Y. Yadu Priya et al.

, International Journal of Research in IT, Management and Engineering, ISSN 2249-1619,

Impact Factor: 6.123, Vo lu me 06 Issue 09, September 2016, Page 9-17

Comparative Analysis of Post Tensioned

T-Beam Bridge Deck by Rational Method
and Finite Element Method
Y. Yadu Priya1 and T. Sujatha2
(Post Graduate Student, V.R. Siddhartha Engineering College, Kanuru, Andhra Pradesh )
(Assistant Professor, V.R. Siddhartha Engineering College, Kanuru, Andhra Pradesh)
Abstract: In modern days in the field of bridge engineering, the enhancement of pre -stressed concrete bridge
decks have been increased due to its better ability to carry live loads. The analysis is carried out using IRC codal
provisions. T-beam bridge decks are one of the major types of cast in-situ concrete deck s which consist of a concrete
slab integral with girders. The problem in continuum mechanics is approximated by FEM ( finite element method) in
STAAD Pro, which is general method of structural analysis. In this study a single span two lane t-beam bridge is
analyzed by varying the span of 25m, 30m, 35m, 40m where the width is kept constant. The bridge models are
subjected to the IRC class AA and IRC 70R tracked loading system in order to obtain maximum bending moment
and shear force. From the analysis it is observed that with the increase in the span, shear force and bending moment
in the girder increases. It is also observed that the results of bending moments and shear forces obtained from both
courbon’s method and finite element method have no significant variation.
Keywords: T-beam, I.R.C. Loadings, FEM, STAAD ProV8i

I. INTRODUCTION
Now day’s conventional bridges are being replaced by pre stressed bridges because of their cost efficiency,
better stability, serviceability. Pre stressed concrete bridges are of a technique which avoids concrete weakness in
tension. These type of bridges can have the span range of 20-40m whereas the conventional bridge span is between
10-20m. The number of longitudinal girders depends on the width of the road. T-beam bridges are composed of
deck slab 20 to 25cm thick and longitudinal girders spaced from 2 to 2.5m and cross beams are provided at 4 to 5m
interval. Pre-stressed concrete is basically concrete in which internal stresses of a suitable magnitude and
distribution are introduced so that the stresses resulting from external loads are counteracted to a desired degree. In
reinforced concrete members, the pre-stress is commonly introduced by tensioning the steel reinfo rcement.
In this study, for a post tensioned t-beam bridge deck analysis is done for four different spans 25m, 30m,
35m, 40m using rat ional method (Courbon’s method) and finite ele ment method(STAAD.Pro V8i). These four spans
are analyzed fo r two different IRC loadings cases IRC Class AA tracked and IRC Class 70R tracked . Each span is
provided with two lanes. Bending mo ments and shear forces for different spans are observed.

Figure1: Typical section of a bri dge showing vari ous parts

OBJ ECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY OF THE S TUDY

Objecti ves
In this project a co mparative study of post tensioned T beam Bridge with different spans by rational method
and finite element method is carried out under standard IRC loadings. The maximu m bending mo ments and shear
forces are calculated.
Methodol ogy
Analysis of post tensioned T-BEAM Bridge is carried out by Rational method for different spans i.e is
25m, 30m , 35m,40m.

www.indusedu.org Page 9
Y. Yadu Priya et al., International Journal of Research in IT, Management and Engineering, ISSN 2249-1619,
Impact Factor: 6.123, Vo lu me 06 Issue 09, September 2016, Page 9-17

Analysis Of Rat ional method and FEM will be done by using IRC Codes.
Analysis is done for IRC Class AA and 70R tracked vehicle loading.
FEM Analysis of T-BEAM Bridge is carried out by using Staad Pro V8i Software for different spans.
Co mparison of rational method and FEM results fro m Staad Pro will be done.
Loads acting on Bri dge
Dead Load
Dead or permanent loading is the gravity loading due to the structure and other items permanently attached
to it. It is simply calculated as the product of volume and material density.
Li ve loads
Live load means a load that moves along the length of the span. These loads are categorized based on their
configuration and intensity. Classification of several loadings is :
IRC class AA loading
IRC class70R loading
IRC class A loading
IRC class B loading
Loadings considered in this study are IRC class AA and class 70R tracked loadings which are almost similar
IRC class AA l oading
Two different types of vehicles are specified under this category grouped as tracked and wheeled vehicles.
The IRC Class AA tracked vehicle (simu lating an army tank) o f 700 kN and a wheeled vehicle (heavy duty army
truck) of 400 kN. All the bridges located on National Highways and State Highways have to be designed for this
heavy loading. These loadings are also adopted for bridges lo cated within certain specified municipal localities and
along specified highways. Alternatively, another type of loading designated as Class 70 R is specified instead of
Class AA loading.
IRC Cl ass 70 R Loading
IRC 70 R loading consists of the following three types of vehicles.
a) Tracked vehicle of total load 700 kN with two tracks each weighing 350 kN.
b) Wheeled vehicle co mprising 4 wheels, each with a load of 100 kN totaling 400 kN.
c) Wheeled vehicle with a train of vehicles on seven axles with a total load of 1000 kN.
The tracked vehicle is somewhat similar to that of Class A A, except that the contact length of the track is
4.87 m, the nose to tail length of the vehicle is 7.92 m and the specified min imu m spacing between successive
vehicles is 30 m. The wheeled vehicle is 15.22 m long and has seven axles with the loads totaling to 1000 kN. The
bogie axle type loading with 4 wheels

Figure2: IRC Loadi ng

Impact Load:
For I.R.C. Class AA or 70R loading
(i) For span less than 9 meters
For tracked vehicle- 25% for a span up to 5m linearly reduced to a 10% for a span of 9m. For wheeled
vehicles-25%

www.indusedu.org Page 10
Y. Yadu Priya et al., International Journal of Research in IT, Management and Engineering, ISSN 2249-1619,
Impact Factor: 6.123, Vo lu me 06 Issue 09, September 2016, Page 9-17

(ii) For span of 9 m or mo re

For tracked vehicle- for R.C. b ridges, 10% up to a span of 40m. For steel bridges, 10% for all spans.
For wheeled vehicles- for R.C. bridges, 25% up to a span of 12m. For steel bridges, 25% for span up to
23 meters

II. RATIONAL METHODS OF ANALYSIS OF BRIDGE

It can be done in several procedures such as:
1. Courbon’s Method
2. Guyyon Massonet Method
3. Hendry-Jaegar Method
4. This study has been done using the Courbon’s Method
Courbon’s Method
Among these methods, Courbon’s method is the simplest and is applicable when the following conditions
are satisfied:
a) The rat io of span to width of deck is greater than 2 but less than 4.
b) The longitudinal g irders are interconnected by at least five symmetrically spaced cross girders.
c) The cross girder extends to a depth of at least 0.75 times the depth of the longitudinal girders.
Courbon’s method is popular due to the simplicity of co mputations as detailed below:
When the live loads are positioned nearer to the kerb the centre of gravity of live load acts eccentrically with the
centre of gravity of the girder system. Due to this eccentricity, the loads shared by each girder is increased or
decreased depending upon the posit ion of the girders. This is calculated by Courbon’s theory by a react ion factor
given by

= distance of the girder under consideration fro m the central axis of the bridge
W = Total concentrated live load
N = nu mber of longitudinal g irders
e = Eccentricity of live load with respect to the axis of the bridge.

Analysis of t-beam Bri dge by rational method

Courbon’s Method
Analysis of PT t-beam b ridge deck by IRC CLA SS AA TRA CKED LOADING for 30m
Preliminary Details
clear width of roadway=7.5m
footpaths=1m wide
thickness of wearing coat=100mm
spacing of cross girders=5m c/c
live load IRC class AA tracked vehicle
materials: M-40 for deck slab
M-50 fo r girders
7mm d ia high strength strands with ultimate tensile strength at 1500MPa.Cab le consists of 12
strands anchored at the end with a suitable dia meter anchor block
Permissible stresses and design constants
The permissible co mpressive stresses in the concrete at transfer and at working loads as recommended in
IRC 18 are as follows:
<0.5 =0.5×40=20 M Pa
Loss ratio=0.8
Permissible co mpressive stress in concrete under service loads( )=16.5 MPa
Allowab le tensile stress in concrete at initial transfer of prestress( )=0
Allowab le tensile stress in concrete under service loads( )=0
Maximu m Bending Moment due to Dead Load
a) Weight of Deck Slab = 0.25 X 24×1×1 = 6 KN
b) Weight of Wearing Course = 0.1 X 22×1×1= 2.2KN
c) Total Weight = 8.2KN

www.indusedu.org Page 11
Y. Yadu Priya et al., International Journal of Research in IT, Management and Engineering, ISSN 2249-1619,
Impact Factor: 6.123, Vo lu me 06 Issue 09, September 2016, Page 9-17

Longitudinal Girder and Cross Girder Design

a) Reacti on Factor Bending Moment in Longitudinal Girders by Courbons’s Method for Cl ass AA
Tracked Vehicle

Figure3: Showing eccentricity and clearance

Mi ni mum Clearance Distance: 1.2 + 0.85/ 2 = 1.625m
e = 1.1 , P =w/ 2

For outer girders =0.382W

For inner girders =0.294W
b) Dead l oad from slab for girder
Dead load of deck Slab is calculated as follo ws
Weight of
1. Parapet Railing…………………...…..0.800KN/ m
2. Footpath= (0.3 x1x24)………….7.2KN/ m
3. Deck slab = (0.25x1.1x24)………..6KN/ m
Total………………………………...=14KNm
Total Dead load of Deck=(2×14)+(8.2×7.5)=89.5KN
It is assumed that dead load is shared equally by all g irders Therefo re, DL/girder=22.37KN

Figure4: Influence Line for bendi ng moment in Girder

Reaction of W2 On Girder B = 63KN
Reaction of W2 On Girder A = 287KN
BM at center of g irder=0.5(7.5+6.6)×700=4935KNm
Impact factor (For class AA Loads) =10%
Bending Moment including Impact and reaction factor for outergirder is=(4935x1.1x0.382) =2073.687 KN
Bending Moment including Impact and reaction factor for outergirder is=(4935x1.1x0.294)=1595.97KN

Li ve Load Shear
For estimating the maximu m Live load shear in the girders, The IRC Class AA Load are placed
Total load on Girder B =(350+63)=413 KN
Maximu m react ion in girder B = (413x28.2)/30=388KN
Maximu m react ion in girder A=(287x28..2)/30= 270KN
Maximu m live load shears with impact factor in
Inner girder=(388x1.1)=427 KN
Outer girder = (270x1.1)=297 KN

www.indusedu.org Page 12
Y. Yadu Priya et al., International Journal of Research in IT, Management and Engineering, ISSN 2249-1619,
Impact Factor: 6.123, Vo lu me 06 Issue 09, September 2016, Page 9-17

Figure5: Position of IRC CLASS AA TRACKED Load for Maxi mum Shear
e) Dead load BM and SF in main girder. The depth of the girder is assumed as 1500mm
Sectional properties of the girder:
Top flange=1200mm×250mm
Rib=800mm×200m
Bottom flange=500mm×450mm
Self weight per meter run of girder =10.2kNm
Reaction of cross girder on Main girder=12kN
Reaction fro m deck slab on each girder=22.37kN
Total dead load/m on Girder=(21.66+10.08)=32.74kN/ m
Mmax=3948.75kNm
Dead load Shear at Support=520.5kN

Figure6: Dead l oad on main girder

f) Results of shear force and bending mo ment in KN and KN/ m

For the above results the pre stressing force calculated fro m the equation is 6870KN fo r classAA and
6816KN for class70R tracked loadings
Finite element method of analysis
The finite element method is a well-known tool for the solution of complicated structural engineering
problems, as it is capable of acco mmodating many co mplexit ies in the solution. In this method, the actual continuum
is replaced by an equivalent idealized structure composed of discrete elements, referred to as fin ite elements,
connected together at a number of nodes. The fin ite element method involves subdividing the actual structure into a
suitable number of sub-regions that are called finite elements. These elements can be in the form of line elements,
two dimensional elements and three- dimensional elements to represent the structure. The intersection between the
elements is called nodal points in one dimensional problem where in two and three -dimensional problems are called
nodal lines and nodal planes respectively. At the nodes, degrees of freedom (which are usually in the form of the
nodal displacement and or their derivatives, stresses, or comb inations of these) are assigned. Models which use
displacements are called displacement models and models based on stresses are called force or equilibriu m models,
while those based on combinations of both displacements and stresses are called mixed models or hybrid models.
Displacements are the most commonly used nodal variables, with most general purpose programs limiting their

www.indusedu.org Page 13
Y. Yadu Priya et al., International Journal of Research in IT, Management and Engineering, ISSN 2249-1619,
Impact Factor: 6.123, Vo lu me 06 Issue 09, September 2016, Page 9-17

nodal degree of freedom to just displacements. A number of displacement functions such as polynomials and
trigonometric series can be assumed, especially polynomials because of the eas e and simplificat ion they provide in
the finite element formu lation. To develop the element matrix, it is much easier to apply a work or energy method.
The princip le of v irtual work, the princip le of min imu m potential energy and castigliano's theorem are methods
frequently used for the purpose of derivation of element equation. The finite element method has a number of
advantages; they include the ability to:
- Model irregularly shaped bodies and composed of several different materials.
- Handle general load condition and unlimited numbers and kinds of boundary conditions.
- Include dynamic effects.
- Handle nonlinear behavior existing with large deformat ion and non - linear materials.
STAAD Model of T-Beam Bri dge
For the modeling of the bridge structure STAAD PRO V8i is used. The bridge models are analyzed to
conduct a comparative study of post-tensioned t-beam bridge deck with rational method and finite element method.
The modeling involves the construction of t-beam bridge model with single span. The bridge models are simp ly
supported at the two ends. Staad Pro model has been created and illustrated in the following diagram. Analysis of
Staad Model for 30m is shown in as follows

Figure7: ‘3-D’ model of bri dge

Figure8: Bending moment di agram due to prestress load

Figure9: Shear force di agram for prestress load

www.indusedu.org Page 14
Y. Yadu Priya et al., International Journal of Research in IT, Management and Engineering, ISSN 2249-1619,
Impact Factor: 6.123, Vo lu me 06 Issue 09, September 2016, Page 9-17

Figure10: Bendi ng moment diagram for vehicle, dead and prestress loads

Figure11: Shear force di agram for vehicle, dead and prestress loads

III. RESULTS
The obtained values for different spans and different type of loading is shown in the following tables and chats
Bending Moments (KN-m)
For CLASS 70R tracked
span DESIGNVA LUES FEM VA LUES
25 OG 4386 3590
IG 4003 3295
30 OG 5975 5032
IG 5508 4988
35 OG 7881 6142
IG 7330 6083
40 OG 9777 7874
IG 9142 7541

12000 design
10000 values
8000
6000
4000
2000 fem
0 values
25 25 30 30 35 35 40 40
OG IG OG IG OG IG OG IG

www.indusedu.org Page 15
Y. Yadu Priya et al., International Journal of Research in IT, Management and Engineering, ISSN 2249-1619,
Impact Factor: 6.123, Vo lu me 06 Issue 09, September 2016, Page 9-17

For Class AA Tracked

span DESIGNVA LUES FEM VA LUES
25 OG 4432 3640.4
IG 4039 3487
30 OG 6022 5076
IG 5544 5019
35 OG 7928 6211
IG 7366 6134
40 OG 9829 7937
IG 9190 7618

Shear Forces (KN)

span DESIGNVA LUES FEM VA LUES
25 OG 724.5 879.4
IG 853.1 901.1
30 OG 817.5 996
IG 947.5 1035
35 OG 922.1 1114
IG 1060 1125
40 OG 1010 1206
IG 1148 1255

IV. DISCUSSIONS
Parametric study is carried out on two-lane bridge and Bending mo ment and Shear force values were
obtained by two approximate methods i.e. Courboun’s method for class AA Tracked vehicle and class 70R tracked.
These values are also compared with STAAD-PRO results.
The results obtained are presented in the form of tables and graphs.
1. For 35m span, the value of BM in rational method is 22.04% for OG for class AA higher than that of FEM
analysis here we find the maximu m variation

www.indusedu.org Page 16
Y. Yadu Priya et al., International Journal of Research in IT, Management and Engineering, ISSN 2249-1619,
Impact Factor: 6.123, Vo lu me 06 Issue 09, September 2016, Page 9-17

2. For 30m span, the value of BM in rational method is 9% for IG for class AA higher than that of FEM
analysis here we find the miniu m variation
3. The value of shear force in rational method is less than that of FEM analysis as we considered load
combinations in FEM analysis.
4. BM and SF values are validated by comparing STAAD-PRO results with the values obtained by
approximate method for various spans of longitudinal girder and it is observed that there is significant
difference between Courbon’s method and finite element method. We get higher values in Courbon’s
method

V. CONCLUSION
The comparative study was conducted based on the analytical modeling of simply supported post tensioned
T -beam bridge deck by rat ional method and Fin ite element method using Staad Pro. In this study Courbon’s method
and Staad Pro we analyzed the bridge deck by varying the span of the bridge deck, here I cons idered 25m, 30m, 35
and 40m spans, here I considered the class AA tracked load which is the worst case for any bridge and also 70R
tracked load which gives the average result with respect to BM values in the longitudinal girder as compared to
fin ite element method (STAAD.PRO) and there is significant difference for both methods. The design details can
also be known clearly by finite element method of STAA D.PRO. Further we can check for different load
combinations in STAAD.PRO.

VI. REFERENCES
[1] D. Johnson Victor, “Essentials of Bridge Engineering”, Oxford & IBH Publications, New Delhi
[2] N. Krishna Raju, “Design of Bridges”, Oxford & IBH Publications, New Delhi, fourth edition (reprint)- 2010,pp-111 to 164.
[3] T.R. Jagdish & M.A. Jairam , Design of bridge structures, Pentice hall of India private Limited,New Delhi
[4] IRC: 18-2000 Design Criteria for Pre-stressed Concrete Road Bridges (Post Tensioned Concrete) (Third Revision).
[5] IRC: 6-2000 Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section-II – Loads and Stresses.
[6] IRC: 21-2000 Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section-III – Cement Concrete.

www.indusedu.org Page 17