spread box
girders, spaced at 8'-10" on centers, composite with a 7" concrete deck. Two models utilized
48" wide x 39" deep boxes, while the remaining two models utilized 48" wide x 66" deep boxes.
For each box girder type, one model had 0skew and one had 60 skew. For modeling using the
BSDI software, the prestressed concrete box girders were transformed into equivalent steel box
girders. The bridge models incorporated plate diaphragms both inside and between the boxes at
the supports; however, intermediate diaphragms were not included.
The live load shear results provided by BSDI for the box girders were the maximum
shears for one of the two webs of the box girder, incorporating the effects of torque. The shear
values are tabulated for only the controlling web of the box girder; the shear in the second web
was not included in the output. Additionally, the torque that contributed to the controlling web
shear was not tabulated, only the maximum torque was provided. Separation of the maximum
shear into its vertical bending and torsion components, therefore, was not possible.
To ensure that the live load shear distribution factors and skew correction factors of the
LRFD Specifications were developed using similar shear results (i.e., combined vertical bending
shear and shear flow due to torsion), the methodology utilized in NCHRP 12-26 was
investigated. Through this investigation, it was discovered that the shear distribution factors and
skew correction factors were derived neglecting the effects of box girder torsion. These factors
79
were developed through finite element modeling using the program FINITE. The program
MUPDI was utilized for analysis of box girder moments of simple span, right bridges. The
program FINITE was used for the investigation of box girder shear, as well as the analysis of
skewed and continuous box girder bridges. The box girder shear obtained from the FINITE
output was considered to be the shear force in the total box girder system, i.e., the integration
and summation of the shear stresses across the effective deck width of the box girder, the box
girder flanges and both box girder webs. Thus, a total box girder shear is calculated, assuming
that each web is subject to one-half of the total shear, neglecting the effects of torsion.
In an effort to quantify the influence of torsion on box girder shear, the controlling live
load shears obtained from each of the models analyzed by BSDI were compared to results
calculated from a line girder analysis, using the distribution factors and skew correction factors
defined in the current LRFD Specifications. The comparison results, shown in Table 7, indicate
that the controlling web shears from the BSDI results, incorporating the effects of torsion, may
be 4% to 29% more conservative than the LRFD results for the right bridge with the 39" deep
boxes. For the right, 66" deep boxes, the BSDI results are closer to the LRFD results, but may
still be as much as 20% more conservative. For both bridge models, the differences between the
BSDI and LRFD results are greater for the interior girder than for the exterior girder.
The disparity between the BSDI and LRFD results increases, however, when the bridges
are skewed. For the skewed, 39" deep boxes, the BSDI results are as much as 59% more
conservative than the LRFD results; for the 66" deep boxes, the BSDI results are as much as
52% more conservative. Both the interior beams and the exterior beams exhibit differences of
80
these magnitudes. These results indicate that for skewed bridges, the effects of torsion on box
girder shear may not be negligible.
81
Table 7. Comparison of Maximum Live Load Shears from BSDI and an LRFD Line Girder
Analysis
48/39 SPREAD BOX BEAMS

0 DEGREE SKEW 60 DEGREE SKEW
EXTERIOR GIRDER INTERIOR GIRDER EXTERIOR GIRDER INTERIOR GIRDER
Tenth Pt. BSDI LRFD BSDI LRFD BSDI LRFD BSDI LRFD
Max V Max V V Max V Max V V Max V Max V V Max V Max V V
0.0 38 31 -18% 46 33 -29% 121 * 50 -59% 85 * 52 -39%
0.1 31 28 -10% 38 29 -23% 38 28 -27% 34 29 -14%
0.2 27 25 -9% 33 26 -22% 41 25 -40% 32 26 -19%
0.3 23 21 -7% 28 22 -20% 39 21 -45% 36 22 -38%
0.4 18 18 1% 22 19 -14% 34 18 -47% 39 19 -51%
0.5 16 15 -8% 16 15 -3% 35 15 -58% 34 15 -55%
0.6 -18 -18 1% -22 -19 -14% -36 -18 -50% -34 -19 -44%
0.7 -23 -21 -7% -27 -22 -17% -40 -21 -47% -35 -22 -36%
0.8 -27 -25 -9% -33 -26 -22% -44 -25 -44% -33 -26 -22%
0.9 -29 -28 -4% -38 -29 -23% -45 -28 -38% -30 -29 -3%
1.0 -38 -31 -18% -46 -33 -29% -107 * -50 -53% -74 * -52 -30%
48/66 SPREAD BOX BEAMS

0 DEGREE SKEW 60 DEGREE SKEW
EXTERIOR GIRDER INTERIOR GIRDER EXTERIOR GIRDER INTERIOR GIRDER
Tenth Pt. BSDI LRFD BSDI LRFD BSDI LRFD BSDI LRFD
Max V Max V V Max V Max V V Max V Max V V Max V Max V V
0.0 36 33 -9% 41 34 -16% 103 * 58 -43% 85 * 61 -28%
0.1 29 29 1% 33 31 -7% 44 * 29 -33% 38 * 31 -19%
0.2 26 26 0% 28 27 -3% 39 26 -33% 35 27 -22%
0.3 23 23 -2% 30 24 -21% 39 23 -42% 36 24 -34%
0.4 18 19 6% 48 * 20 -58% 34 19 -44% 35 20 -43%
0.5 15 16 4% 19 16 -14% 32 16 -51% 32 16 -49%
0.6 -18 -19 6% -21 -20 -5% -36 -19 -47% -35 -20 -43%
0.7 -22 -23 3% -25 -24 -5% -39 -23 -42% -46 -24 -49%
0.8 -26 -26 0% -28 -27 -3% -42 -26 -38% -38 -27 -28%
0.9 -29 -29 1% -32 -31 -4% -43 -29 -32% -34 -31 -10%
1.0 -36 -33 -9% -41 -34 -16% -86 * -58 -32% -70 * -61 -13%
* Denotes that actual shear has this magnitude, but the opposite sign.
82
One final investigation regarding the box girder torsion was performed to compare the
torque calculated by BSDI against the threshold limit of 25% of the torsional cracking moment,
as specified in Article 5.8.2.1 of the LRFD Specifications. When the factored torsional moment
is below this limit, only a small reduction in shear capacity results and the effects of torsion are
neglected. Recognizing that the live load used in the BSDI models was two lanes of HS20
trucks, rather than the HL93 loading, and therefore, that this investigation does not produce
completely accurate results, it still provides a measure of the torques under investigation. The
results indicate that the box girder torsion in the two right bridge models tends to be less than the
threshold limit. The torsion in the skewed boxes, however, exceeds the limit at numerous
locations along the span of the girders.
These results raise an issue regarding the design methodology to be followed in
development of the skew correction factors for box girder bridges. While the influence of torque
may be negligible in right bridges, skew tends to amplify box girder torsion to levels that may
need to be considered in design. Although these bridge models were constructed without
intermediate diaphragms, the presence of which may reduce torsional effects by maintaining
relatively equal deflections among the boxes, the premise of equal deflections among girders of
skewed bridges may not be valid. Regardless of whether torsion is or is not included in the
determination of the box girder shear, the data obtained from BSDI is not conducive to the
development of skew correction factors for the box girders. It is incongruous to apply a skew
correction factor, derived from analyses that incorporate the effects of torsion, to distribution
factors derived from models that do not incorporate the effects of torsion.
83
4.4 TWO-SPAN CONTINUOUS BEAM-SLAB BRIDGE MODELS
4.4.1 Simple Span vs. Two-Span Correction Factors at Obtuse Corners of Abutments
One of the first tasks undertaken in the analysis of the two-span continuous beam-slab
bridges was a comparison of the skew correction factors calculated for the exterior girders at the
obtuse corner of the abutments versus those calculated from similar simple span bridge models,
as shown in Figure 38.
The skew correction factors developed in NCHRP Project 12-26 were determined from
simple span bridge models, but no guidance was provided regarding application of the skew
correction factors to continuous bridges. The report for Project 12-26, however, did propose that
when dealing with shear at the piers of right, continuous bridges, correction factors should be
applied to the empirical shear distribution factors developed for right, simple span bridges. The
LRFD Specifications, however, do not incorporate these continuity corrections. The corrections
suggested in Project 12-26 were in the range of 5%, i.e., 1.05, and commentary article C4.6.2.2.1
of the 1998 LRFD Specifications indicates that corrections of this magnitude may misrepresent
the level of accuracy in the approximate, empirical distribution factors1. Although it was not
anticipated in this study that the skew correction factors at the abutments of simple span and
continuous bridges would differ greatly, the influence lines for shear in simple span and two-
span beams are not identical. As a result, it was necessary to confirm that the skew correction
factors calculated at the obtuse corner of the abutments were similar in the simple span and two-
span models.
84
The skew correction factors from four simple span and four corresponding two-span
bridge models were compared. Each of the four pairs of simple span and continuous span
models were identical except for the addition of a second, equal span in the continuous models.
As shown in Table 8, the skew correction factors calculated at the obtuse corner of the abutments
of the simple span and two-span models were within approximately 4%. These results indicate
that the skew correction factors for shear, developed in Project NCHRP 12-26 for exterior
girders of simple span bridges, are also valid at the obtuse corner of abutments of continuous
bridges.
85
Abutment 2
Girder (Typ.)
Abutment 1
SIMPLE SPAN BRIDGE

Are Skew Correction Factors
similar at these locations (Typ.)?
Abutment 2
Girder (Typ.)
Abutment 1
CL Pier
Span 1 Span 2
TWO-SPAN CONTINUOUS BRIDGE
Figure 38. Comparison of Simple Span and Two-Span Continuous Skew Correction Factors
Table 8. Comparison of Skew Correction Factors for End Shear of Exterior Girders at the
Obtuse Abutment Corners of Simple Span and Two-Span Bridge Models.
Span Beam Skew Skew Correction Factors Percentage

Length Stiffness Angle Simple Span Models Two-Span Cont. Models Difference
4
(ft) (in ) (deg) Abutment 1 Abutment 2 Abutment 1 Abutment 2 Abut. 1 Abut. 2
105 333,000 60 1.09 1.07 1.08 1.07 -0.9% 0%
105 1,870,000 60 1.10 1.10 1.14 1.13 3.6% 2.7%
168 333,000 60 1.12 1.11 1.10 1.09 -1.8% -1.8%
168 1,870,000 60 1.16 1.16 1.17 1.15 0.9% -0.9%
86
87
4.4.2 Correction Factors at Obtuse Corners of Abutments and Piers
The examination of the two-span beam-slab bridge results also included a comparison of
the skew correction factors for shear in the exterior girders at the obtuse corners of the abutments
and the pier, as shown in Figure 39.
As discussed in Section 4.2.1, NCHRP Project 12-26 did not provide explicit guidance
regarding application of the skew correction factors at the piers of continuous bridges.
Furthermore, the current LRFD Specifications are silent on this issue. Hence, it was necessary to
determine whether the skew correction factors for shear, developed in Project NCHRP 12-26 for
exterior girders of simple span bridges, and found in this study to be valid at the obtuse corners
of abutments of continuous bridges, are also valid for exterior girders at the obtuse corners of
piers of continuous bridges.
For each of the two-span continuous models investigated in this study, the skew
correction factors for the exterior girders were calculated at the obtuse corners of both abutments
and at the girder location adjacent to the obtuse corner of the pier. Comparison of the results,
shown in Table 9, indicates that the correction factors at the pier are typically greater than those
at the abutments. Additionally, increases in the skew angle and the girder stiffness tend to
increase the differences between the correction factors at the pier and abutments. With the
limited number of data sets, however, it is difficult to accurately predict a trend in the results.
Most of the bridge model results yield differences between the abutment and pier correction
factors of less than 5%. Given that the LRFD Specifications have regarded corrections of this
magnitude to imply misleading accuracy in approximate methods, the skew correction factors of
88
the exterior girders at the obtuse corner of the abutments are considered to be representative of
those that occur at the piers. Therefore, the skew correction factors developed in Project
NCHRP 12-26 for exterior girders of simple span bridges, found to be valid at the obtuse
corners of abutments of continuous bridges, are also considered to be applicable to the exterior
girders at the obtuse corners of piers of continuous bridges.
89
Are Skew Correction Factors
similar at these locations (Typ.)?
Exterior Girder 2
Abutment 2
Girder (Typ.)
Girder location
adjacent to Pier (Typ.)
Abutment 1
CL Pier
Span 1 Span 2
Exterior Girder 1
Figure 39. Comparison of Skew Correction Factors at Abutments and Pier
Table 9. Comparison of Skew Correction Factors for Shear of Exterior Girders at the Obtuse
Abutment Corners and Obtuse Pier Corners of Two-Span Bridge Models.
Span Beam Skew Skew Correction Factors Percentage

Length Stiffness Angle Abutment 1 Abutment 2 Pier Pier Difference
4
(ft) (in ) (deg) Ext. Girder 1 Ext. Girder 2 Ext. Girder 1 Ext. Girder 2 Ext. Girder 1 Ext. Girder 2
105 333,000 60 1.08 1.07 1.07 1.09 -0.9% 1.9%
105 1,870,000 60 1.14 1.13 1.19 1.25 4.4% 10.6%
168 333,000 30 1.03 1.03 1.02 1.03 -1.0% 0.0%
168 333,000 60 1.10 1.09 1.13 1.12 2.7% 2.8%
168 1,870,000 60 1.17 1.15 1.24 1.24 6.0% 7.8%
90
4.4.3.1 Influence of Skew Angle
The influence of skew angle on the variation of the skew correction factor along the
length of exterior beams of two span continuous bridges was investigated in one set of beam-slab
bridge models. The bridge models were based upon two equal spans, 168-ft. in length, a six-
beam cross section with beam spacings of 7.75-ft., girder stiffnesses of 333,000 in4 (I + Ae2), a
7-in. deck slab and no intermediate cross-frames. Skew angles of 30 and 60 were studied.
The variation of the skew correction was investigated along the length of each of the
four exterior girders: exterior girders 1 and 2 in each of span 1 and span 2. This nomenclature
is shown in Figure 40. The plot of the variation of the skew correction for each girder was
created by defining location 0.0 as the end of the girder at the obtuse corner created with its
support. The skew corrections at each tenth point along each girder were normalized against the
correction at the girders obtuse corner. Plotting each girder simultaneously enabled direct
comparison of the variation of the skew correction along the length of each girder.
Exterior
CL Pier
Girder 2
CL Abutment (Typ.)
Span 1 Span 2
Exterior
Girder 1
91
Figure 40. Nomenclature for Investigation of Correction Factors Along the Length of the
Exterior Girders of Two-Span Continuous Bridge Models
92
The plots of the normalized skew corrections for these models display a diminishing
influence of the skew correction from the end of the exterior beams at the obtuse corners to the
acute corners (see Figure 41). The results indicate that the variation of the skew correction along
the girder length is similar regardless of whether the obtuse corner is located at the abutments or
pier. Additionally, the variation of the skew correction factor is not sensitive to changes in the
skew angle, as 30 and 60 skew angles both produce variations in which the correction factor
falls rapidly from its normalized value at the obtuse corner to zero near the three-tenth point of
the span length.
The results from the model with 30 skew display the presence of a correction factor at
mid-span that exceeds the correction factor at the obtuse corner. Further investigation of the
girder shears from this model, however, reveal that the plotted data greatly amplifies the actual
analysis results. The shears at the obtuse corner of this exterior girder are 50.2 kips and 51.6
kips, for the right and skewed bridge, respectively. This produces a correction factor of
approximately 1.03 at the end of the girder. At mid-span, the shears are 28.95 kips and 30.0
kips, for the right and skewed bridge, respectively, producing a correction factor at this location
of 1.04. When normalized to the skew correction of 0.03 at the end of the girder, the correction
of 0.04 at mid-span produces a normalized value of 1.32. Incorporation of this isolated
correction factor into a design approximation for the variation of the skew correction factor is
not considered to be necessary. The shears at this location of the girders do not control for
design purposes and the minimal differences between the skewed bridge and right bridge model
results are amplified by the manner in which the results are presented. As a result, the mid-span
skew correction will be neglected in the design approximation for the variation of the skew
93
correction factor.
94
T wo-S pan C on ti n u ou s, B e am -S l ab B ri dge s, 168' S pan s,
2 4
I+ Ae = 333,000 in , w/o In te rm e d. C ross Fram e s
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
Normalized Skew
0.50
Corrections
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
-1.25
-1.50
-1.75
-2.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Sp an 1, Ext. Gird er 1, 30 d eg . Skew Sp an 1, Ext. Gird er 2, 30 d eg . Skew

Figure 41. Effect of Skew Angle on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams of Continuous
Models
95
4.4.3.2 Influence of Beam Stiffness
The influence of beam stiffness on the variation of the skew correction factor along the
length of exterior beams was investigated in two sets of two-span continuous beam-slab bridge
models. Each set of models was based upon a six-beam cross section with beam spacings of
7.75-ft., a 7-in. deck slab and no intermediate cross-frames. The first set of continuous models
studied girder stiffnesses of 333,000 in4 and 1,870,000 in4 with two equal spans of 105-ft. and a
skew angle of 60. The second set of models was similar to the first; however, two equal spans
of 168-ft. were used.
Each set of results, shown in Figures 42 and 43, displays that the variation of the skew
correction along the length of the exterior beams is similar between the varying beam stiffnesses,
with the exception of a few anomalies. For the majority of the model results, the correction
factor quickly drops from its value at the end of the beams at the obtuse corner to zero near the
three- or four-tenth point of the span length. For the models with 105-ft. spans, the increase in
beam stiffness may tend to increase the length along the girder over which the correction factor
is effective, but in most cases, the correction factor falls to zero near the four-tenth point of the
span length.
Some of the model results again produce a skew correction factor mid-span of the
girders. Investigation of the largest skew correction of Figures 42 and 43 leads to the same
conclusions discussed in section 4.2.3.1. The corrections at mid-span are created by
amplification of relatively small differences between the right and skewed bridge mid-span
girder shears. The amplification occurs when these small differences are normalized against a
96
small skew correction at the end of the girder. While the mid-span shears in the right and
skewed bridge models do differ, the magnitude of the shears at this location and the magnitude
of the difference do not warrant special consideration in a design approximation. Therefore, the
mid-span skew corrections will be neglected in the development of the design approximation for
the variation of the skew correction factor.
97
T wo-S pan C on ti n u ou s , B e am -S l ab B ri dge s , 105' S pan s ,
60 de g. S k e w, w/o In te rm e d. C ros s Fram e s
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
-1.25
-1.50
-1.75
-2.00
-2.25
-2.50
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Te nth P oint Along S pan
Sp a n 1, Ext. Gird . 1, I+A e 2 = 333,000 in 4 Sp an 1, Ext. Gird . 2, I+A e 2 = 333,000 in 4
Sp a n 2, Ext. Gird . 1, I+A e 2 = 333,000 in 4 Sp an 2, Ext. Gird . 2, I+A e 2 = 333,000 in 4
Sp a n 1, Ext. Gird . 1, I+A e 2 = 1,870,000 in 4 Sp an 1, Ext. Gird . 2, I+A e 2 = 1,870,000 in 4
Sp a n 2, Ext. Gird . 1, I+A e 2 = 1,870,000 in 4 Sp an 2, Ext. Gird . 2, I+A e 2 = 1,870,000 in 4
Figure 42. Effect of Beam Stiffness on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams of Continuous Models

CORRECTIONS ALONG EXTERIOR BEAM S
Two-S pan C ontinuous, Be am-S lab Bridge s, 168' S pans,
60 de g. S ke w, w/o Inte rme d. C ross Frame s
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
-1.25
-1.50
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Te nth Point Along Span
Span 1, Ext. Gird. 1, I+A e2 = 333,000 in4 Sp an 1, Ext. Gird. 2, I+A e2 = 333,000 in4
Span 2, Ext. Gird. 1, I+A e2 = 333,000 in4 Sp an 2, Ext. Gird. 2, I+A e2 = 333,000 in4
Span 1, Ext. Gird. 1, I+A e2 = 1,870,000 in4 Sp an 1, Ext. Gird. 2, I+A e2 = 1,870,000 in4
Span 2, Ext. Gird. 1, I+A e2 = 1,870,000 in4 Sp an 2, Ext. Gird. 2, I+A e2 = 1,870,000 in4
Figure 43. Effect of Beam Stiffness on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams of Continuous Models
98
4.4.3.3 Influence of Span Length
The influence of span length on the variation of the skew correction factor along the
length of exterior beams was investigated in two sets of two-span continuous beam-slab bridge
models. Each set of models was based upon a six-beam cross section with beam spacings of
7.75-ft., a 7-in. deck slab and no intermediate cross-frames. The first set of continuous models
compared span lengths of 105-ft. and 168-ft. with girder stiffnesses of 333,000 in4 and a skew
angle of 60. The second set of models was similar to the first, except that the girder stiffness
was increased to 1,870,000 in4.
Similar to the findings in Sections 4.4.3.1 and 4.4.3.2, the results indicate that the
variation of the skew correction along the length of the exterior girders is not significantly
affected by changes in span length. As shown on Figures 44 and 45, regardless of span length,
the skew corrections drop from their value at the obtuse corner of the girder to zero near the
three- or four-tenth point of the span length. The mid-span skew corrections were discussed
previously and will not be considered in the development of the design approximation for the
variation of the skew correction factor.
99
T wo-S pan C on ti n u ou s, B e am -S l ab B ri dge s ,
2 4
I+ Ae = 333,000 i n , 60 de g. S k e w, w/o In te rm e d. C ross Fram e s
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
-1.25
-1.50
-1.75
-2.00
-2.25
-2.50
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Sp an 1, Ext. Gird er 1, 105' Sp an s Sp an 1, Ext. Gird er 2, 105' Sp an s

Figure 44. Effect of Span Length on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams of Continuous Models
T wo-S pan C on ti n u ou s, B e am -S l ab B ri dge s,
2 4
I+ Ae = 1,870,000 i n , 60 de g. S k e w, w/o In te rm e d. C ross Fram e s
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Figure 45. Effect of Span Length on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams of Continuous Models
100
4.4.4 Live Load Shear Across Abutment Bearing Lines
For each of the two-span continuous beam-slab bridge models discussed in Section 4.4.3,
the skew correction factors were calculated for the end shear of each girder across each of the
abutment bearing lines. Similar to the investigation of the simple span models, data plots were
then created to investigate the variation of the end shear skew corrections across the abutments
and the effects of skew angle, girder stiffness and span length on this variation. For generation
of these plots and for direct comparison of the girders at each abutment, the girders at the obtuse
corner of the bearing lines were defined as girder 1, as shown in Figure 46.
The influence of skew angle on the variation of the end shear correction factor is shown
in Figure 47, the influence of girder stiffness is shown in Figures 48 and 49, and the influence of
span length is shown in Figure 50. Investigation of these figures does not reveal distinct
relationships between changes in any of these parameters and the variation of the end shear skew
correction. Similar to the results from the simple span models, each data plots depicts a general
decline in the end shear skew correction from the obtuse corner to the acute corner of the
abutment bearing line. In all cases, the normalized skew correction falls from its initial value at
the obtuse corner to a negative value at the acute corner, indicating that the end shear at the acute
corner is greater in the right bridge than in the skewed bridge.
101
CL Pier
Girder 6 Girder 1
Girder 2 CL Abutment (Typ.)
Girder 5
Girder 4 Girder 3
Girder 3 Girder 4
Girder 2 Girder 5
Girder 1 Girder 6
Span 1 Span 2
Figure 46. Nomenclature for Investigation of Correction Factors Across the Abutment
Bearing Lines of Two-Span Continuous Bridge Models
102
EFFECT OF SKEW ANGLE ON SKEW
ABUTMENT BEARING LINES
Two-Span Continuous, Beam-Slab Bridges, 168' Spans,
2 4
I + Ae = 333,000 in , w/o Intermed. Cross Frames
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
-1.25
-1.50
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder
Abut. 1, 30 deg. Skew Abut. 2, 30 deg. Skew

Abut. 1, 60 deg. Skew Abut. 2, 60 deg. Skew
Figure 47. Effect of Skew Angle on End Shear Skew Corrections At Abutments

60 deg. Skew, w/o Intermed. Cross Frames
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
-1.25
-1.50
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder
Abut. 1, I+Ae2 = 333,000 in4 Abut. 2, I+Ae2 = 333,000 in4

Abut. 1, I+Ae2 = 1,870,000 in4 Abut. 2, I+Ae2 = 1,870,000 in4
Figure 48. Effect of Girder Stiffness on End Shear Skew Corrections At Abutments
103
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
-1.25
-1.50
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder
Abut. 1, I+Ae2 = 333,000 in4 Abut. 2, I+Ae2 = 333,000 in4

Abut. 1, I+Ae2 = 1,870,000 in4 Abut. 2, I+Ae2 = 1,870,000 in4
Figure 49. Effect of Girder Stiffness on End Shear Skew Corrections At Abutments

2 4
Two-Span Continuous, Beam-Slab Bridges, I+Ae = 333,000 in , 60 deg. Skew, w/o
Intermed. Cross Frames
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
-1.25
-1.50
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder
Abut. 1, 105' Spans Abut. 2, 105' Spans
Figure 50. Effect of Span Length on End Shear Skew Corrections At Abutments
104
2 4
Two-Span Continuous, Beam-Slab Bridges, I+Ae = 1,870,000 in , 60 deg. Skew,
w/o Intermed. Cross Frames
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder
Figure 51. Effect of Span Length on End Shear Skew Corrections At Abutments
105
Again, the general decline in the skew correction across the abutment bearing lines is evident.
This figure also displays that in some cases, the skew correction at Girder 2, the first interior
girder adjacent to the obtuse corner, is equal to or greater than the skew correction at the obtuse
corner of the abutment bearing line.
106
NORMALIZED SKEW CORRECTIONS
FOR END SHEAR ACROSS
Two-Span Continuous Beam-Slab Bridges
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
-1.25
-1.50
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder
Figure 52. Complete Results Set for End Shear Skew Corrections at Abutments
107
Figure 53 condenses all of the results into a single plot of the average variation of the
skew correction for end shear across the abutment bearing lines. Superimposed on the results is
a linear variation of the skew correction from its value at the obtuse corner to a value of zero at
the acute corner. While the study results reveal that some bridge models have skew corrections
at Girder 2 in excess of that predicted by the linear variation from the obtuse corner, a close
inspection of the data indicates that the linear variation is a reasonable design approximation.
For example, conservatively assume that the skew correction factor for end shear at the
obtuse corner of an abutment is 1.75, a correction factor exceeding any determined in this study.
According to the proposed linear approximation of the correction factor variation, the skew
correction at the first interior girder adjacent to the obtuse corner is 80% of the obtuse corner
correction, for a six girder cross section. This produces a skew correction of 0.60 (0.80*0.75 =
0.60) at the first interior girder. Using the average results from this study, shown in Figure 53,
the skew correction at this same girder was found to be 89% of the obtuse corner correction.
Thus, from the study results, the skew correction at the first interior girder is 0.6675 (0.89*0.75
= 0.6675).
If the skew correction factor of 1.60 from the linear approximation was used rather that
the correction factor of 1.6675 from the average results, a 4% difference is produced in the
calculated girder shear. This difference is within expected levels of accuracy of a design
approximation. Furthermore, as the magnitude of the skew correction at the obtuse corner
decreases to more typical values found in this study, the percentage difference between the
approximated skew correction at the first interior girder and that predicted by the study results
decreases. As a result, it is suggested that the variation of the correction factor across the
108
abutment bearing lines can be reasonably approximated by a linear distribution from its value at
the obtuse corner to zero at the acute corner, an approximation identical to that proposed for the
simple span bridges.
109
Figure 53. Average Variation of End Shear Skew Corrections Across Abutments of Two-Span

FOR END SHEAR ACROSS
1.00
0.89
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.29
0.40
0.20 0.00
0.00
-0.20
-0.44
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.06
-1.00
-1.20
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder
Continuous Beam-Slab Bridges
110
4.4.5 Live Load Shear Across Pier
Similar to the investigation regarding the variation of the end shear skew correction
factor across each of the abutment bearing lines, the variation of the correction factor for shear
across the piers of the two-span continuous models was investigated. The girder shear directly
adjacent to the pier was investigated in both span 1 and span 2. Again, data plots were created to
study the effects of skew angle, girder stiffness and span length on the variation of the skew
correction across the pier. For generation of these plots and for direct comparison of the results
on either side of the pier, girder 1 was defined in each span as the exterior girder that created an
obtuse corner with the pier, as shown in Figure 54.
The influence of skew angle on the variation of the skew correction across the pier is
shown in Figure 55. Investigation of this figure does not reveal a distinct relationship between a
change in skew angle and the variation of the skew correction across the pier. This figure does,
however, display the presence of a significant skew correction, with respect to girder 1, at girder
5 in the model with 30 degree skew. In span 2 of this model, the shear in girder 1 is 56.2 kips
and 57.5 kips in the right and skewed bridge models, respectively. This yields a skew correction
factor of 1.02 for girder 1, span 2. For girder 5, the shear is 57.4 kips and 61.0 kips in the right
and skewed bridge models, respectively. This yields a correction factor of 1.06. When the skew
correction of 0.06 is normalized against 0.02 at girder 1, a value of approximately 2.75 is
produced. In comparison to the results of all of the models studied, this data point appears to be
an anomaly. The large normalized skew correction is produced by the small skew correction at
the obtuse corner.
111
CL Pier
Girder 1 Girder 6
Girder 2 Girder 5 CL Abutment (Typ.)
Girder 3 Girder 4
Girder 4 Girder 3
Girder 5 Girder 2
Girder 6 Girder 1
Span 1 Span 2
Figure 54. Nomenclature for Investigation of Correction Factors Across the Pier of Two-
Span Continuous Bridge Models
EFFECT OF SKEW ANGLE ON SKEW

CORRECTIONS FOR SHEAR
ACROSS PIER
2 4
2.75
2.50
2.25
2.00
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder
Span 1 @ Pier, 30 deg. Skew Span 2 @ Pier, 30 deg. Skew

Span 1 @ Pier, 60 deg. Skew Span 2 @ Pier, 60 deg. Skew
Figure 55. Effect of Skew Angle on Skew Corrections for Shear Across Pier
112
The influence of girder stiffness on the variation of the correction factor across the pier is
shown in Figures 56 and 57. The results indicate that an increase in girder stiffness may tend to
diminish the influence of the skew correction across the pier. As the girder stiffness increases,
the skew correction of girders 2 through 5 become a smaller percentage of the skew correction of
girder 1. All of the results display, however, a general decrease in the magnitude of the skew
correction across the pier. The pronounced correction found at girder 5 in Figure 55, is not
present in Figures 56 and 57.
113
ACROSS PIER
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
-1.25
-1.50
-1.75
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder
Span 1 @ Pier, I+Ae2 = 333,000 in4 Span 2 @ Pier, I+Ae2 = 333,000 in4
Span 1 @ Pier, I+Ae2 = 1,870,000 in4 Span 2 @ Pier, I+Ae2 = 1,870,000 in4
Figure 56. Effect of Girder Stiffness on Skew Corrections for Shear Across Pier

ACROSS PIER
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder
Span 1 @ Pier, I+Ae2 = 333,000 in4 Span 2 @ Pier, I+Ae2 = 333,000 in4
Span 1 @ Pier, I+Ae2 = 1,870,000 in4 Span 2 @ Pier, I+Ae2 = 1,870,000 in4
114
Figure 57. Effect of Girder Stiffness on Skew Corrections for Shear Across Pier
The influence of span length on the variation of the correction factor across the pier is
shown in Figures 58 and 59. The results indicate that an increase in span length may tend to
increase the influence of the skew correction across the pier. As the span length increases, the
skew correction of girders 2 through 5 become a larger percentage of the corrections of girder 1.
When studying these results in conjunction with those from the investigation of girder stiffness,
it appears that an increase in the flexibility of the structure, caused by either a decrease in beam
stiffness or an increase in span length, results in a greater presence of a skew correction across
the piers of continuous bridges. All of the results for the investigation of span length display,
however, a general decrease in the magnitude of the skew correction across the pier. Again, the
pronounced skew correction at girder 5 in Figure 55, is not present in these models (Figures 58
and 59).
115
ACROSS PIER
2 4
Two-Span Continuous, Beam-Slab Bridges, I+Ae = 333,000 in ,
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
-1.25
-1.50
-1.75
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder
Span 1 @ Pier, 105' Spans Span 2 @ Pier, 105' Spans

Figure 58. Effect of Span Length on Skew Corrections for Shear Across Pier

ACROSS PIER
2 4
Two-Span Continuous, Beam-Slab Bridges, I+Ae = 1,870,000 in , 60 deg. Skew,
w/o Intermed. Cross Frames
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder

116
Figure 59. Effect of Span Length on Skew Corrections for Shear Across Pier
Except for a few isolated data points, the general decline in the correction factor across the
abutment bearing lines is evident. Similar to the results for the end shear correction factors
across the abutments of the continuous bridges, certain models produce correction factor at
Girder 2, the first interior girder adjacent to the obtuse corner, equal to or greater than the
correction factor at the obtuse corner of the pier.
Figure 61 condenses all of the results into a single plot of the average variation of the
skew correction for shear across the pier. Superimposed on the results is a linear variation of the
correction factor from its value at the obtuse corner to a value of zero at the acute corner. Except
for the data point at girder 5, all of the average results fall within this approximation. The
average data point of 0.55 at girder 5 includes the normalized value of approximately 2.75 from
Figure 55. When this value is not included in the pool of results, an average value of 0.12 is
produced at girder 5. This value falls well within the linear approximation. The data point of
2.75 is considered to be an isolate value, not representative of the results anticipated from typical
beam-slab bridges. As a result, it is suggested that the variation of the correction factor across
the pier can be reasonably approximated by a linear distribution from its value at the obtuse
corner to zero at the acute corner, identical to the variation suggested across the abutments.
117
NORMALIZED SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR
SHEAR ACROSS PIER
2.75
2.50
2.25
2.00
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
-1.25
-1.50
-1.75
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder
Figure 60. Complete Results Set for Skew Corrections for Shear Across Pier

FOR SHEAR ACROSS PIER
1.00
1.00
0.76
0.80
0.55
0.60
0.40
0.20 0.04
0.00 -0.14
-0.20
-0.40 -0.61
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder
Figure 61. Average Variation of Skew Corrections for Shear Across Piers of Two-Span
Continuous Beam-Slab Bridges
118
4.4.6 Live Load Reactions at Pier
Intuition suggests that at the piers of skewed, continuous bridges, where an obtuse corner
and acute corner adjoin on opposite sides of a girders bearing, a skew correction for reaction
may not be necessary. It is speculated that the effects of the obtuse and acute corners on the
girder shear on either side of the bearing may tend to negate each other and eliminate the skew
correction. The current LRFD Specifications, however, do not address skew correction factors
for reactions at the piers of continuous bridges. As a result, a number of questions were
investigated as part of this study: Is there a skew correction factor for girder reaction at piers,
i.e., do the effects of acute and obtuse corners negate each other? If a correction factor for
reaction does exist, it is the same as the correction factor for shear at the pier? If the correction
factor exists, how does it vary across the pier, and what bridge parameters influence the
variation?
For investigation of these questions, the girders of the bridge models were labeled as
shown in Figure 62, with girder 1 located at the bottom of the plan view. The same two-span
continuous beam-slab bridge models used for the investigation of the skew correction factors for
shear were used for the investigation of correction factors for pier reactions.
As shown by the results in Table 10, correction factors for reaction at the interior pier of
the continuous bridge models were present, and were greater than 1.0, for almost every girder in
each model. This indicates that the effects of the girders obtuse and acute corners on either side
of the bearings do not offset each other for determination of the girder reaction. In fact, the data
suggests that any reduction in shear due to the acute corner is less than the increase in shear due
119
to the obtuse corner. Therefore, the development of skew correction factors for reaction at the
piers of continuous beam-slab bridges is necessary.
120
CL Pier
Girder 6 Abutment (Typ.)
Girder 5
Girder 4
Girder 3
Girder 2
Girder 1
Span 1 Span 2
Figure 62. Nomenclature for Investigation of Correction Factors for Reaction at the Pier of
Two-Span Continuous Bridge Models
Table 10. Correction Factors for Reaction at the Pier of Two-Span Beam-Slab Bridge Models
Skew Correction Factors for Reaction at Pier

Girder Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
1 1.01 1.02 1.09 1.11 1.27
2 1.06 1.08 1.20 1.00 1.07
3 1.20 1.25 1.22 1.05 1.21
4 1.19 1.22 1.22 1.06 1.20
5 1.06 1.08 1.20 1.00 1.07
6 1.01 1.04 1.09 1.13 1.27
121
The presence of correction factors for reaction at the pier leads to a comparison to the
correction factors calculated for shear at the pier. As shown by Figures 63 through 67, the
correction factors for reaction are not identical to the correction factors for shear. In three of the
five sets of results (Figures 63, 64 and 67), the correction factors for reaction at the exterior
girders, girders 1 and 6, are similar to the correction factor for shear at the obtuse corner of the
pier. For the remaining two sets of results (Figures 65 and 66), the correction factors for reaction
at the exterior girders are appreciably less than the correction factor for shear at the obtuse
corner. In all cases, the correction factors for reaction are essentially symmetrical about the
centerline of the bridge.
At the interior girders, girders 2 through 5, the correction factors for reaction are
typically greater than those for shear at the same girder. Additionally, the correction factors for
reaction at these girders may be greater than those for reaction at the exterior girders, and also
greater than those for shear at the obtuse corner of the pier. An attempt, therefore, to simply use
the correction factor for shear at the obtuse corner also for reaction at each girder of the pier is
not conservative for each model of this study. These results indicate that there is no well-defined
relationship between the correction factors for reaction and for shear at the piers of continuous
bridges. It may be necessary, therefore, to develop a set of skew correction factors specific to
the reaction at the piers of continuous bridges.
122
SKEW CORRECTION FACTORS FOR SHEAR
AND REACTIONS AT THE PIER
Two S pan Continuous Beam-S lab Bridge, 168' S pans,
2 4
w/o Intermed. X-Frames, I+Ae = 333,000 in , 30 deg. S kew
1.30
1.25
1.20
Skew Correction Factors
1.15
1.10
1.05
1.00
0.95
0.90
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder
Span 1 Shear Span 2 Shear Reaction
SKEW CORRECTION FACTORS FOR SHEAR AND REACTIONS AT PIER

Girder Span 1 Shear Span 2 Shear Reaction
1 0.99 1.02 1.02
2 1.05 1.01 1.08
3 0.98 1.02 1.25
4 1.03 1.00 1.22
5 1.02 1.06 1.08
6 1.03 0.99 1.04
Figure 63. Comparison of Skew Correction Factors for Shear and Reaction at Pier
123
2 4
1.25
1.20
1.15
1.10
1.05
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder

1 0.91 1.12 1.09
2 1.07 1.16 1.20
3 1.04 1.05 1.22
4 1.07 1.04 1.22
5 1.17 1.09 1.20
6 1.13 0.90 1.09
124
2 4
1.25
1.20
1.15
1.10
1.05
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder

1 0.87 1.07 1.01
2 0.99 1.10 1.06
3 0.96 0.94 1.20
4 0.96 1.00 1.19
5 1.09 0.99 1.06
6 1.09 0.88 1.01
125
2 4
w/o Intermed. X-Frames, I+Ae = 1,870,000 in , 60 deg. S kew
1.30
1.25
1.20
1.15
1.10
1.05
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder

1 0.94 1.19 1.11
2 0.95 1.04 1.00
3 0.86 0.90 1.05
4 0.90 0.94 1.06
5 1.03 0.95 1.00
6 1.25 0.95 1.13
126
2 4
w/o Intermed. X-Frames, I+Ae = 1,870,000 in , 60 deg. S kew
1.30
1.25
1.20
1.15
1.10
1.05
1.00
0.95
0.90
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder

1 0.96 1.24 1.27
2 1.03 1.19 1.07
3 0.98 1.01 1.21
4 0.99 0.99 1.20
5 1.16 1.03 1.07
6 1.24 0.95 1.27
127
Using the limited number of continuous model data sets of this study, the effects of skew
angle, girder stiffness and span length on the variation of the correction factor for reaction across
the pier were investigated. By normalizing the skew correction of each girder against the
correction at girder 1, and plotting the results, the effects of skew angle, girder stiffness and span
length were investigated.
Figure 68 displays the effects of a 30 and 60 skew angle on the variation of the skew
correction for reaction at the pier. An increase in skew angle produces much more uniform skew
corrections across the pier. The 30 skew angle produced skew corrections at the interior girders
that are substantially greater than those at the exterior girders. The data indicates that the
interior girder corrections may be over 10 times greater than those at the exterior girder. For
example, a normalized value of approximately 10.7 is produced when normalizing the correction
of 0.247 at girder 3 against the correction of 0.023 at girder 1. With both the 30 and 60 skew
angle, however, the variation of the skew correction is essentially symmetrical.
128
EFFECT OF SKEW ANGLE ON
SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR
REACTION ACROSS PIER
2 4
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder
30 deg. Skew 60 deg. Skew
Figure 68. Effect of Skew Angle on Skew Corrections for Reaction Across Pier
129
The influence of girder stiffness on the variation of the skew correction for reaction is
displayed in Figures 69 and 70. Again, the variation of the correction factor is symmetrical
across the pier for each of the data sets. The results indicate that an increase in girder stiffness
decreases the magnitude of the correction at the interior girders, with respect to the correction at
girder 1. In fact, for the models with greater girder stiffness, the corrections at the interior
girders are less than those for the exterior girders.
130
EFFECT OF GIRDER STIFFNESS ON
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder
I+Ae2 = 333,000 in4 I+Ae2 = 1,870,000 in4
Figure 69. Effect of Girder Stiffness on Skew Corrections for Reaction Across Pier
EFFECT OF GIRDER STIFFNESS ON

3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder
I+Ae2 = 333,000 in4 I+Ae2 = 1,870,000 in4
131
Figure 70. Effect of Girder Stiffness on Skew Corrections for Reaction Across Pier
Finally, the influence of span length on the variation of the skew correction for reaction
is displayed in Figures 71 and 72. Again, the variation of the correction factor is symmetrical
across the pier for each of the data sets. These results, however, do not yield a correlation
between the change in span length and the variation of the skew correction across the pier.
Figure 71 displays that an increase in span length tends to decrease the magnitude of the
correction at the interior girders, with respect to the correction at girder 1. Furthermore, each
data set of Figure 71 produces a greater skew correction at the interior girders than at the exterior
girders. Figure 72, however, indicates that the corrections at the interior girders are less than
those at the exterior girders. Additionally, the increase in span length increases the magnitude of
the correction at the interior girders, with respect to the correction at girder 1. Figures 71 and 72,
therefore, do not reveal a definite trend between the change in span length and the variation of
the skew correction for reaction at the pier.
132
EFFECT OF SPAN LENGTH ON
2 4
Two-Span Continuous, Beam-Slab Bridges, I + Ae = 333,000 in ,
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder
105' Spans 168' Spans
Figure 71. Effect of Span Length on Skew Corrections for Reaction Across Pier
EFFECT OF SPAN LENGTH ON

2 4
Two-Span Continuous, Beam-Slab Bridges, I + Ae = 1,870,000 in ,
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder
105' Spans 168' Spans
133
Figure 72. Effect of Span Length on Skew Corrections for Reaction Across Pier
134
4.5 SKEW CORRECTION FACTORS FROM LRFD SPECIFICATIONS AND
RESEARCH RESULTS
Although not included in the objectives of this research, a cursory evaluation of the skew
correction factors calculated according to Article 4.6.2.2.3c of the LRFD Specifications and
those determined from the analysis models was performed. Table 11 indicates that the empirical
equations of the LRFD Specifications typically corresponded well with the research results. The
research results are within 14% of the empirical equations, with the empirical equations typically
producing more conservative correction factors. In cases where the research models produced
skew correction factors greater than the empirical equations, the greatest differences were found
in bridge models with the extreme 60 skew or with intermediate cross frames. Nevertheless, the
bridge models of this study produced skew correction factors that compare reasonably well to
those calculated according to the LRFD Specifications.
135
Table 11. Comparison of Skew Correction Factors from LRFD Specifications and Research
Results
BRIDGE MODEL DATA LRFD Research

Model Span Intermed. Span (L) # of Kg ts Correction Correction
4
Type Type X-Frames? (ft) Beams (in ) (in) (deg) Factor Factor
Beam-Slab Simple No 42 6 336152 7 30 1.09 1.13 3%
Beam-Slab Simple No 42 6 336152 7 60 1.28 1.15 -10%


Beam-Slab Simple Yes 105 6 2522195 7 60 1.20 1.27 5%

Beam-Slab Simple Yes 168 6 2522195 7 60 1.23 1.35 9%
T-Beam Simple No 42 6 358040 7 30 1.09 1.09 0%

T-Beam Simple No 42 6 358040 7 60 1.28 1.45 13%
Beam-Slab 2-Span Cont. No 168 6 2522195 7 30 1.08 1.03 -4%

Definition of Variables:
4
Kg = Longitudinal Stiffness Parameter (in )
ts = Depth of Concrete Slab (in)
= Skew Angle measured from a line normal to the CL of Bridge
3 0.3
LRFD Empirical Skew Correction Factor = 1.0 + 0.20 * ( 12.0 L ts / Kg ) tan
136
CHAPTER 5 INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION
5.1 SIMPLE SPAN BEAM-SLAB BRIDGES
With respect to simple span beam-slab bridges, the results of this study indicate that:
The variation of the skew correction factors for shear along the length of
the exterior girders of simple span beam-slab bridges is not significantly
influenced by changes in skew angle, beam stiffness, span length, beam
spacing, slab thickness, bridge aspect ratio, or by the presence of
intermediate cross frames.
While the magnitude of the correction factors may change in concert with
changes of these parameters, the variation of the correction factor along
the exterior beam length is not significantly altered.
The skew correction factor typically falls quickly from its initial value at
the end of the exterior girder at the obtuse bridge corner to zero by the
four-tenth point of the span, independent of changes in the aforementioned
bridge parameters.
An appropriate, conservative design approximation for the variation of the

skew correction factor for shear along the length of the exterior girder is a
linear variation from its initial value at the obtuse corner of the bridge plan
to zero at some point within the girder span.
Regarding the last conclusion, Figure 73, a plot of the results from all models that
represent realistic bridge designs (span-to-depth ratios range from 13 to 21), displays that a
reasonable approximation for the skew correction factor variation is a straight line from its value
at the obtuse corner to a correction factor of 1.0 at mid-span. In isolated cases, a correction
factor is present near mid-span of the exterior girders, but the magnitudes of the shears near mid-
span are still much less that the magnitudes of the end shears. It is suggested, therefore, that
these corrections near mid-span may be neglected as the shear values at these locations will not
137
govern for typical design applications. It is recognized that design cases in which the web depth,
thickness, yield strength, stiffener spacing, etc. vary along the beam length, the controlling
region for shear design may not be at the typical end of beam location. The correction factor
spikes found at mid-span in a limited number of the data sets, however, were amplified by the
manner of data reduction. Given that the magnitude of the mid-span shear is small, any slight
deviations between the right bridge and skewed bridge mid-span shears may produce appreciable
correction factors in terms of percentages. To illustrate, the data displays some mid-span skew
correction factors between 1.03 to 1.13. The actual difference between the mid-span shears in
the right and skewed bridge models for the correction factor of 1.13 is only 2.8 kips (22.7 k right
bridge; 25.5 k skewed bridge). Attempts to pinpoint design corrections to this level of accuracy
may be misleading in terms of the accuracy of the approximation itself. Furthermore, the bridge
models which possess these mid-span spikes are predominately models with a 168 span length
and a 60 degree skew. Given the small number of occurrences of the mid-span spikes and the
extreme skew angle of the models in which it did occur, the inclusion of the spikes in a general
design approximation was not considered necessary.
Additionally, select model results yielded a correction factor greater than 1.0 at the acute
corner of the exterior girders. These results, however, were obtained from bridge models with a
span-to-depth ratio of 5.25, well outside ratios of practical design applications. It is suggested,
therefore, that these corrections at the acute corner may be neglected given the fact that these
results did not occur in models that are more representative of actual design cases.
138
NORMALIZED SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR SHEAR IN
EXTERIOR GIRDERS of SIMPLE SPAN BEAM-SLAB
BRIDGES
Proposed Design Approximation for the
2.00
Variation of the Skew Correction Factor
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Tenth Point Along Span
Figure 73. Results for the Variation of the Skew Correction Along the Length of the Exterior
Girders of Simple-Span Beam-Slab Bridges.
139
The study results also indicate that:
The variation of the skew correction factors for end shear across the
bearing lines of simple span beam-slab bridges is not significantly altered
by changes in skew angle, beam stiffness, span length, beam spacing, slab
thickness, or by the presence of intermediate cross frames.
A reasonable, conservative approximation of this variation across the

bearing lines is a linear distribution of the correction factor from its value
at the obtuse corner to a correction factor of 1.0 at the acute corner.
The average variation of the skew correction for end shear across the bearing lines of the
models studied is depicted in Figure 74, indicating that the linear distribution across the bearing
lines is conservative and encompasses the average results.
140
FOR END SHEAR ACROSS BEARING LINES of
SIMPLE SPAN BEAM-SLAB BRIDGES
1.00 Proposed Design Approximation
1.00
for the Variation of the Skew
0.80 Correction Factor
0.49
0.60
0.40 0.25
0.20 0.08
0.00
-0.23
-0.20
-0.40 -0.54
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder
Figure 74. Average Results for the Variation of the Skew Correction Along the Bearing
Lines of Simple Span Beam-Slab Bridges.
141
5.2 SIMPLE SPAN CONCRETE T-BEAM BRIDGES
The cursory investigation of simple span, monolithic, concrete T-beam bridge models
indicated that:
The variation of the skew correction factors along both the length of the
exterior beams and across the beam supports is very similar to that
obtained from the simple span beam-slab bridge models.
Regardless bridge model skew angle, the variation of the skew correction
factors along the length of the beams can be approximated reasonably by a
linear distribution of the correction factor at the obtuse corner of the
exterior girder to a value of 1.0 at mid-span of the exterior girder.
Across the bearing lines, the skew correction factor variation can be
approximated by a linear distribution of the correction factor at the obtuse
corner of the bearing line to a value of 1.0 at the acute corner.
Although only the effect of skew angle on the correction factor variation was
investigated, it is presumed that changes in other bridge parameters will produce similar results.
Therefore, the design approximations developed for the beam-slab bridges are considered to be
valid for concrete T-beam bridges.
5.3 SIMPLE SPAN SPREAD CONCRETE BOX GIRDER BRIDGES
The analysis of the spread concrete box girder bridge models raised an issue regarding
the influence of torsion on the maximum shear in box girders and the design methodology to be
followed in the development of skew correction factors for this bridge type. Although typically
neglected in right bridges due to the premise of equal deflections of the bridge girders and
142
negligible differential shears between the webs of the box girders, the effects of torsion on box
girder shear may be amplified due to the introduction of skew. The box girder shear data
obtained in this study, which incorporates the effects of torsion, indicates that torsion may not be
negligible in skewed bridges. Without further conclusive research, however, and given the lack
of substantial field documentation indicating problems with torsion and shear in skewed spread
box girder bridges, the current design practices of neglecting torsion are considered to be
acceptable. It is recommended, however, that further studies of box girder shear in skewed
bridges be performed to investigate the influence of torsion. Such studies may help determine
whether torsion should be included in approximations for the variation of the skew correction
factors for shear.
5.4 TWO-SPAN CONTINUOUS BEAM-SLAB BRIDGES
The investigation of the two-span continuous beam-slab bridge models reveals that:
The skew correction factors for shear at the obtuse corner of skewed,
simple span beam-slab bridges are valid for the shear at the obtuse corner
of the abutments of skewed, continuous beam-slab bridges.
The skew correction factors for shear at the obtuse corner of skewed,
simple span beam-slab bridges are also valid for shear in exterior girders
of continuous bridges at the obtuse corner created by the girders and the
piers.
The variation of the skew correction factors for shear along the length of
the exterior girders is not significantly influenced by changes in skew
angle, beam stiffness and span length.
The variation of the correction factor along the length of the exterior
143
girder is similar when the obtuse corner is located at the abutment and
when it is located at the pier. As a result, each span of the continuous
exterior girders possesses the same correction factor at its obtuse corner,
as well as the same variation of the correction factor along the span length.
While the magnitude of the correction factors may change in concert with
changes of skew angle, beam stiffness and span length, the variation of the
correction factor along the span length is not significantly altered.
The skew correction factor typically falls quickly from its initial value at
the end of the exterior girder at the obtuse corner to zero by the four-tenth
point of the span, independent of changes in the aforementioned bridge
parameters.
An appropriate, conservative design approximation for the variation of the

skew correction factor for shear along the length of each span of the
exterior girder is a linear variation from its initial value at the girders
obtuse corner to 1.0 at some point within the girder span, very similar to
the results from the simple span models.
Regarding the last conclusion, Figure 75 displays that a reasonable approximation for the
skew correction factor variation is a straight line from its value at the obtuse corner to a
correction factor of 1.0 at mid-span. Similar to the simple span model results, a correction factor
is present near mid-span of the exterior girders in isolated cases. However, the manner in which
the data is presented tends to amplify the results and the magnitudes of the shears near mid-span
are still much less that the magnitudes of the end shears. It is suggested, therefore, that these
corrections near mid-span may be neglected as the shear values at these locations will not govern
for typical design applications.
144
NORMALIZED SKEW CORRECTIONS FOR SHEAR
IN EXTERIOR GIRDERS of TWO-SPAN
CONTINUOUS BEAM-SLAB BRIDGES
Proposed Design Approximation for the
2.00 Variation of the Skew Correction Factor
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
-2.50
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Tenth Point Along Span
Figure 75. Results for the Variation of the Skew Correction Along the Length of the Exterior
Girders of Two-Span Continuous Beam-Slab Bridges.
145
The study results also indicate that:
The variation of the skew correction factors for shear across the abutments
and pier of two-span continuous beam-slab bridges is not significantly
altered by changes in skew angle, beam stiffness and span length.
A reasonable approximation of this variation across both the abutments

and pier is a linear distribution of the correction factor from its value at
the obtuse corner of the abutments and pier to a correction factor of 1.0 at
the acute corner.
The average variation of the skew correction factor for shear across the abutments and
the piers of the models studied is depicted in Figure 76, including the proposed design office
approximation.
146
FOR SHEAR ACROSS ABUTMENTS
AND PIERS of TWO-SPAN CONTINUOUS
BEAM-SLAB BRIDGES
Proposed Design Approximation for
1.00 the Variation of the Skew Correction
0.80 Factor
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
1 2 3 4 5 6
Girder
Abutment Pier
Figure 76. Average Results for the Variation of the Skew Correction Across Abutments and
Piers of Two-Span Beam-Slab Bridges.
147
The investigation of the two-span models does reveal that skew correction factors for
reaction at piers of continuous bridges are present at each girder, and that these correction factor
are unique from those required for the shear at the pier. However, the variation of the correction
factor across the pier with changes in the bridge parameters is not clearly understood from the
limited number of data sets in this study. Although changes of skew angle and girder stiffness in
the study models did provide insight into possible effects on the correction factors, it is difficult
to define that variation from the small pool of data sets. The study results do indicate, however,
that further research is required to develop empirical equations for both the skew correction
factors for reactions at piers and the variation of those correction factors across the pier.
5.5 APPLICATION OF STUDY FINDINGS
From the study findings, it was determined that regardless of bridge parameters, a
reasonable design approximation for the variation of the skew correction factor for shear along
the length of the exterior girder of simple span beam-slab and monolithic concrete T-beam
bridges is a linear variation from its initial value at the obtuse corner to a correction factor of 1.0
at mid-span. Similarly, regardless of bridge parameters, the variation of the skew correction
factor for shear along the length of the exterior girders in each span of two-span continuous
beam-slab bridges may be reasonably approximated with a linear variation from its initial value
at the obtuse corner of the girder to a correction factor of 1.0 at mid-span. Therefore, for
148
application of the research findings regarding the variation of the skew correction factor for
shear along the length of exterior girders, the recommendations are as follows:
accordance with the empirical equation defined in Table 4.6.2.2.3c-1, to a value
of 1.0 at girder mid-span, as shown in Figure 77.
obtuse corners of the interior piers to the girder mid-span, as shown in Figure 78.
Although this study did not investigate each superstructure type within the group
Concrete Deck, Filled Grid, or Partially Filled Grid on Steel or Concrete Beams; Concrete T-
Beams, T- and Double T Section, the bridge models studied are representative of this class of
superstructure, with the bridge parameters as defined by Table 4.6.2.2.3c-1 of the LRFD
Specifications. The study findings and proposed design approximations, therefore, are
considered to be valid for each type of structure within this class.
149
Mid-Point of Girder
Span (Typ.)
1.0
CL Girder (Typ.)
CL Abutment (Typ.)
Skew Angle
1.0
Linear Variation of the
Correction Factor (Typ.)
Calculated Skew Correction
Factor at Obtuse Corner (Typ.)
Figure 77. Proposed Variation of the Skew Correction Factors for Shear Along the Length of
the Exterior Girders in Simple Span Superstructures of Concrete Deck, Filled
Grid, or Partially Filled Grid on Steel or Concrete Beams; Concrete T-Beams, T-
Skew Correction Factor also

Applied at Obtuse Corner of Pier
Mid-Point of Girder (Typ.)
Span (Typ.)
1.0 1.0
CL Girder (Typ.)
CL Abutment (Typ.) CL Pier
Skew Angle
1.0 1.0

Calculated Skew Correction Correction Factor (Typ.)
Factor at Obtuse Corner of
Abutment (Typ.)
and Double T Sections
Figure 78. Proposed Variation of the Skew Correction Factors for Shear Along the Length of
the Exterior Girders in Continuous Superstructures of Concrete Deck, Filled Grid,
150
or Partially Filled Grid on Steel or Concrete Beams; Concrete T-Beams, T- and
Double T Sections
151
The study findings also reveal that regardless of bridge parameters, a reasonable design
approximation for the variation of the skew correction factors for end shear of each girder across
bearing lines of simple span beam-slab bridges and monolithic concrete T-beam bridges is a
linear variation from its initial value at the obtuse corner of the bearing line to a correction factor
of 1.0 at the acute corner of the bearing line. Similarly, regardless of bridge parameters, the
variation of the skew correction factor for shear of each girder across the abutments and piers of
two-span continuous beam-slab bridges may be reasonably approximated with a linear variation
from its initial value at the obtuse corner of the bearing line to a correction factor of 1.0 at the
acute corner of the bearing line. Therefore, for application of the research findings regarding the
variation of the skew correction factor for shear across bearing lines, the recommendations are as
follows:
accordance with Table 4.6.2.2.3c-1, to a value of 1.0 at the acute corner of the
bearing line, as shown in Figure 79.
obtuse corners of the interior piers to the acute corner of the bearing lines, as
shown in Figure 80.
152
As discussed previously, this study did not investigate each superstructure type within the
group Concrete Deck, Filled Grid, or Partially Filled Grid on Steel or Concrete Beams;
Concrete T-Beams, T- and Double T Section. The bridge models studied, however, are
representative of this class of superstructure, with the bridge parameters as defined by Table
4.6.2.2.3c-1 of the LRFD Specifications. The study findings and proposed design
approximation, therefore, are considered to be valid for each type of structure within this class.
153
1.0
CL Girder (Typ.)
CL Abutment (Typ.)
Skew Angle
1.0

Correction Factor (Typ.)
Calculated Skew Correction
Factor at Obtuse Corner (Typ.)
Figure 79. Proposed Variation of the Skew Correction Factors for Shear Across the Bearing
Lines of Simple Span Superstructures of Concrete Deck, Filled Grid, or Partially
Filled Grid on Steel or Concrete Beams; Concrete T-Beams, T- and Double T
Sections
Skew Correction Factor also

Applied at Obtuse Corner of Pier
(Typ.)
C
L Girder (Typ.) CL Abutment (Typ.)
1.0 1.0
CL Pier
Skew Angle
1.0 1.0
Calculated Skew Correction Linear Variation of the
Factor at Obtuse Corner of Correction Factor (Typ.)
Abutment (Typ.)
Figure 80. Proposed Variation of the Skew Correction Factors for Shear Across the
Abutments and Piers of Continuous Superstructures of Concrete Deck, Filled
Grid, or Partially Filled Grid on Steel or Concrete Beams; Concrete T-Beams, T-
and Double T Sections
154
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTED RESEARCH
The variation of the skew correction factors for shear along the length of the exterior
girders of simple span beam-slab bridges is not significantly influenced by changes in skew
angle, beam stiffness, span length, beam spacing, slab thickness, bridge aspect ratio, or by the
presence of intermediate cross frames. It is recommended that a reasonable design
approximation for the variation of the skew correction factor for shear along the length of the
exterior girder of simple span beam-slab bridges is a linear variation from its initial value at the
obtuse corner to a correction factor of 1.0 at mid-span, as shown in Figure 77. Regardless of the
aforementioned bridge parameters, therefore, the skew correction factor may be calculated for
the obtuse corner as defined in the LRFD Specifications and varied linearly to a value of 1.0 at
the mid-point of the girder span. This approximation is recommended for simple span
superstructures of concrete deck, filled grid, or partially filled grid on steel or concrete beams;
concrete T-beams, T- and double T sections, within the geometric limitations defined in Table
4.6.2.2.3c-1 of the LRFD Specifications.
Additionally, the variation of the skew correction factors for end shear of each girder
across bearing lines of simple span beam-slab bridges is not significantly altered by changes in
span length, beam spacing, slab thickness, skew angle and beam stiffness, or by the presence of
intermediate cross frames. Therefore, it is recommended that the skew correction factor be
calculated for the end shear of the exterior girder at the obtuse corner of the bridge, as defined in
the LRFD Specifications, and varied linearly across the bearing lines to a value of 1.0 at the
acute corner, as shown in Figure 79. Again, this approximation is reasonable for simple span
155
superstructures of concrete deck, filled grid, or partially filled grid on steel or concrete beams;
concrete T-beams, T- and double T sections, within the geometric limitations defined in Table
4.6.2.2.3c-1 of the LRFD Specifications.
The skew correction factors for shear defined in the current LRFD Specifications at the
obtuse corner of skewed, simple span beam-slab bridges are also valid for the shear at the obtuse
corner of the abutments of skewed, continuous beam-slab bridges. Furthermore, these same
skew correction factors are also valid for shear in exterior girders of continuous bridges at the
obtuse corner created by the girders and the piers.
Similar to the conclusions regarding the variation of the skew correction factors for shear
along the length of the exterior girders of simple span bridges, the variation of the correction
factors for two-span continuous beam-slab bridges is not significantly influenced by changes in
skew angle, beam stiffness and span length. The same design approximation proposed for the
correction factor variation in the simple span bridges is also recommended for each span of the
continuous bridges. A reasonable design approximation for the variation of the skew correction
factor for shear along the length of the exterior girders in each span of continuous beam-slab
bridges is a linear variation from its initial value at the obtuse corner of the girder to a correction
factor of 1.0 at mid-span, as shown in Figure 78. Regardless of the aforementioned bridge
parameters, therefore, the skew correction factor may be calculated for the end shear of the
exterior girder as defined in the LRFD Specifications, applied at the obtuse corners of both the
abutments and piers, and varied linearly to a value of 1.0 at the mid-point of the girder span.
This approximation is appropriate for continuous superstructures of concrete deck, filled grid, or
156
partially filled grid on steel or concrete beams; concrete T-beams, T- and double T sections,
within the geometric limitations defined in Table 4.6.2.2.3c-1 of the LRFD Specifications.
Additionally, the variation of the skew correction factors for shear of each girder across
the abutments and piers of continuous beam-slab bridges is not significantly altered by changes
in skew angle, girder stiffness and span length. The recommended design approximation for the
simple span bridges is also valid across the abutments and piers of continuous bridges.
Therefore, the skew correction factor can be calculated for the end shear of the exterior girder, as
defined in the LRFD Specifications, applied at the obtuse corners of both the abutments and
piers, and varied linearly across the abutments and piers to a value of 1.0 at the acute corner, as
shown in Figure 80. Again, this approximation is appropriate for continuous superstructures of
concrete deck, filled grid, or partially filled grid on steel or concrete beams; concrete T-beams,
T- and double T sections, within the geometric limitations defined in Table 4.6.2.2.3c-1 of the
LRFD Specifications.
The results of this study lead to the following recommendations for further research:
Skew Correction Factors for Reaction at the Piers of Continuous Bridges:
It was determined that these correction factors are present and are unique
from those calculated for shear at the pier. The effects of the obtuse and
acute corners on the girder shear on opposite sides of the bearings do not
eliminate a correction factor for reaction. From the limited continuous
bridge model data pool of this study, however, it was not feasible to
develop empirical equations that define the correction factor or define its
variation across the pier. Therefore, the development of such equations
for continuous bridges is suggested as further research.
Skew Correction Factors of Other Beam and Slab Bridge Types:
This research focused primarily on the skew correction factors for shear in
simple-span and two-span continuous beam-slab bridges and provides
recommendations for only superstructures of concrete deck, filled grid, or
157
partially filled grid on steel or concrete beams; concrete T-beams, T- and
double T sections. These bridges, however, comprise only one type of the
larger genre of beam and slab bridges. The LRFD Specifications provide
empirical equations for skew correction factors of multi-cell concrete box
beam, spread concrete box beam and multi-beam bridges. It is
recommended that further research be performed to investigate the
behavior of the skew correction factors for shear in these additional bridge
types.
Torsion in Skewed Box Beam Bridges:
Additional work could be performed to investigate torsion in skewed,

spread box beam bridges and the magnitude of its effect on shear in box
girder webs. Given the lack of substantial field documentation indicating
problems with torsion and shear in skewed spread box girder bridges,
however, the current design practices which neglect torsion are considered
to be acceptable.
158
REFERENCES
1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, LRFD

Bridge Design Specifications. Second Edition, (1996).
2. Nutt, R. V., Schamber R. A. and Zokaie T., Distribution of wheel loads on

highway bridges. Project No. 12-26, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., (1988).
3. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, LRFD

Bridge Design Specifications. First Edition, (1994).
4. Zokaie, T., Osterkamp T. A. and Imbsen R. A., Distribution of wheel loads on

highway bridges. Project No. 12-26/1, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., (1991).
5. Kulicki, J. M., Shear in Skewed Multi-Beam Bridges. Proposal for NCHRP 20-
7/Task 107, Modjeski and Masters, Inc., Mechanicsburg, PA, (1999).
6. Marx, H. J., Kachaturion N. and Gamble W. L., Development of design criteria

for simply supported skew slab-and-girder bridges. Report No. 522, Civil
Engineering Studies, Struct. Res. Ser., University of Illinois, Champaign, IL,
(1986).
7. Khaleel, M. A., and Itani, R. Y., Live-load moments for continuous skew
bridges. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 116(9), (1990) pp. 2361-
2373.
8. Bishara, A. G., Liu, M. C. and El-Ali, N. D., Wheel Load Distribution on Simply
Supported Skew I-beam Composite Bridges. Structural Engineering, ASCE,
119(2), (1993) pp.399-419.
9. Ebeido, T. and Kennedy, J.B., Girder moments in continuous skew composite

bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, 1(1), (1996) pp. 37-45.
10. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Standard

Specifications for Highway Bridges. Fifteenth Edition, (1989).
11. Powell, G. H. and Buckle, I. G., Computer Programs for Bridge Deck Analysis.
Report No. UC SESM 70-6, Division of Structural Engineering and
Structural Mechanics, University of California, Berkeley, CA, (1970).
159
12. Dodds, R. H. and Lopez, L. A., A Generalized Software System for Nonlinear
Analysis. International Journal for Advances in Engineering Software, 2(4),
(1980), pp. 161-168.
13. Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Ontario highway

bridge design code. Third Edition, Highway Engineering Division, Downsview,
Ontario, (1992).
14. Jaeger, L. G. and Bakht B., Bridge Analysis by Microcomputer. McGraw-Hill,

New York, NY, (1989).
15. Ebeido, T. and Kennedy, J.B., Shear distribution in simply supported skew
composite bridges. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Ottawa, Canada,
22(6), (1995) pp. 1143-1154.
16. Ebeido, T. and Kennedy, J.B., Shear and reaction distributions in continuous
skew composite bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, 1(4), (1996) pp.
155-165.
17. Hibbitt, H.D., Karlson, B.I., and Sorensen, E.P., ABAQUS Version 4-8, Finite
Element Program. Hibbitt, Karlson & Sorensen, Inc., Providence, RI, (1989).
18. Aggour, M. Sherif and Aggour, M. Shafik, Skewed bridges with intermediate
transverse bracings. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 105(8), (1979),
pp.1621-1636.
19. Bell, N. B., Load distribution of continuous bridges using field data and finite
element analysis. Masters Thesis, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton,
Florida, (1998).
20. ANSYS, Incorporated, ANSYS Reference Manuals. (2000).
21. Bishara, A. G., Forces at bearings of skewed bridges. Report No. FHWA/OH-
91/002, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., (1990).
22. ADINA Engineering, ADINA, Theory and Modeling Guide. Report AE 84-6,
(1984).
23. El-Ali, N. D., Evaluation of internal forces in skew multi-stringer simply

supported steel bridge., PhD thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH,
(1986).
24. SAP IV, A Structural Analysis Program for Static and Dynamic Response of
Linear Systems. EERC Report No. 73-11, University of California, Berkeley,
CA, (1974).
160
25. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Standard
Specifications for Highway Bridges. Sixteenth Edition, (1996).
26. Bridge Software Development International, Ltd., Bridge-SystemSM.

Coopersburg, PA, (1988).
161

Shear in Skewed Multi-Beam Bridges

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Shear in Skewed Multi-Beam Bridges

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

20-7/Task 107 COPY NO.

SHEAR IN SKEWED MULTI-BEAM BRIDGES

Modjeski and Masters, Inc.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

CHAPTER 4 STUDY FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

4.1 Simple Span Beam-Slab Bridge Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

CHAPTER 5 INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

5.1 Simple Span Beam-Slab Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTED RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

APPENDIX A ANALYSIS MATRICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

APPENDIX B CROSS SECTIONS AND FRAMING PLANS OF

Figure 1. Typical Beam and Slab Superstructures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Figure 2. Plan View of Typical Skewed Superstructure. Current Application

Figure 3. General Truck Placement Pattern used in NCHRP 12-26/1

Figure 4. Bridge Plan Geometries for Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Figure 5. Schematic Diagram of BSDI Finite Element Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Figure 6. Transformation of Concrete Section to Steel Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Figure 7. Procedure for Calculation of the Normalized Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Figure 8. Effect of Skew Angle on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams . . . . . . . . . . 42

Figure 9. Effect of Skew Angle on Skew Corrections Along Exterior Beams . . . . . . . . . . 42

Figure 17. Effect of Intermediate Cross Frames on Skew Corrections Along

Figure 18. Effect of Intermediate Cross Frames on Skew Corrections Along

Figure 21. Effect of Bridge Aspect Ratio on Exterior Girder Shear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Figure 22. Effect of Skew Angle on End Shear Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Figure 23. Effect of Skew Angle on End Shear Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Figure 24. Effect of Girder Stiffness on End Shear Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Figure 25. Effect of Girder Stiffness on End Shear Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Figure 26. Effect of Girder Stiffness on End Shear Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Figure 27. Effect of Girder Stiffness on End Shear Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Figure 28. Effect of Span Length on End Shear Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Figure 29. Effect of Span Length on End Shear Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Figure 30. Effect of Span Length on End Shear Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Figure 33. Effect of Slab Thickness on End Shear Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Figure 34. Complete Results for End Shear Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Figure 37. Effect of Skew Angle on End Shear Skew Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Figure 38. Comparison of Simple Span and Two-Span Continuous Skew

Figure 39. Comparison of Skew Correction Factors at Abutments and Pier . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Figure 46. Nomenclature for Investigation of Correction Factors Across the

Figure 54. Nomenclature for Investigation of Correction Factors Across the

Table 3. Base Analysis Matrix for Beam and Slab Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Table 7. Comparison of Maximum Live Load Shears from BSDI and an

Table 9. Comparison of Skew Correction Factors for Shear of Exterior Girders

Table 10. Correction Factors for Reaction at the Pier of Two-Span

Table 11. Comparison of Skew Correction Factors from LRFD Specifications

models in this study.

research was performed through finite element analysis of 41 bridge models.

Therefore, the development of such equations for continuous bridges is necessary.

bridges was not investigated in NCHRP Project 12-262.

reactions at the piers of continuous bridges was investigated.

Regardless of changes in the aforementioned bridge parameters, a

Regardless of changes in the aforementioned bridge parameters, a

For application of the research findings, the recommendations are as follows:

Skew Correction Factor for Shear, Variation Across Bearing Lines

Additional suggested research includes an investigation of the effects of torsion on web

the current design practices are considered to be acceptable.

recommendations regarding only superstructures consisting of concrete decks, filled grids, or

load distribution formulas to be incorporated in an updated AASHTO Bridge Design

Steel Beam Cast-in-place concrete

Precast Concrete I or Bulb- Cast-in-place

Closed Steel or Precast Cast-in-place concrete

Open Steel or Precast Cast-in-place concrete