1

IMPLICATION OF IRC 112:2011 ON RCC BRIDGE DESIGN:

SYNOPSIS, APPLICATION AND COMPARISON WITH ITS PREDECESSOR
IRC 21:2000 AND MENTOR EUROCODE
Krunal J Mehta*, Prof. Paresh Patel**, Devang Patel***
*

PG Student, Civil Engineering Department, Institute of Technology, Nirma University, Ahmedabad;

** Head & Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Institute of Technology, Nirma University, Ahmedabad
*** Joint Principal Consultant, Spectrum Techno Consultants (P) Ltd., Ahmedabad

ABSTRACT
Past half century has seen tremendous growth of knowledge in the field of concrete as material and
its design process. Limit State philosophy a more realistic and comprehensive over Working Stress
philosophy has found its way to almost all countries design standards. Unlike western countries India has
separate codes and formation committee for concrete design as general (BIS) and bridge design (IRC).
Indian Road Congress is the latest committee to publish a code on basis of Limit State Design Philosophy
(IRC-112:2011).
Owing to wide scope of subject and limitation of content that can be justified in one paper, present
study has been concentrated around RCC segment of the code covering sections such as Basis of Design,
Materials and ULS of Flexure). Comparison of relevant clauses of IRC 112 has been made with IRC 21 and
EUROCODE (considered to be major source of influence). In the end an illustrative example of T-Beam is
used

to

compare

the

various

code

provisions

of

IRC

112

and

IRC

21

quantitatively.

1. INTRODUCTION
IRC 112, published in year 2011 (November) is a unified code for Reinforced concrete and
Prestressed concrete superseding IRC 21:2000 and IRC 18:2000. In line with international practice
IRC 112 also divides limit state into two groups Ultimate Limit State (ULS) and Serviceability Limit
State (SLS). To mention some of major facets: section 4 & 5 of code provides a detailed explanation
of Basis of Design which provides a transparent view of codal recommendations, applicability and
limitations. Section 7 of Analysis covers classical methods of analysis, modern methods such as
non-linear analysis and specialized method for torsion. Preceding sections 8 to 11 covers ULS for
flexure, axial, shear, torsional and induced deformations. Section 12 covers SLS for cracking and
deflection. Section 14 covers Durability requirements. Next three sections 15 to 17 covers
detailing requirements as a general and for seismic resistance separately. Lastly section 18 covers the
requirement of Quality control and workmanship. Code allows design using working stress method
as an alternative for verification of ULS and accordingly annexure A-4 covers the same. In order to
make descriptions more manageable, relevant section/clauses of code are mentioned in bracket.

2. SCOPE (SECTION 4)
Compared to IRC 21 which provides a general description stating This code deals with the
structural use of PCC and RCC in road bridges, IRC 112 gives a meticulous scope under section 4.
It covers purpose, aim, aspects covered alongside limitations and assumptions as shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Scope as per IRC 112:2011
1. Purpose: To establish common procedures for design and construction of concrete road bridges including foot
bridges in India.
2. Aim: To achieve construction of safe, serviceable, durable and economical bridges.
3. Aspects covered: Design principles, detailed designed criteria and practical rules, material specifications,
workmanship, quality control, all such aspects which affect characteristics/ability of bridge to meet the aims.
4. Limitations:
Applicable to normal weight concrete (Density: 24 +/- 4 kN/m3)
Not applicable for hybrid structural system
Not applicable to other types of concrete (LWC, HWC, concrete with specially modified properties)
5. Assumptions:
Choice of structural system and design carried out by competent personnel
Execution carried out by competent personnel
Adequate supervision and quality control
Construction material and products used are as per relevant standards
Intended properties considered for design are available
Use as intended & Adequate maintenance

3. BASIS OF DESIGN (SECTION 5)

Designing is similar to walking a tight rope, which requires balance between safetyserviceability-durability on one hand and economy on other. Present section though being nonoperative to design, is a step to bridge the gap between codal approach and designers intuition to
achieve the same.
In-line with international practice, IRC 112 divides Limit State Philosophy into two parts.
Ultimate Limit State (ULS) covering equilibrium and strength of structure and Serviceability Limit
State (SLS) covering deflection, crack width, vibrations and other secondary effects such as creep,
shrinkage, relaxation of steel, fatigue etc. (ref. cl. 5.2 & 5.3)
For a structure designed as per LSM, has to be reliable enough to perform as desired under
given circumstances. To measure reliability (probability of failure) code has come up with
approximate methods based on combination of following aspects:
1. Known statistical parameters describing properties of materials and actions
2. Deterministic model of structural behaviour
3. International practices & past experience
4. Partial factors for actions (loading) and resistance models (materials)

4. MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND THEIR DESIGN VALUES + QUALITY CONTROL

AND WORKMANSHIP (SECTION 6, ANNX.-A2 & SECTION 18)
Evidently Analysis & Design of a structure as a whole or its individual element require
knowledge of the properties of constituting materials (i.e. permissible stresses and strains, strength,
elongation etc.). Accordingly section 6 along with Annexure-2 provides the same. However
attainment of these properties is highly dependent on its manufacturing processes adopted, Quality of
workmanship and construction/work procedures followed. Accordingly section 18 provides
minimum acceptable standards to achieve the same.
4.1

UNTENSIONED STEEL (ref. cl. 6.2 & 18.2)

Code permits use of mild steel and carbon steel (hot rolled, TMT, de-coiled or cold worked)

of various grades as specified in Table 2. Actual and idealized Bilinear Stress v/s Strain diagram of
untensioned reinforcement is shown in figure 1 & 2 below. Table 2 also shows comparison of
properties among IRC 21, IRC 112 (WL/AS Annex.4) and IRC 112 Limit State Method. Modulus
of Elasticity to be considered for design is 200 GPa. Code permits use of idealized or simplified
bilinear diagram for design purpose; after reducing the stresses by partial safety factor for material
s. Design strain shall be limited to 0.9 times characteristic strain obtained from manufacturer of
reinf
orce
ment
.

Fig 1
&2
Actu
al & Idealized Stress Strain Diagram of Untensioned Reinforcement

4.2.

CONCRETE (ref. cl. 6.4 & 18.4)

Presently Indian Construction industry is facing a severe scarcity of skilled labour. Since

majority of concrete, being casted at site/locally often faces quality related issues. Under these
circumstances performance of concrete becomes the weakest link in achieving the design standards
set earlier. Foreseeing these, IRC 112 has provided very detailed literature describing minimum
standards, production methodologies & guidelines for concrete. It covers individual ingredients of
concrete under clause 18.4, Mix proportions under clause 18.5, acceptance criteria under section
18.6, Quality control and Workmanship criteria (such as its production, transportation, placing,
falsework,

Inspection

and

4
Table 2 Properties of Untensioned Steel (Comparison between IRC 21 & IRC 112)
Sr.
No.

Description

Grade of Steel

Characteristic
Strength / Min.
Yield Stress / 0.2%
proof stress (MPa)

Min. Tensile
Strength / as % of
actual 0.2% proof
stress / yield stress
(MPa)

Min. % Elongation

Permissible Stress
for Tension in Shear

Permissible Stress
for Tension in
Flexure or combined
bending

Type of Steel
Code
IRC 21
IRC 112 WL/AS
IRC 112 LSM
IRC 21
IRC 112 WL/AS
IRC 112 LSM

Mild Steel
Grade-I

240
240
bars 20
bars > 20
mm = 250 mm = 240

IRC 21*

410

IRC 112 WL/AS

410

IRC 112 LSM

410

IRC 21*
IRC 112 WL/AS
IRC 112 LSM
IRC 21
IRC 112 WL/AS
IRC 112 - LSM **
IRC 21
IRC 112 WL/AS
IRC 112 - LSM **

23%
23%
23%

125
125

Fe415D

415

415

415

110%
( 485)
110%
( 485)
110%
( 485)
23%
23%
23%

125
125

Fe415

415
415

112%
( 500)

High Yield Strength Deformed Steel

Fe500
Fe500D
Fe550

500
500
500
500
108%
( 545)
108%
( 545)
108%
( 545)

Fe550D

Fe600

500

550

550

600

110%
( 565)

106%
( 585)

108%
( 600)

106%
( 600)

14.50%
12%
14.50%
12%
14.50%
18%
12%
16%
10%
14.50%
200
240
200
200
200
200
Same as minimum yield stress / 0.2% proof stress (Sr. No. 2 of the table)
200
240
200
200
240
240
-

Same as minimum yield stress / 0.2% proof stress (Sr. No. 2 of the table)

IRC 21
115
170
205
IRC
112

WL/AS
115
170
170
205
205
7
**
IRC 112 - LSM
Same as minimum yield stress / 0.2% proof stress (Sr. No. 2 of the table)
IRC 21
95
95
95
Permissible Stress
8
for Tension in
IRC 112 WL/AS
95
95
95
95
95
helical rein.
IRC 112 - LSM **
Same as minimum yield stress / 0.2% proof stress (Sr. No. 2 of the table)
* Cross reference from relevant Indian Standards
** Values to be divided by Partial safety factor for material (s) = 1.15 for basic and seismic combination & 1.0 for accidental combination.
Note: For seismic zone III, IV & V; HYSD steel bars having minimum elongation of 14.5% and confirming to IS 1786 shall be used.
Permissible Stress
for Direct
Compression

10%
-

testing etc.) Under clause 18.8. Mechanical properties of concrete are covered in section 6.4 and
Annexure A-2 of IRC 112. For brevity of the space only basic mechanical properties are covered
here. Grades of concrete are classified in three categories as follows:
1. Ordinary Concrete: M15 & M20 made on basis of nominal mixed proportioned by weight.
2. Standard Concrete: M15 to M50 (in multiples of 5) made on basis of Mix design which apart
from standard ingredients may also contain chemical admixtures.
3. High Performance Concrete: M30 to M90 (in multiples of 5) made on basis of Mix design
which is similar to standard concrete but may also contain one or more mineral admixtures for
property modifications.
Similar to majority of western countries EUROCODE has adopted concrete strength in terms of
standard cylinder strength. However as per Indian practice IRC follows a model based on cube
strength. Accordingly co-relation equations of relative mechanical properties are converted to
equivalent cube strength. Co-relation between cylinder and compressive strength is considered as: fck,
cyl

= 0.8 x fck, cube accordingly equation fcm, cyl = fck, cyl + 8 MPa (ref. EC-2) is converted to fcm, cube =

fck, cube + 10 MPa.

Un-confined concrete
Design compressive stress for concrete is obtained by:
Where, = 0.67, factor for effect of sustained loading and gain of strength with time [ref. 6.4.2.2(2)]
m = Partial factor of safety for material = 1.5 for Basic & Seismic combination
1.2 for Accidental combination
IRC 112 provides three alternatives of Stress-Strain relationship for design of section,
a. Parabolic rectangular stress-strain relationship (fig. 3)
b. Bi-linear stress-strain relationship (fig. 4)
c. Simplified rectangular stress-strain relationship (fig. 5)

Fig 3 Parabolic rectangular stress-strain relationship

Fig 4 Bilinear stress-strain relationship

Where, = 0.8 for fck 60 MPa

= 0.8 (fck 60) / 500 for 60 fck 110 MPa
= 1.0 for fck 60 MPa
= 1.0 (fck 60) / 250 for 60 fck 110 MPa
Note: If the width of compression zone
Fig 5 Simplified rectangular stress-strain relationship

compression

fiber,

value

of

decreases in the direction of the extreme

fcd

should

be

reduced

Table 3 compares these three idealizations in terms of average stress (fav) over a rectangular
compression zone (from extreme compression fiber to neutral axis) and the distance from the
compression face of section to the center of compression, which can be used for flexure design
calculations.

Grade
M15
M20
M25
M30
M35
M40
M45
M50
M55
M60
M65
M70
M75
M80
M85
M90

Table 3 Comparison of Stress block idealization ( = 0.67 & m=1.5)

Parabolic rectangular
Bilinear
Simplified rectangular
fav

fav

Fav

Average Stress
ratio of depth to
Average
ratio of depth
Average Stress
ratio of depth to
(MPa)
n.a. depth
Stress (MPa)
to n.a. depth
(MPa)
n.a. depth
5.424
0.416
5.025
0.389
5.360
0.400
7.232
0.416
6.700
0.389
7.147
0.400
9.040
0.416
8.375
0.389
8.933
0.400
10.848
0.416
10.050
0.389
10.720
0.400
12.656
0.416
11.725
0.389
12.507
0.400
14.463
0.416
13.400
0.389
14.293
0.400
16.271
0.416
15.075
0.389
16.080
0.400
18.079
0.416
16.750
0.389
17.867
0.400
19.887
0.416
18.425
0.389
19.653
0.400
21.695
0.416
20.100
0.389
21.440
0.400
22.624
0.405
21.284
0.383
22.478
0.395
22.927
0.389
21.928
0.372
23.412
0.390
23.235
0.377
22.536
0.363
24.247
0.385
23.626
0.368
23.158
0.356
24.985
0.380
24.165
0.362
23.828
0.351
25.628
0.375
24.873
0.358
24.554
0.347
26.178
0.370

5. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE FOR FLEXURE:

Capacity of a flexure member can be found by use of strain compatibity method as shown below:
1. Assume a neutral axis depth and calculate the strains in the tension and compression
reinforcement by assuming linear strain distribution and a strain of cu2 (or cu3 as the case may be) at
the extreme fiber of the concrete in compression.
2. From stress-strain idealization, calculate steel stresses appropriate to the calculated steel strains.
3. From stress-strain idealization, calculate the concrete stresses appropriate to the strains associated
with the assumed neutral axis depth.
4. Calculate the net tensile and compressive forces at the section. If they are not equal, adjust the
neutral axis depth and return to step-1.

5. When net tensile force are equal to net compressive force, take moment about a common point in
the section and determine moment of resistance.
This method, being iterative, is tedious for hand calculations however shall be used for nonuniform section. Formulas for sections such as Rectangular and Flanged-Tee are given below.
However special care must be taken regarding strain level in steel so as to avoid brittle failure (when
strain in concrete reaches it limiting value prior to steel).
For rectangular section:
1. Singly under- reinforced:

For tension steel to yield

2. Singly Balanced:
3. Doubly reinforced :

For compression steel to yield before concrete:

For Flanged Section:

1. Neutral Axis lies in Flange: Similar to Singly reinforced rectangular section
2. Neutral Axis lies in Web:
I.

II.

Depth of rectangular part of stress block is greater than the depth of flange

Depth of rectangular part of stress block is less than the depth of

flange
Considering Whitney stress block, replace

Table
value
of strainofx/d
Limiting
value4ofLimiting
x/d for all three
idealizations
strain block
Steel

Df by,
In above equation

Limiting value x/d can directly be taken

MS-G-I

Fe415

Fe500

Fe550

Fe600

fck 60

0.77

0.66

0.62

0.59

0.57

65

0.76

0.65

0.61

0.58

0.56

70

0.75

0.63

0.59

0.56

0.54

75

0.73

0.62

0.57

0.55

0.53

80

0.73

0.6

0.56

0.54

0.51

85

0.72

0.6

0.55

0.53

0.51

90

0.72

0.59

0.55

0.52

0.5

Concrete

from Table 4.
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE: An example of RCC T-Beam is used to compare Working Stress
(IRC 21) & Limit State (IRC 112) design philosophy. (Ref. Table 5 below)

8
Table 5 Illustrative Example Results

Design Philosophy
Parameters
Effective Flange Width
Flange Thickness
Web Thickness
Overall Depth
SLS - Moment
ULS - Moment
Clear cover
Ast Assumed
Area of Steel (Ast)
Effective Depth (d)
Concrete Grade (fck)
Steel Grade (fy)
fav

Ast,min
Permissible Comp. stress
Permissible tensile stress
Moment of Resistance
Crack Width calculation
Actual Crack width
Limiting crack width

IRC 21
Working
Stress
Method
3000
240
300
1400
1865
2750
40
8 # 32

IRC 112
Limit State Method

unit

3000
240
300
1400
1865
2750
40
6 # 32 + 2 # 20

Simplified
Rectangular
3000
240
300
1400
1865
2750
40
6 # 32 + 2 # 20

mm
mm
mm
mm
kN-m
kN-m
mm
Nos

5454
1302
40
500
14.463
0.416
609
3033

5454
1302
40
500
13.4
0.389
609
3032

5454
1302
40
500
14.293
0.4
609
3034

mm2
mm
MPa
MPa
MPa
mm2
MPa
MPa
kN-m

0.13
0.30

0.13
0.30

0.00
0.30

mm
mm

Rectangular - Parabolic

Bi-linear

3000
240
300
1400
1865
2750
40
6 # 32 + 2 # 20

6434
1288
40
500
464
4.69 < 13.33
227.98 < 240
-

CONCLUSION
IRC 112, Code is based on design philosophy which gives fair importance to each aspects of
safety, serviceability, durability & economy. It also emphasizes on quality control and workmanship
to achieve the desired standards. The code seems less user friendly initially, in a manner, it requires a
thorough understanding of elementary concepts of engineering and design. However once
understood, it provides more freedom / choices to designers while restricting the violation of very
basic fundamentals of safety.
REFERENCES
1. N. Koshi, S G Joglekar, T. Viswanathan, A K Mullick, A K Mittal, Vinay Gupta, Alok
Bhowmick, Umesh Rajeshirke, V N Heggade. Code of practice for Concrete Road Bridges
IRC 112:2011. Proceedings of Workshop by Indian Concrete Institute (New Delhi Centre),
New Delhi May, 02-04 , 2013
2. IRC-21:2000. Standard specifications and code of practice for road bridges -section-III Cement Concrete (plain and reinforced), third revision.
3. IRC-112:2011. Code of practice for concrete road bridges first publication.
4. EUROCODE 2 (EN 1992-2). Design of Concrete Structures Part 2: Concrete Bridges.
5. C.R.Hendy, D.A.Smith. Designers Guide to EN 1992-2, EUROCODE 2: Design of
Concrete Structures Part 2: Concrete Bridges.