Would you like to sign out?

Select Country

  • Afghanistan English
  • Albania English
  • Algeria English
  • American Samoa English
  • Andorra English
  • Angola English
  • Anguilla English
  • Antarctica English
  • Antigua and Barbuda English
  • Argentina Español
  • Armenia English
  • Aruba English
  • Australia English
  • Austria English
  • Azerbaijan English
  • Bahamas English
  • Bahrain English
  • Bangladesh English
  • Barbados English
  • Belarus English
  • Belgium English
  • Belize English
  • Benin English
  • Bermuda English
  • Bhutan English
  • Bolivia Español
  • Bosnia and Herzegovina English
  • Botswana English
  • Bouvet Island English
  • Brazil Español
  • British Indian Ocean Territory English
  • British Virgin Islands English
  • Brunei English
  • Bulgaria English
  • Burkina Faso English
  • Burundi English
  • Cambodia English
  • Cameroon English
  • Canada English
  • Cape Verde English
  • Caribbean Netherlands English
  • Cayman Islands English
  • Central African Republic English
  • Chad English
  • Chile Español
  • Christmas Island English
  • Cocos (Keeling) Islands English
  • Colombia Español
  • Comoros English
  • Congo English
  • Cook Islands English
  • Costa Rica Español
  • Côte d’Ivoire English
  • Croatia English
  • Cuba Español
  • Curaçao English
  • Cyprus English
  • Czech Republic English
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo English
  • Denmark English
  • Djibouti English
  • Dominica English
  • Dominican Republic Español
  • Ecuador Español
  • Egypt English
  • El Salvador Español
  • Equatorial Guinea English
  • Eritrea English
  • Estonia English
  • Ethiopia English
  • Falkland Islands English
  • Faroe Islands English
  • Fiji English
  • Finland English
  • France English
  • French Guiana Español
  • French Polynesia English
  • French Southern Territories English
  • Gabon English
  • Gambia English
  • Georgia English
  • Germany English
  • Ghana English
  • Gibraltar English
  • Greece English
  • Greenland English
  • Grenada English
  • Guadeloupe Español
  • Guam English
  • Guatemala Español
  • Guernsey English
  • Guinea English
  • Guinea-Bissau English
  • Guyana English
  • Haiti Español
  • Heard Island and McDonald Islands English
  • Honduras Español
  • Hong Kong English
  • Hungary English
  • Iceland English
  • India English
  • Indonesia English
  • Iran English
  • Iraq English
  • Ireland English
  • Isle of Man English
  • Israel English
  • Italy English
  • Jamaica English
  • Japan 日本語
  • Jersey English
  • Jordan English
  • Kazakhstan English
  • Kenya English
  • Kiribati English
  • South Korea 한국어
  • Kuwait English
  • Kyrgyzstan English
  • Laos English
  • Latvia English
  • Lebanon English
  • Lesotho English
  • Liberia English
  • Libya English
  • Liechtenstein English
  • Lithuania English
  • Luxembourg English
  • Macau English
  • Madagascar English
  • Malawi English
  • Malaysia English
  • Maldives English
  • Mali English
  • Malta English
  • Marshall Islands English
  • Martinique Español
  • Mauritania English
  • Mauritius English
  • Mayotte English
  • Mexico Español
  • Micronesia English
  • Moldova English
  • Monaco English
  • Mongolia English
  • Montenegro English
  • Montserrat English
  • Morocco English
  • Mozambique English
  • Myanmar English
  • Namibia English
  • Nauru English
  • Nepal English
  • Netherlands English
  • New Caledonia English
  • New Zealand English
  • Nicaragua Español
  • Niger English
  • Nigeria English
  • Niue English
  • Norfolk Island English
  • Northern Mariana Islands English
  • Norway English
  • Oman English
  • Pakistan English
  • Palau English
  • Palestine English
  • Panama Español
  • Papua New Guinea English
  • Paraguay Español
  • Peru Español
  • Philippines English
  • Pitcairn Islands English
  • Poland English
  • Portugal Español
  • Puerto Rico Español
  • Qatar English
  • Réunion English
  • Romania English
  • Russia English
  • Rwanda English
  • Saint Barthélemy Español
  • Saint Helena English
  • Saint Kitts and Nevis English
  • Saint Lucia English
  • Saint Martin Español
  • Saint Pierre and Miquelon English
  • Saint Vincent and the Grenadines English
  • Samoa English
  • San Marino English
  • Sao Tome and Principe English
  • Saudi Arabia English
  • Senegal English
  • Serbia English
  • Seychelles English
  • Sierra Leone English
  • Singapore English
  • Sint Maarten English
  • Slovakia English
  • Slovenia English
  • Solomon Islands English
  • Somalia English
  • South Africa English
  • South Georgia English
  • South Sudan English
  • Spain Español
  • Sri Lanka English
  • Sudan English
  • Suriname English
  • Svalbard and Jan Mayen English
  • Eswatini English
  • Sweden English
  • Switzerland English
  • Syria English
  • Taiwan English
  • Tajikistan English
  • Tanzania English
  • Thailand English
  • Togo English
  • Tokelau English
  • Tonga English
  • Trinidad and Tobago English
  • Tunisia English
  • Turkey English
  • Turkmenistan English
  • Turks and Caicos Islands English
  • Tuvalu English
  • U.S. Virgin Islands English
  • Uganda English
  • Ukraine English
  • United Arab Emirates English
  • United Kingdom English
  • United States of America English
  • U.S. Minor Outlying Islands English
  • Uruguay Español
  • Uzbekistan English
  • Vanuatu English
  • Vatican City English
  • Venezuela Español
  • Vietnam English
  • Wallis and Futuna English
  • Western Sahara English
  • Yemen English
  • Zambia English
  • Zimbabwe English
  • Åland Islands English
  • East Timor English
  • Netherlands Antilles English
  • Serbia and Montenegro English
  • North Macedonia English
  • Timor-Leste English
Bridge

The Challenges: Design and Construction of Irregular Bridges

Table of Contents Click the table of contents for details.

There are times when engineers would have to design and evaluate bridge structures that fall outside of the AASHTO design guideline. Therefore, when do we define a structure as irregular? How is evaluating an irregular bridge different from evaluating a regular bridge? How to minimize errors during the construction of irregular bridges? We invited midas expert Percy Penafiel, Professional Engineer Specialist from Nevada Department of Transportation, to answer some of the frequently asked questions from our users regarding evaluating irregular bridge structures. 

 

Q: The difference between evaluating a regular bridge structure and an irregular bridge structure? 

Percy: Several bridges that I have been working on while at Nevada DOT were highly skewed, that's why I have used midas to design those bridges using grillage model. I prefer using grillage model to plate and solid element model because I think the design outputs are really easy to manipulate and visualize in midas Civil using its grillage model. 

 

Percy: But first, let's talk about how AASHTO recommends what to consider as regular bridge structure. 

        • Plan Aspect Ratio: Regular if length > 2.5 Width (Spring model)                        (AASHTO 4.6.1.1)

        • Curved in Plan: Regular if maximum subtended angle (in curved bridge) is less than 30°                                                                                                                                        (Guide Specs Table 4.2.3)

        • The two tables below also define the requirements for regular bridges.

          Table 4.7.4,,3.1-2
In this table below, in case we have very high skew bridges 

Percy: In this table below, in case we have very high skew bridges, it shows the plot of dead load shear and resistance factors (y-axis) vs skew angle (x-axis), where the y-axis ranges from 0.7 - 1.6 for I-Girder factor, and 0.4 - 2.2 for Box Girder factor. x-axis ranges from 0° - 60°. Beyond the scope of this table, you would need to use more sophisticated methods to evaluate the structure. To answer your question "what's the difference between evaluating a regular bridge structure and an irregular bridge structure", if you evaluate a bridge with skew angle of 60° as a regular structure, you use the magnification factor of 1 of the exterior girder instead of 2.2 from the table below, and that will cause a significant difference. 

Dead load shear and resistance factors for skewed bridges, where the y-axis ranges fromDead load shear and resistance factors for skewed bridges, where the y-axis ranges from 0.7 - 1.6 for I-Girder factor, and 0.4 - 2.2 for Box Girder factor. x-axis ranges from 0° - 60°

 

Q: How can errors in construction lead to structural issues? If an irregular geometry is modeled in a certain way, how can errors in construction lead to problems in the original structural model? 

Percy: When it comes to irregular structure, the construction plan has to be really detailed. This entails detailed and necessary notes to guide the contractor through the construction stages I have designed. For example, as shown in the image below, the longitudinal main girders (red) are post-tensioned. The long bend cap (green) is also post-tensioned. Therefore, there should be a sequence regarding performing the post-tensioning to those structure, and they should be detailed by the engineers in the notes given to the contractors. Also, someone has to be on the field to make sure contractors follow the note to minimize errors.

 

Irregular bridge grillage model in midas Civil. 

Irregular bridge grillage model in midas Civil. 

 

Percy: Another example will show the communication between engineers and contractors is vital to ensure the irregular bridge structures are constructed to standard of initial design. The image below shows the plan view of a highly skewed bridge structure with monolithic construction consists of concrete boxes and very strong diaphragm. Due to the high skew angle, welded bar is designed at the end because high stress concentration is produced due to the high skew angle. Also, due to the geometry, the bars are designed to be welded. If the contractor does not see this notes, the bars and the bridge deck would not be able to take the moment produced. The distribution of the force would also be drastically different, and engineers would need to re-analyze the structure to look for alternative design solutions based on the current construction. Therefore, not providing details as shown on plans can lead to structural issues because the distribution force will change and thus overstressing other sections of the bridge. 

plan view

 

 

About the Editor
Percy Penafiel P.E.
Professional Engineer Specialist at Nevada DOT(Carson City, NV)

He has 20+ years of structural engineering experience, primarily in the structural design of highway bridges, pedestrian bridges, and railroad bridges. He is also skilled in drainage structures like culverts and channels, structural supports for highway signs, luminaires, traffic signals, and toll gantries. His experience also includes portal tunnels, soil nail walls, tie-back walls, MSE walls, retaining walls, and sound walls.

Subscribe to Newsletter

Catch the weekly engineer news!

What you may
also like