Effects of Curvature on Beams under Static Loading

Katie Bowden
University of Nevada, Reno
REU Institution: University of Nevada, Reno
REU Mentors: Kelly Doyle and Dr. Ian Buckle

Abstract
The purpose of this study is to determine how various properties (such as the bending moment,
twisting moment, deflection, torsional rotation, and stiffness) of a fixed-fixed single span beam
are affected with increasing curvature. The results from this comparison will be considered in the
design of a four span curved bridge that will be tested under seismic loads in the Large Scale
Structures Laboratory at the University of Nevada, Reno. The analysis began by using nonlinear
equations to calculate how curvature affects beams under static distributed loads. Next, the
center span of the bridge was modeled as a beam using a structural analysis program (SAP 2000
v.12) to make more in-depth comparisons between curved and straight beams. In addition, crossbraced beams were modeled to determine the effect of bracing on the system. Preliminary results
show that curved beams under a distributed load experience increased end span moments and
twisting moments that are nonexistent in straight beams. Curvature also increases resistance to
rotation under torsional loading, and torsional bracing is more effective in curved beams than in
straight ones. These results indicate that curvature significantly impacts the behavior of members
under static loads, so it is important that these effects be considered in their design.

Introduction
The University of Nevada, Renos Large Scale Structures Laboratory recently acquired a fourth
shake table, allowing for the design and testing of a 0.4 scale curved bridge that will span across
all four shake tables (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Layout of Large Scale Structures Laboratory containing four span curved bridge.

Seismic effects have never before been tested on curved bridges, so the magnitude of the effects
of the curvature on a bridges structural behavior during an earthquake is unknown. The results
of this study will show how various properties of curved beams differ from straight beams, and
whether they are significant enough to be considered in the design of the four span curved bridge
that will be tested in the Large Scale Structures Laboratory (Figure 2).
Newest Triaxial Shake Table

Three Existing Biaxial Shake Tables

Figure 2: The four shake tables in the Large Scale Structures Laboratory.

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

specifications only provide structural design provisions for straight highway bridges (curvature is
not considered). In past projects, linear theory has been applied to predict the seismic response of
curved highway bridges and how these structures should be designed. This research will help
determine whether the effects of curvature are significant enough to require adjustments in
design procedures for nonlinear applications (such as curved bridges).

Methods
The numerical analysis began by using nonlinear equations from ROARKS Formulas for Stress
and Strains to calculate how curvature affects beams under static distributed loads. Applying
these equations (in Excel 2007) for the bending moment (M), twisting moment (T), and
deflection (y) experienced along the length of a curved beam allowed for comparison to
calculations for a straight beam with the same boundary and load conditions. The conditions
chosen for the beam were intended to reflect the center span of the bridge being tested in the
Structures Laboratory; this configuration was a 61 ft long beam that is fixed at both ends with an
80 ft. radius of curvature. It is curved 48 degrees and under a constant distributed load equal to
the self weight of the bridge materials (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Beam conditions chosen to reflect the center span of the bridge.

The modulus of elasticity (E), shear modulus (G), moment of inertia (I), and torsional stiffness
constant (J), of the beam were required to apply ROARKS formulas. These input values were
retrieved from the structural analysis program SAP 2000 v.12 (containing a finite element model
of the four span bridge) and verified using hand calculations. In order to hand calculate the input
values required for ROARKS equations, the cross section of the steel-reinforced concrete bridge
had to be treated as a uniform material. This was done by transforming an area of steel into an
equivalent area of concrete (and vice versa) to determine the properties of the composite
material. The cross section was first transformed to steel, and hand calculated I and J values were
compared with the SAP property values for a steel section. This process was repeated for a
concrete section to ensure that both material properties were correctly defined in SAP. Once
correct input values were verified, M, T, and y were calculated, and the results of the straight and
curved beams were compared.
The calculations using ROARKS equations were only done for the unbraced cross section of the
bridge, due to the complexity of hand calculating I and J for a torsionally braced cross section.
Because the actual four span bridge was designed with braces discretely along its entire length, it
was important to see the effects that bracing would have on the beams properties as well. This
was done by applying equations for effective brace stiffness from a report on Bracing of Steel
Beams in Bridges. The brace stiffness, , would indicate how effective a brace was in stiffening
the curved bridge to resist torsion.
Next, the center span of the bridge was modeled several ways using SAP 2000 v.12 to make
more in-depth comparisons between the behavior of curved and straight beams under static
loads. In addition, cross-braced beams were modeled to determine the effect of bracing on the
systems, both for the curved and straight cases. Eight models of the modified bridge were

created: a straight cantilever, a curved cantilever, a straight fixed-fixed single span beam, and a
curved fixed-fixed single span beam, each with and without cross bracing. The substructure of
the bridge was removed in these models so that only the bridge deck and supporting girders
remained (Figure 4).

Unbraced Models
Straight Cantilever

Curved Cantilever

Straight Beam

Curved Beam

Braced Models
Straight Cantilever

Curved Cantilever

Straight Beam

Curved Beam

Figure 4: Bridge models created in SAP 2000 v.12.

Vertical force was applied (at the free end of the cantilevers and at center span of the beams) to
induce a 1000 kip-in torque on each model (Figures 5a and 5b). The effects of the curvature and
bracing on the systems rotation (), torsional stiffness (GJ), and rotational stiffness () were
investigated.

Figure 5a: The braced cross section of a beam model with vertical force being applied to induce
a 1000 kip-in torque.

Figure 5b: The deformed shape of a model experiencing 1000 kip-in of torque.

Comparisons were also made between the axial forces present in the braces of the curved vs. the
straight beam models. The axial forces in each frame member along the length of the curved and
straight beams were graphed for comparison. The braces were numbered one to eleven, and the
axial forces were recorded in the two top chords, bottom chords, and four diagonal members of
each brace.

Inside

9 10

11

Outside

Figure 6: Brace numbering system and cross section view of a torsional brace.

Results
The input values obtained from SAP for ROARKS equations (to calculate bending moment (M),
twisting moment (T), and deflection(y)) were first compared to values determined with hand
calculations. The moment of inertia (I) and the torsional stiffness constant (J) calculated for both
equivalent steel and concrete sections were compared. The SAP values for J were slightly higher
than the hand calculated values, since the small area of the haunch of the bridge was neglected in
the hand calculations (Table 1).
Table 1: I and J values calculated by hand compared to the values obtained from SAP.
Hand Calculations vs. SAP Inputs
4

Moment of Inertia, I (in )

Hand Calculation Inputs-Steel
12011
SAP Inputs-Steel
11667
Hand Calculation Inputs-Concrete
96623
SAP Inputs-Concrete
93855
Percent Difference from Hand Calculation
Moment of Inertia (%)
SAP Inputs-Steel
2.86
SAP Inputs-Concrete
2.95

Torsional Stiffness Constant, J (in )

214.2
240
1590.7
1782.5
Torsional Stiffness Constant (%)
10.75
10.76

However, when the differing values for I and J were inputted into ROARKS equations, the
variation in M, T, and y results were minimal enough to accept SAPs input values for the
comparison of the curved and straight beams (Table 2).

Table 2: Critical values of M, T, and y using hand calculated input values compared to values
from SAP.
Hand Calculations vs. SAP Inputs
End Span Bending Moment (kip-ft) End Span Twisting Moment (kip-ft) Maximum Deflection (in)
Hand Calculation Inputs-Steel
-278.2
18
0.338
SAP Inputs-Steel
-277.6
17.7
0.328
Hand Calculation Inputs-Concrete
-278.2
18
0.338
SAP Inputs-Concrete
-277.6
17.7
0.328
Percent Difference from Hand Calculation
End Span Bending Moment (%)
End Span Twisting Moment (%) Maximum Deflection (%)
SAP Inputs-Steel
0.22
1.67
3.05
SAP Inputs-Concrete
0.22
1.69
3.05

The critical values of M, T, and y under the beams weight were all larger in the curved case than
the straight case. The end span bending moments in the curved beam were 83 kip-ft larger than
the end span moments in the straight beam. This increased end span moment indicates the
importance of considering the beams curvature. The curvature of the beam also caused twisting
moments to develop along the beam that do not affect straight beams. The twisting action is
caused by the non-centric location of the center of gravity in curved beams; therefore, twisting

moments must be considered when designing beams with curvature. The beams curvature also
increased the maximum deflection of the beam, indicating the increased demand on the curved
beam when compared to the straight beam. The bending moment, twisting moment, and
deflection experienced along the curved and straight beams lengths are displayed in Figure 7.

Curved Beam vs. Straight Beam:

Bending Moment
100.00

Bending Moment (kip-ft)

50.00
0.00
-50.00
Curved Beam
-100.00
Straight Beam

-150.00
-200.00
-250.00
-300.00
0

12

18

24

30

36

42

48

Angle (deg)

Curved Beam vs. Straight Beam:

Twisting Moment
20.00

Twisting Moment (kip -ft)

15.00
10.00
5.00

Curved Beam

0.00
Straight Beam

-5.00
-10.00
-15.00
-20.00
0

12

18

24

30

Angle (deg)

36

42

48

Curved Beam vs. Straight Beam:

Vertical Deflection

Deflection (in)

0.25

0.00
Curved Bridge
Deflection (in)
Straight Bridge
Deflection (in)

-0.25

-0.50
0

12

18

24

30

36

42

48

Angle (deg)

Figure 7: M, T, and y experienced by a curved and straight beam under the same load and
boundary conditions.
The 1000 kip-in torque applied to the models created in SAP had varying effects on the , GJ,
and of each system depending on whether they were cantilevers vs. single span beams, straight
vs. curved, and unbraced vs. braced. The rotation of the system decreased in the curved systems,
and was restrained when braces were added discretely along the members length. The single
span beams experienced much less rotation than the cantilevers due to increased restraint from
the fixed condition at each end (Figure 8).

Rotation, (radians)
0.0200
0.0180
0.0160
0.0140
0.0120
0.0100
0.0080
0.0060
0.0040
0.0020
0.0000

Cantilever

Single Span

Unbraced
Braced

Straight

Curved

Straight

Curved

Figure 8: Rotation experienced by each of the eight models under the 1000 kip-in torque.

The torsional stiffness and rotational stiffness were greater in the curved members, and the single
span beams had significantly larger GJ and values than the cantilevers due to the boundary
constraints (Figure 9).

GJ x106 (kip-in2 )
400

Cantilever

350

Single Span

GJ x10 6

300
250
200

Unbraced

150

Braced

100
50
0

Straight

Curved

Straight

Curved

x104 (kip-in/rad )
50

Cantilever

Single Span

x10 4

40
30
Unbraced
20

Braced

10
0

Straight

Curved

Straight

Curved

Figure 9: The stiffness properties of each of the eight models.

When comparing the single span beams, the contribution of the added cross-frames on GJ and
was more significant in the curved cases, indicating the increased importance of these torsional
braces in a curved bridge application (Figure 10).

GJX-Frame x106 (kip-in2 )

30

Cantilever

Single Span

GJX-Framex106

25
20
15

Braced

10
5
0

Straight

Curved

Straight

Curved

X-Frame x104 (kip-in/rad )

4.5
4.0

Cantilever

Single Span

X-Framex104

3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0

Braced

1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Straight

Curved

Straight

Curved

Figure 10: The stiffness provided by the torsional bracing.

The axial forces in the top and bottom chords of the braces were evenly distributed along the
entire cross section in the straight beams. In the curved beams, the inside members had higher
axial forces than the outside members.

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2
-1.4
-1.6

Axial Force in each Brace:

Bottom Chord 2
0.6
0.4
0.2
Curved Beam

Straight Beam

Axial Force (kip)

Axial Force (kip)

Axial Force in each Brace:

Bottom Chord 1

Curved Beam

0
-0.2

Straight Beam

-0.4
-0.6
-0.8

Inside

Outside

Inside

-1

10 11

Brace No.

Outside

10 11

Axial Force in each Brace:

Diagonal 2

0.4

0.6

0.2

0.5

0.4
Curved Beam

-0.2
-0.4
-0.6

Straight Beam

-0.8
-1

Axial Force (kip)

Axial Force (kip)

Brace No.

Axial Force in each Brace:

Diagonal 1

Curved Beam

0.3
0.2

Straight Beam

0.1
0
-0.1

-1.2

-0.2

-1.4
Inside

-1.6
1

Outside

Inside

-0.3

10 11

Brace No.

Outside

10 11

Brace No.

Axial Force in each Brace:

Diagonal 4

Axial Force in each Brace:

Diagonal 3
1

0.4
0.2

0.8

Curved Beam

-0.2
-0.4
-0.6

Straight Beam

-0.8
-1
-1.2

Axial Force (kip)

0
Axial Force (kip)

0.6

Curved Beam

0.4
Straight Beam

0.2
0
-0.2

-1.4
Inside

-1.6
1

Brace No.

10 11

Outside

Inside

-0.4
1

Brace No.

10 11

Outside

Axial Force in each Brace:

Top Chord 1

Axial Force in each Brace:

Top Chord 2

0.1

0.12
0.1
0.08
Curved Beam

0
-0.05

Straight Beam

-0.1

Axial Force (kip)

Axial Force (kip)

0.05

Curved Beam

0.06
0.04
0.02

Straight Beam

0
-0.02
-0.04

-0.15

-0.06
Inside

-0.2
1

Brace No.

10 11

Outside

Inside

-0.08
1

Outside

10 11

Brace No.

Figure 11: Axial force in each brace member along the length of the curved and straight beams

Conclusion
Studying the effects of curvature on simplified models of curved bridges will help predict the
actual bridges behavior under seismic loads. These preliminary results discuss how differently a
curved member will bend, twist, deflect, and rotate than a straight member under the same load
conditions.
The curved beam under a distributed load experienced larger end span moments and deflections
than the straight beam under the same load and boundary conditions. There were also twisting
moments in the curved beam that were not present in the straight beam. These results showed
that curvature increased the demand on the beams under static loading, indicating that curved
members under these conditions must be designed with a higher capacity than straight members
under the same conditions.
When applying a torque to curved and straight cantilevers and beams, the curved systems were
more resistant to rotation and torsion in every case. The curvature reduced the rotational
deformation under load, a beneficial property when considering real life applications involving
people driving on curved bridges that are twisting during a seismic event.
Torsional braces added more stiffness to the curved single span beams than the straight single
span beams; the braces were even more effective in reducing the rotation and torsion in the
curved than the straight cases. The increased stiffness of the braced systems showed the
advantage of including bracing in curved members that experience this type of loading. The
braces added minimal stiffness to the cantilevers, indicating the ineffectiveness of adding them
when motion is not restrained on each end of the braced member.
Axial forces present in the straight beam braces were evenly distributed across the cross section
of the top and bottom chords. The curvature of the curved beam caused an uneven distribution of
forces across its cross section, with larger forces present on the inside chords. This comparison
demonstrated how differently the distribution of axial forces was in the curved and straight cases,
an important consideration for the design.

The results of these studies indicate that the effects of a beams curvature are significant enough
that they need to be considered in design procedures for curved bridges. There are differences in
the stiffness properties of the curved beam as well as the moments, deflections, rotation, and
axial forces experienced by the curved beam (when compared to a straight beam under the same
loading and boundary conditions). The measurable effects of curvature should be further
investigated to determine what modifications need to be made to existing design standards to
account for the curvature in bridges.

References
Young, Warren C (1989). ROARKS Formulas for Stress & Strain. Curved Beams, McGrawHill, Inc., Singapore, 233-343.
Yura, Joseph, et al. (1992). Bracing of Steel Beams in Bridges. Center for Transportation
Research, The University of Texas at Austin.

Acknowledgements
Thank you to the George E. Brown Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES)
and the National Science Foundation (NSF) for providing funding for this project. Also, thanks
to NEESreu 2009 for giving undergraduate students the opportunity to experience research prior
to graduate school.
A special thanks to Kelly Doyle for all her help and guidance as an REU mentor, and to Dr. Ian
Buckle, Dr. Ahmad Itani, Dr. David Sanders, and Eric Monzone (Ph. D student) who frequently
assisted me with this project.