Progressive collapse analysis of steel truss bridges and evaluation of ductility

Deteriorated steel truss bridges have caused catastrophes in the USA and Japan. Progressive collapse analysis is carried out for three continuous steel truss bridge models with a total length of 230.0 m using large deformation and elastic plastic analysis. The analysis is to clarify how the live load intensity and distribution affect ultimate strength and ductility of two steel truss bridge models, Bridge Model A with a span ratio of 1:2:1 and Bridge Model B with a span ratio of 1:1.3:1. Sizes and steel grades of the truss members are determined so that they are within the allowable stress for the design dead and live loads. After the design load is applied, the live load is increased until the bridge model collapses. Although the collapse process differs depending on live load distribution and span length ratio, both steel truss bridge models collapse due to buckling of compression members. When the live load is fully applied in the center span, the span ratio does not affect the ultimate strength which is sufficiently high and the model bridge is safe. When the live load is applied in the side span, the model bridge with a longer side span has higher ultimate strength. When the live load is applied near the intermediate support, the model bridge with a longer center span has higher ultimate strength. As for the ductility factor which is defined by the ultimate load over the yield load, Bridge Model B is in general more ductile than Bridge Model A. This leads to the fact that the center and side span length ratio of Bridge Model B with more commonly used dimensions is rational. This study clarifies the collapse process, buckling strength, and influences of live load distribution and the span ratio on a steel truss bridge.

► Large deformation and elastic plastic analysis were applied to steel truss bridges.
► The collapse process, buckling strength, and influences of live load were found.
► The collapse process differs depending on live load distribution and span ratio.
► The steel truss bridge models collapsed due to buckling of compression members.
► Bridge Model B (span ratio 1:2:1) was more ductile than Bridge Model A (1:1.3:1).