Finite Strip Analysis of Aqueduct With Variable Thickness Strip

A
DISSERTATION REPORT
ON
FINITE STRIP ANALYSIS OF AQUEDUCT WITH VARIABLE
THICKNESS STRIP
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
FOR THE AWARD OF
MASTER OF ENGINEERING
IN
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
SOLAPUR UNIVERSITY, SOLAPUR
Submitted By
Mr. JUNAID ISHAQUE AHMED SHAIKH
Guide
PROF. Dr. J. B. DAFEDAR
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

P.N.E.S.P
NAGESH KARAJAGI ORCHID COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & TECH.
SOLAPUR-413002
(AFILIATED TO SOLAPUR UNIVERSITY SOLAPUR)
2013-2014
i
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the dissertation entitled,
FINITE STRIP ANALYSIS OF AQUEDUCT WITH VARIABLE THICKNESS
STRIP
is being submitted by Mr. Junaid Ishaque Ahmed Shaikh in partial fulfillment of the
requirement for the award of degree of Master of Engineering in Civil Structural
Engineering of Solapur University, Solapur is the record of his own work carried out by
him under my supervision and guidance.
PROF. Dr. J. B. DAFEDAR PROF. V. K. PATKI PROF. Dr. J. B. DAFEDAR

(Guide) (Head of Civil Department) (Principal)
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

P.N.E.S.P
NAGESH KARAJAGI ORCHID COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & TECH.
SOLAPUR-413002
(AFILIATED TO SOLAPUR UNIVERSITY SOLAPUR)
2013-2014
ii
DISSERTATION APPROVAL SHEET
The dissertation entitled Finite Strip Analysis of Aqueduct with Variable Thickness
Strip by Mr. Junaid Ishaque Ahmed Shaikh is approved in partial fulfillment for the
award of degree of Civil Engineering with specialization in Structural Engineering.
EXAMINERS:-
1)
2)
PLACE:
DATE:
iii
-ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS-
I am indebted to my guide, Prof. Dr. J. B. Dafedar, Principal, NKOCET, Solapur for
his direction and support throughout my graduate studies. His interest in my work and
appreciation of my efforts provided me with the constant motivation needed to achieve my
goal.
I express my sincere thanks to Prof. V. K. PATKI, Head of Dept, NKOCET, Solapur

for extending all the facilities required for my dissertation work.
I express my sincere thanks to Prof. P. A. SANGAVE, NKOCET, Solapur for helping

me throughout my post-graduation.
Junaid Shaikh
iv
CONTENTS
CONTENTS...........................................................................................................................v
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................ ix
LIST OF GRAPHS ............................................................................................................... xi
ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................. xv
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1

1.2 TYPES OF AQUEDUCTS ................................................................................. 1
1.3 COMPONENTS OF AN AQUEDUCT .............................................................. 3
1.4 FORCES ACTING ON AN AQUEDUCT ......................................................... 3
1.5 METHODS OF ANALYSIS OF AN AQUEDUCT ........................................... 7
1.6 AIM AND SCOPE OF THE DISSERTATION ................................................. 9
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................... 10
2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 10

2.2 NUMERICAL METHODS ............................................................................... 10
2.2.1 Basic Concepts Of Numerical Methods ................................................. 10
2.2.2 Finite Element Method............................................................................ 11
2.2.3 Finite Strip Method ................................................................................. 12
2.2.4 Spline Finite Strip Method ...................................................................... 14
2.3 CLOSING REMARKS ..................................................................................... 15
CHAPTER 3
THEORETICAL FORMULATION-I ................................................................................. 16
FINITE STRIP METHOD FOR PRISMATIC STRIP ....................................................... 16
3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 16

3.2 ENERGY APPROACH FOR A SIMPLE BEAM ............................................ 17
v
3.3 Plate Strip .......................................................................................................... 19
3.3.1 Displacement function ............................................................................ 19
3.3.2 Energy formulation ................................................................................. 23
3.3.3 Stiffness matrix and load vector .............................................................. 25
3.4 Plane stress strip ................................................................................................ 27
3.4.1 Displacement functions ........................................................................... 27
3.4.2 Stiffness matrix and load vector .............................................................. 28
3.5 FINITE STRIP FOR BOX AQUEDUCT ......................................................... 31
3.6 COORDINATE TRANSFORMATION ........................................................... 32
3.7 CLOSING REMARK ....................................................................................... 34
CHAPTER 4
THEORETICAL FORMULATION-II................................................................................ 35
FINITE STRIP METHOD FOR NON-PRISMATIC STRIP.............................................. 35
4.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 35

4.2 NON-PRISMATIC PLATE .................................................................................. 35
4.3 STIFFNESS ELEMENTS FOR PLATE IN BENDING ...................................... 36
4.4 STIFFNESS ELEMENTS FOR IN PLANE BENDING...................................... 38
4.5 The COMPUTER PROGRAM ............................................................................. 40
4.6 CLOSING REMARK ........................................................................................... 44
CHAPTER 5
PARAMETRIC INVESTIGATION.................................................................................... 45
5.1 PRELIMINARY REMARKS ............................................................................... 45

5.2 FINITE STRIP MODELING ................................................................................ 45
5.3 VALIDATION OF RESULTS ............................................................................. 46
5.4 CONVERGENCE STUDY .................................................................................. 52
5.5 COMPARISON OF RESULTS OF FSM AND APPROXIMATE METHOD ... 52
5.6 PARAMETRIC INVESTIGATION FOR 10.75m SPAN AQUEDUCT ............. 64
5.7 PARAMETRIC INVESTIGATION FOR VARIOUS SPANS OF AQUEDUCT ...
..........................................................................................................................................84
5.8 EFFECT OF PROVISION HAUNCHES ............................................................. 93
vi
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION AND SCOPE FOR FURTHER STRUDIES .......................................... 108
6.1 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 108

6.2 SCOPE FOR FURTHER STUDIES ................................................................... 109
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 110
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title Page No.

1.1 Aqueduct with earthen banks…………………………………2
1.2 Aqueduct with earthen banks and retaining walls…………....2
1.3 Single box type Aqueduct...…………………………………...2
1.4 Multiple box type Aqueduct………………….……………….3
1.5 Force exerted by water on box girder………………………....4
1.6 IRC class „A‟ train loading…………………………………….5
3.1 Box structure and finite strip………………………………...16
3.2 Simple beam under point load at midspan…………………..17
3.3 Rectangular plate under transverse loading………………...19
3.4 Plate divided into strips……………………………………...20
3.5 Deflection amplitudes for a plate strip……………………...21
3.6 Plate under in-plane loading………………………………...27
3.7 Co-ordinate transformation..………………………………...32
4.1 Non-prismatic Plate………………………………………….35
4.2 Box girder……………………………………………………43
5.1 Simply supported square plate……………………………...46
5.2 Box beam under self weight………………………………...49
5.3 Simply supported continuous plate………………………...50
5.4 Finite Strip modeling for dead load………………………...54
5.5 Finite Strip modeling for water load………………………..54
5.6 Finite Strip modeling for live load………………………….55
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page No.
3.1 Deflection and moment at midspan……………………………………....19
5.1 Simply supported plate under uniform load………………………….......47
5.2 Simple beam modeled by plane strips………………………………….....48
5.3 Simple box being under self weight………………………………............49
5.4 Deflection and moments of a continuous plate………………………......51
5.5 Comparison of FSM and Approximate method………………………......53
5.6 Sizes of Aqueduct adopted for parametric investigation of 10.75m span...64
5.7 Analysis of Aqueduct of size 3.5mx3.5mx0.2m ………………………….66
5.8 Analysis of Aqueduct of size 3.5mx3.5mx0.25m………………………..67
5.9 Analysis of Aqueduct of size 3.5mx3.5mx0.3m …………………………68
5.10 Analysis of Aqueduct of size 3.8mx3.2mx0.2m…………………………..75
5.11 Analysis of Aqueduct of size 3.8mx3.2mx0.25m ………………………..76
5.12 Analysis of Aqueduct of size 3.8mx3.2mx0.3m………………………….77
5.13 Analysis of Aqueduct of size 4.25mx3mx0.2m …………………………..78
5.14 Analysis of Aqueduct of size 4.25mx3mx0.25m …………………………79
5.15 Analysis of Aqueduct of size 4.25mx3mx0.3m ………………………....80
5.16 Size of Aqueduct adopted for parametric investigation for various spans.84
5.17 Analysis of Aqueduct of size 3.8mx3.2mx0.3m L=15m………………….86
5.21 Percentage variation of longitudinal stress…………………………….....93
5.22 Analysis of Aqueduct of size 3.8mx3.2mx0.15m L=25m…………….....95
5.23 Analysis of Aqueduct of size 3.8mx3.2mx0.2m L=25m………………...96
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page No.
5.24 Analysis of Aqueduct of size 3.8mx3.2mx0.15m L=25m with 0.1b X 0.1d

haunch……………………………………………………………………..97
5.25 Comparison of Aqueduct of size 3.8mx3.2mx0.15m L=25m with and

without haunch…………………………………………………………….98
5.26 Percentage reduction of stresses...………………………………………100
5.27 Analysis of Aqueduct of size 3.8mx3.2mx0.25m L=30m………………101

haunch……………………………………………………………………102

haunch…………………………………………………………………....103
5.30 Comparison of Aqueduct of size 3.8mx3.2mx0.15m L=30m with and

without haunch…………………………………………………………..104
5.31 Percentage reduction of stresses...………………………………………107
x
LIST OF GRAPHS
Graph No. Title Page No.
5.1 Variation of Transverse Stress σx in top slab of Box Aqueduct for DL……........55
5.2 Variation of Transverse Stress σx in bottom slab of box Aqueduct for DL…......56
5.3 Variation of Transverse Stress σx in vertical of box Aqueduct for DL…….........56
5.4 Variation of Transverse Moment Mx in top slab of box Aqueduct for DL….......57
5.5 Variation of Transverse Moment Mx in bottom slab of box Aqueduct for DL....57
5.6 Variation of Transverse Moment Mx in vertical of box Aqueduct for DL….......58
5.7 Variation of Longitudinal Stress σy in top slab of box Aqueduct for DL….........58
5.8 Variation of Longitudinal Stress σy in bottom slab of box Aqueduct for DL.......59
5.9 Variation of Longitudinal Stress σy in vertical of box Aqueduct for DL…..........59
5.10 Variation of Transverse Stress σx in top slab of box Aqueduct for WL…….......60
5.11 Variation of Transverse Stress σx in bottom slab of box Aqueduct for WL.........60
5.12 Variation of Transverse Stress σx in vertical of box Aqueduct for WL…….........61
5.13 Variation of Transverse Moment Mx in top slab of box Aqueduct for WL…......61
5.14 Variation of Transverse Moment Mx in bottom slab of box Aqueduct for WL...62
5.15 Variation of Transverse Moment Mx in vertical of box Aqueduct for WL ….....62
5.16 Variation of Longitudinal Stress σy in top slab of box Aqueduct for WL……....63
5.17 Variation of Longitudinal Stress σy in bottom slab of box Aqueduct for WL......63
5.18 Variation of Longitudinal Stress σy in vertical of box Aqueduct for WL….........64
5.19 Variation of Transverse Stress σx for various thickness in top slab of box Aqueduct
for DL………………………………………………………...................................65
5.20 Variation of Transverse Stress σx for various thickness in bottom slab of box
Aqueduct for DL…………………………………………………………..............65
5.21 Variation of Transverse Stress σx for various thickness in vertical of box Aqueduct
for DL…………………………………………………………...............................69
xi
LIST OF GRAPHS
5.22 Variation of Longitudinal Stress σy for various thickness in top slab of box
Aqueduct for DL…………………………………………………..........................69
5.23 Variation of Longitudinal Stress σy for various thickness in bottom slab of box
Aqueduct for DL…………………………………………………………..............70
5.24 Variation of Longitudinal Stress σy for various thickness in vertical of box

Aqueduct for DL…………………………………………………………..............70
5.25 Variation of Transverse Stress σx for various thickness in top slab of box Aqueduct
for WL…………………………………………………………..............................71
5.26 Variation of Transverse Stress σx for various thickness in bottom slab of box
Aqueduct for WL…………………………………………………………............71
5.27 Variation of Transverse Moment Mx for various thickness in top slab of box
Aqueduct for WL…………………………………………………………............72
5.28 Variation of Transverse Moment Mx for various thickness in bottom slab of box
Aqueduct for WL……………………………………………….............................72
5.29 Variation of Transverse Stress σy for various thickness in top slab of box Aqueduct
for WL…………………………………………………………..............................73
5.30 Variation of Transverse Stress σy for various thickness in bottom slab of box
Aqueduct for WL…………………………………………………………............73
5.31 Variation of Transverse Stress σx for various size of box Aqueduct in top slab for
DL…………………………………………………………....................................74
5.32 Variation of Transverse Stress σx for various size of box Aqueduct in top slab for
DL…………………………………………………………....................................74
5.33 Variation of Transverse Stress σx for various size of box Aqueduct in vertical for
DL …………………………………………………………...................................81
5.34 Variation of Transverse Moment Mx for various size of box Aqueduct in top slab
for DL…………………………………………………………..............................81
xii
LIST OF GRAPHS
5.35 Variation of Transverse Moment Mx for various size of box Aqueduct in bottom
slab for DL......................................................................................….....................82
5.36 Variation of Transverse Moment Mx for various size of box Aqueduct in vertical
for DL ......................................................................................…...........................82
5.37 Variation of Longitudinal Stress σy for various size of box Aqueduct in top slab for
DL…………………………………………………………....................................83
5.38 Variation of Longitudinal Stress σy for various size of box Aqueduct in bottom slab
for DL…………………………………………………………...............................83
5.39 Variation of Longitudinal Stress σy for various size of box Aqueduct in vertical for
DL…………………………………………………………....................................84
5.40 Variation of Transverse Stress σx for various spans of box Aqueduct with size
3.8x3.2x0.3 in top slab for DL…………………………………………………..85
3.8x3.2x0.3 in bottom slab for DL……………………………………………...85
3.8x3.2x0.3 in vertical for DL………………………………………………….90
5.43 Variation of Transverse Moment Mx for various spans of box Aqueduct with size
3.8x3.2x0.3 in top slab for DL……………………………………………….....90
3.8x3.2x0.3 in bottom slab for DL……………………………………………..91
3.8x3.2x0.3 in vertical for DL………………………………………………….91
5.46 Variation of Longitudinal Stress σy for various spans of box Aqueduct with size
3.8x3.2x0.3 in top slab for DL………………………………………………….92
3.8x3.2x0.3 in bottom slab for DL……………………………………………...92
xiii
LIST OF GRAPHS
3.8x3.2x0.3 in vertical for DL……………………………………………………93
xiv
ABBREVIATIONS
L Length of strip.
B width of strip
[B] m Strain matrix.
[C] coefficient Matrix
D Plate rigidity
[D] Elastic matrix.
E Modulus of elasticity.
EI Flexural rigidity of beam.
G shear modulus
GJ torsional rigidity of beam
i Subscript for nodal line No i
I Superscript or subscript for finite strip No I
j Subscript for nodal knot or nodal line No j
km mπ/l
[k], [K] stiffness matrix
m Subscript for the mth term of series.
M Bending moment or twisting moment.
[N] Matrix of shape functions.
p In-plane force per unit area.
P Point force.
P,P, load vector
q Transverse load per unit area.
r Number of series terms used in an analysis.
S Total number of strips in a structure.
t thickness of strip
xv
u, v, w displacements in x, y and z directions, respectively
U Strain energy.
W Potential energy of external loading.
x, y, z local Cartesian co-ordinate system (for individual strip)
̅, ̅ ̅ global Cartesian co-ordinate system (for structure)
X x/b
y shear strain
 Displacement.
{} Vector of displacement parameters.
ε Normal strain.
(ε) Vector of strains and curvatures.
θ transverse slope ∂w/ ∂x
µ Poisson‟s ratio.
γ Mass per unit volume.
σ Normal stress.
{σ} Vector of stresses and moments.
τ Shear stress.
xvi
ABBREVIATIONS
(Used in Computer Programme)
AL Length of Strip ( Y - direction )
BL Width of Strip ( X - direction )
CORD Co-Ordinate date.
ESK Stiffness Matrix
EX Modulus of elasticity in (X – direction)
EY Modulus of elasticity in (Y – direction)
IB Band Width
IBMAX Max Band width
IMD Number of Terms to be considered.
ICON Connectivity data
L Member Number
LCODE Code for different type of loadings.
LFIX Fixity Code Restrained Joint wise.
LJL Loaded Joints, Joint wise.
LML Member wise loading.
LTR Restrained Joints.
M Number of Terms.
NCONC Number of concentrated loads.
NDF Number of degrees of freedom.
NEQ Number of Equations
NEQMAX Max Number of equations
NJ Number of Joints.
NJL Number of Loaded Joints.
NJR Number of Restrained Joints.
xvii
NLD Number of Load Cases.
NM Number of Members.
NML Number of Loaded Members.
NRD Number of restrained displacements
NRDMAX Maximum restrained displacements
P Loads.
RM Moment.
RX Reaction in X - direction.
RY Reaction in Y - direction.
RZ Reaction in Z - direction.
SIGMA XT Stress in X - direction.
SIGMA YT Stress in Y - direction.
SK Stiffness Matrix.
TL Thickness of Strip.
TXZT Stress in XY - direction.
UM Angle of rotation.
UR Unknown Reactions.
UX Displacement in X - direction.
UY Displacement in Y - direction.
UZ Displacement in Z - direction.
WZ Uniformly distributed Load.
XV Poisson‟s ratio in X - direction.
XYV Poisson‟s ratio in Y - direction.
YV Poisson‟s ratio in Y - direction.
xviii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Aqueducts are structure used to convey water from a supply source to distant areas in need
of water. The word aqueduct comes from two Latin words aqua (water) and ducere (to
lead). It is one of the main structures of a canal system for conveyance of canal flow and
control of water levels. The project of linking of rivers will require planning, designing
and constructing technically sound and economical infrastructure. Thus, it is required to
analyse many complicated irrigation structures and cross drainage works and in that comes
a structure like aqueduct.
Design of Aqueduct involves following steps.
1. Deciding layout of structure.

2. Hydraulic design and deciding control levels.
3. Structural analysis of different components of the aqueduct.
4. Design of components of structures.
At different locations, the site situations are different which leads to different layout, span,
hydraulic and foundation situations for the aqueduct. The first step to design an aqueduct is
its structural analysis. Hence it is important to achieve reasonably accurate analysis
procedure for design of aqueduct.
1.2 TYPES OF AQUEDUCTS
Aqueducts are bridge like structures in addition they carry water through it. Various types
of aqueducts are as follows.
Type I: Aqueduct with earthen banks.
Type II: Aqueduct with earthen banks supported by retaining walls.
Type III: in this type the earthen banks are discontinued and the canal water is carried in
masonry, concrete, or steel trough.
Selection of type of Aqueduct is mainly dependent on the width and magnitude of drainage
to be passed in relation to the size of a canal.
1
Figure 1.1: Aqueduct with earthen banks
Figure 1.2: Aqueduct with earthen banks and retaining walls

Type III Aqueducts may be further classified as follows.
1. Depending on number of boxes.
a) Single box type.
b) Multi box type.
Figure 1.3: Single box type Aqueduct
2
Figure 1.4: Multiple box type Aqueduct
2. On the basis of alignment they can be classified as follows.

a) Straight box type.
b) Curved in plan box type.
3. On basis of material used to construct, the aqueducts are classified as follows.
a) Masonry Aqueduct.
b) R.C.C. Aqueduct.
c) Pre-stressed Aqueduct.
d) Steel Aqueduct.
1.3 COMPONENTS OF AN AQUEDUCT
Components of an Aqueduct are as follows.

1. Box girder.
2. Bearings to transfer load from super structure to substructure.
3. Pier cap and piers to transfer load from superstructure to foundation.
4. Foundations to transfer load to soil strata.
1.4 FORCES ACTING ON AN AQUEDUCT
Following forces are acting on an Aqueduct.

1. Dead weight of super structure.
2. Weight of water flowing through box and its horizontal thrust on the walls of box
girder.
3. I.R.C live load of vehicles.
4. Impact load of moving vehicles.
3
5. Longitudinal forces due to acceleration and breaking effect of moving vehicles.
6. Wind load.
7. Seismic forces.
8. Centrifugal forces.
9. Buoyancy forces due to increased water level etc.
1.4.1 Dead Weight of the Structure
Selfweight of different components of structure contributes to the final reactions and

moments of the box girder. The dead load carried by girder shall consist of the portion of
the weight of the superstructure which is supported by the girder including its self weight.
1.4.2 Weight of Water Flowing Through Box Girder
Weight of water flowing through box girder act on bottom slab as UDL and it exert
horizontal thrust on vertical webs of box girder as shown in Figure 1.5.
Figure 1.5: Force exerted by water on box girder
1.4.3 IRC Live Load of Vehicles
Top slab of box girder has to transfer live load of vehicles moving on it. As per expected
type of traffic to be allowed over the aqueduct, type of IRC class loading is considered for
design. Generally for all important aqueducts IRC class „A‟ train load is considered. The
train loading on cross-section is considered in symmetrical and unsymmetrical positions
whichever gives higher stresses. ILD for reactions and bending moments are used to locate
4
the position of heaviest wheel load to get worst conditions. Details of different IRC class
loadings are given in IRC 6 (1966). Typical class „A‟ train loading is shown in Figure 1.6.
Figure 1.6: IRC class ‘A’ train loading
1.4.4 Impact Load of Moving Vehicles
The moving loads on bridges have a jumping action due to uneven surfaces on which they
move. This jumping causes shocks and vibration in the structure. Consequently, the
stresses produced by the moving loads are larger than what would be produced if the load
were applied gradually and statically. The additional stresses are accounted for by
considering the impact effect. Impact load on bridges is determined by multiplying the live
load with impact factor. Sometimes impact factor is termed as impact coefficient.
Impact factor fraction for IRC class A and B loadings for spans 3.0 to 45 meters are given
below.
a) For concrete bridges = 4.5/ (6+L)
b) Steel bridges = 9/ (13.5+L)
Where, L= length of span in meter.
1.4.5 Longitudinal Forces
Tractive force at the time of driving wheels, frictional resistance offered to the movement
of free bearings due to change in temperature or braking effect at the time of applying
brakes cause longitudinal forces in bridges.
Effect of breaking and acceleration of vehicles is experienced by the top slab of box girder.
As per clause of IRC 6 (1966), additional 20% of the first train and 10% of the succeeding
train are considered in the analysis of the girder. Force due to breaking effect shall be
5
assumed to act along a line parallel to the roadway and 1.2 meter above it. Breaking effect
is invariably greater than the traffic effect.
1.4.6 Wind Load
The wind produces a horizontal pressure on any surface it strikes. If a gust of wind goes
grazing an object, it tends to pull it along, thus causing a suction effect. The probability of
maximum wind load and maximum live load acting simultaneously is very low. The wind
pressures are expressed in terms of basic wind pressure „p‟, which is the static pressure in
the windward direction. These basic wind pressures in kg/m2 at various heights (in meters)
are adopted from the maps and tables given in IS: 875-1987.
Wind force on a structure shall be assumed as a horizontal force of intensity specified in

clause 212.3 of IRC and acting on surface area.
1.4.7 Seismic Forces
If a bridge is situated in an earthquake prone zone, the earthquake or seismic forces are
considered in structural design. Earthquakes cause vertical and horizontal forces in the
structure that will be proportional to the weight of the structure. Both horizontal and
vertical components have to be taken into account for design of bridge structures. IS :
1893-2000 may be referred to for the actual design loads.
Clause 222 of IRC 6 (1976) shall be used for details.
1.4.8 Centrifugal Forces
When the box girder is curved in plan allowance for centrifugal action of the moving load
should be made in designing the members of the bridge.
This force is given by the following formula:
C=
Where, C - Centrifugal force in kN/m

W - Equivalent distributed live load in kN/m
V - Maximum speed in km/h
R - Radius of curvature in m
6
1.4.9 Buoyancy Forces Due to Increased Water Level
It will act if H.F.L of drainage is more than bottom level of bottom slab of box girder.
The effect of buoyancy indicated in Cl: 122.5.6 of IRC 5-1970 shall be considered in
design.
1.5 METHODS OF ANALYSIS OF AN AQUEDUCT
Method of analysis depends on the geometry of box and support conditions. Generally in
case of simple structure individual component is analyzed and designed. This requires
more time and more technical manpower. In future it is required to design lot many
structures, and hence formation of standard procedure is must. From the design point of
view the most important component of aqueduct is box girder, which conveys water
through it, and road traffic on it. In the present study the focus is on analysis of box girder.
Analysis of box girder aqueduct is complicated due to load sharing mechanism developed
from its composite action. The analysis of multispan aqueduct and prestressed aqueduct
becomes more and more complicated due to intermediate supports and stiffening
diaphragms at unsupported sections. Further the presence of prestressing tendons makes
the stress distribution complicated. In early days a non-composite slab beam system was
frequently used for analysis of the structure. Then composite design procedures were
adopted after the interaction between various components of the structure was sufficiently
understood. The main advantage of the composite system is the increased load carrying
capacity due to load sharing mechanism. However, in this case, the stress response and
their distributions and redistributions at ultimate limit state become much more
complicated with increasing complexity of geometry and combination of different
materials in structure. The analysis of such structure becomes very complex. In such cases
simplified analytical methods are not adequate. A refined analysis method, which is
capable of representing all structural responses and deformations must be used. In
selecting a suitable refined method of analysis, all essential force response must be
carefully considered. Thus, longitudinal, transversal and punching shears, longitudinal and
transverse moment, longitudinal torsion, distortion, torsional distortion, warping and local
buckling should be considered.
There are many refined methods of analysis available.
7
1.5.1 Elastic Analysis of the structure
Analysis is usually simplified by means of assumptions that establish the relationship

between behaviors of simple elements in the integrated structure. The combined response
of these single elements is assumed to represent the whole structure. Accuracy of such
solutions depends on validity of the assumptions made.
1. Grillage Analogy method
In this method, the multicellular structure is idealised as a grid assembly. The difficulty in
this method lies in representation of torsional stiffness of closed cells. Satisfactory but
approximate representation can be achieved in modelling the torsional stiffness of a single
closed cell by an equivalent I beam torsional stiffness. Thus, applicability of this method to
a voided slab and box girder bridges in which the number of cells or boxes are greater than
two.
2. Orthotropic plate theory
In this method, stiffness of the flanges and girders are lumped into an orthotropic plate of
equivalent stiffness and the stiffness of diaphragm is distributed over the girder length.
This method is suggested mainly for multigirder straight or curve bridges. Study has
shown that this method gives accurate results provided numbers of spines are not less than
three.
3. Folded plate method
Folded plate method utilizes the plane stress elasticity theory and the classical two-way
plate bending theory to determine the membrane stresses and slab moments in each folded
plate member. The folded plate system consists of an assemblage of longitudinal annular
plate elements interconnected at joints along their longitudinal edges and simply supported
at the ends. No intermediate diaphragms are assumed. Solution of simply supported
straight or curved box girder bridges is obtained for any arbitrary longitudinal load
function by using direct stiffness harmonic analysis.
4. Thin walled curved Beam theory
Thin walled curved beam theory was first established by Saint-Venant (1843) for the case
of solid curved beams loaded in direction normal to their plane of curvature. The theory is
8
based on the usual beam assumptions. Curved beam theory can only provide the designer
with an accurate distribution of the resultant bending moments, torque and shear at any
section of the curved beam if the axial, torsional and bending rigidities of the section are
accurately known.
Also there are some methods that are described in the next chapter.
1.6 AIM AND SCOPE OF THE DISSERTATION
Finite strip is most suitable method for analysis of box girder type of structure like
aqueducts. Generally maximum bending moment occurs at the junctions of box girder.
Therefore provision of haunches at junctions may lead to economic solutions. Therefore, it
needs to develop finite strip method with strip of variable thickness.
In this dissertation it is proposed to develop finite strip method with a strip of variable
thickness so that haunches in the aqueducts can be modeled easily.
Parametric investigations will be performed for aqueducts of various spans and discharge
capacities for aqueducts with and without haunches. Effect of haunches on the
performance of aqueducts will be evaluated.
9
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Structures which have complex geometry, material properties and loading conditions can‟t
be analyzed with the help of simple and approximate analytical methods. In case of long
span aqueduct, it is always provided with irregular geometry, varying cross-section and
simple supports to have economical design of structure. Numerical methods are widely
recognized as a powerful and versatile analysis tools and are very effective in the analysis
of structures which have complex geometry and loading conditions, however, with
relatively simple support conditions. These methods provide efficient and accurate analysis
with minimum modeling effort and input requirements. These methods can be exclusively
used for in the static and dynamic analysis of structure.
2.2 NUMERICAL METHODS
2.2.1 Basic Concepts Of Numerical Methods
Engineering systems are typically categorized as discrete or continuous systems. The term
discrete refers to system whose behavior can be described using a finite number of
variables. On the other hand an infinite number of elements in the form of differential
equation govern the continuous system. Obtaining exact solution is only possible for
simple system with simple boundary conditions. For most cases, the implementation of a
numerical method is required to idealize a continuous system as finite discrete system.
This discretization procedure transforms a continuous engineering system to a discrete
one. Numerous classical mathematical procedures of approximation have been developed
for analysis.
The methods of approximation used to solve governing differential equation can be

grouped into three approaches.
1) Direct approach
2) Variational principle
3) Weighted Residual methods.
10
1) Direct Approach
In this approach, direct physical reasoning is used to establish the system governing
equilibrium equation including boundary conditions in terms of finite state variables.
2) Variational Principle
Variational principle yields the governing differential equation and the non essential
boundary condition of problem by just following the calculus of variations.
3) Weighted Residual Method
This method offers the most general procedure for solving the differential equations and
can be applied to the majority of practical problems of engineering.
Weighted residual method is a technique that can be used to approximate the solution of
linear and non-linear differential equations. Its largest application remains for those
engineering problems whose functions can‟t be established and for those that contain non-
linear material response, boundary and loading conditions.
Variational principle is the easiest and most applied method to formulate a solution to a
continuum problem provided that a function already exists. This is further demonstrated
using finite element method.
2.2.2 Finite Element Method
The finite element method of analysis has rapidly become a very popular technique for the
computer solution of complex problems in engineering. In structural analysis the method
can be regarded as an extension of earlier established analytical techniques, in which a
structure is represented as an assemblage of discrete elements inter connected at a finite
number of nodal points. Equation of equilibrium can be established from the principle of
minimum total potential energy. Finite element method can also be defined as Rayleigh
Ritz method in which the continuum is divided into a finite number of sub domains called
finite elements. These finite elements are used to approximate response of the continuum
and are inter connected at the nodal points on the element boundaries. The displacements
at any point inside an element are related to the nodal displacements {y} through the
displacement field assumed over the element and is given by
{y} = [N] {  }
11
Where,
[N] is the matrix of interpolation functions, and
{} is the vector of nodal displacements.
Strain displacement and stress strain relations are defined for all the finite elements, the
discretized equations of equilibrium are obtained and Stiffness Matrix is calculated and
thereby the forces are evaluated.
These methods are used to solve problems of practical significance, which do not posses
derivable or accurate closed form solutions. Such numerical methods provide an
approximation to the governing equations in terms of values at a finite number of discrete
points within computational domain.
2.2.3 Finite Strip Method
Finite strip method can be regarded as a degenerate form of finite element method, which
is used to primarily model the response of like structures such as plates and solids. Finite
strip method model the problem as a one dimensional strips in the longitudinal direction
using an interpolation function for the displacement field that satisfies priori the boundary
condition at both ends. Finite element requirements on the admissibility of the
interpolation function also apply to the finite strip method with the exception of the rigid
body modes.
Advantages of finite strip method (FSM) over finite element method (FEM) include
reduced computer resources and significant reduction in the time taken to model the
problem. However, as a degenerate from of FEM, there are restrictions on its application
to problem with arbitrary geometry boundary continuous and material variations.
Finite strip method may be regarded as a special from of the displacement formulation of
the finite element procedure in that it employs the minimum total potential energy therein
to develop the relationship between unknown nodal displacement parameters and the
applied loading. The basic difference between the two methods is from the assumed
displacement patterns. The assumed displacement function for a finite element in box
girder analysis normally takes the form of two way polynomial functions. The
displacement functions assumed for the corresponding finite strip are combination of a one
way polynomial function (in the transverse direction) and harmonic function (in
12
longitudinal direction). The harmonic functions are chosen to satisfy the two end support
conditions. In effect, the finite strip span between two opposite end supports.
Finite strip approach, first published by Cheung (1968) was recognized as having excellent
prospects as a method of analysis for simply supported box type structures in terms of
accuracy and efficiency. Finite strip procedure for rectangular type bridge decks was also
suggested independently by Powell and Ogden (1969). The method is a hybrid procedure
which retains advantages of both the orthotropic plate method and finite element concept.
Cheung and Cheung (1971) applied the finite strip method for curved box girder bridges.
Buragohain and Agrawal (1973) presented a method based on a harmonic analysis in the
circumferential direction and a modified difference technique in the transverse direction of
a curved box girder bridge.
Cusens and Loo (1974) presented a general finite-strip technique to single and multispan
box bridges with an extension to the analysis of prestressed girders. At the same time,
Cheung and Chan (1978) used the finite strip method to determine the effective width of
the compression flange of straight multispine and multicell box-girder bridges. Cheung
(1984) used a numerical technique based on the finite strip method and the force method
for the analysis of continuous curved multicell box-girder bridges. Li et al. (1988)
presented the application of the spline finite-strip method to the elasto-static analysis of
circular and noncircular multicell box-girder bridges. Gambhir and Singla (1988)
presented an optimization study, using the finite strip method of prismatic multicellular
bridge decks for minimum cost. Cheung and Li (1989) extended the applicability of finite
strip method to analyze continuous haunched box-girder bridges (with variable depth web
strip). Later, Cheung and Jaeger (1992) applied the Spline finite strip method to the same
bridge configuration. Cheung and Gang (1990) presented a spline finite strip approach to
analyze the cantilever deck of single-cell box-girder bridge. Effects of distortion of a thin-
walled box section are taken into account by treating the cantilever deck as a cantilever
slab with horizontally distributed spring support along the cantilever root. Abdullah and
Abdul Razzak (1990) applied the finite strip method for analysis of a prestressed concrete
box-girder bridge using higher order bending and in-plane strip and an auxiliary nodal line
technique. Maleki (1991) further expanded the compound strip method for plates to
analyze box girders. Shimuzu and Yoshida (1991) utilized the finite strip method to
evaluate reaction forces to be used in the design of load-bearing diaphragms at the
intermediate support of two-span continuous curved box-girder bridges. Cheung and Au
13
(1992) presented a spline finite strip procedure using computed shape functions in the
transverse direction for the analysis of right box-girder bridges. This procedure results in a
relatively narrow band matrix that requires only nominal computational effort, Lounis and
Cohn (1995) illustrated application of an effective optimization procedure for the design
of prestressed concrete cellular bridge decks consisting of single and two-cell box girders
or voided slab systems. Using nonlinear programming for optimum design, using the
finite-strip method and finite-difference techniques, an approximate live load moment
analysis that determines moment sensitivities to change in the deck depth and flange
thickness was proposed. Compared to the finite element method, the finite strip method
yields considerable savings in both computer time and effort, because only a small number
of unknowns are generally required in analysis. However, the drawback of the finite strip
method is that it is limited to simply supported prismatic structures with simple line
support
2.2.4 Spline Finite Strip Method
In 1982, Y.K. CHEUNG to form the spline finite strip for analysis of rectangular plates
introduced the B3 spline function as the longitudinal displacement function.
The spline finite strip method can include any type of boundary conditions and more easily
simulate peak values of bending moments at loaded sections and intermediate supports.
By means of co-ordinate transformation, this method can also be used to model arbitrary
curved slabs. Therefore, this method is more universal than the semi analytical finite strip
method.
In case of abrupt changes in bending moments at internal supports or at loaded cross

sections of point forces, it is difficult to use continuously differentiable functions. Thus,
use of finite strip method in these cases lead to difficulties. In order to overcome these
difficulties, a mathematical tool known as the B3 spline has been used to provide
longitudinal displacement function to form the spline strips for analysis of rectangular
plates by Cheung, et al (1982). In this method, each nodal line is divided into a number of
sections by equally or unequally spaced knots. Every knot is then taken as the centre of a
local B3 spline, which has non-zero values over only four consecutive sections. All the B3
splines on the nodal line form a series which is utilized to simulate the variation of
displacements.
14
2.3 CLOSING REMARKS
1) Generally simply support condition exist for R.C.C. aqueducts, thus finite strip method
is most suitable method for analysis of the aqueduct. Therefore this method is used in
this dissertation for analysis. Finite strip method requires more mathematical
formulations hence computer programming is developed to save time required to
obtain solutions.
2) Therefore, FSM is developed in this dissertation to incorporate the effects of haunches.
15
CHAPTER 3
THEORETICAL FORMULATION-I
FINITE STRIP METHOD FOR PRISMATIC STRIP
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The Finite Strip Approach was first introduced by Cheung (1968). It is recognized as best
method of analysis for simply supported bridge deck structures in terms of accuracy and
efficiency. Basically, the method is a hybrid procedure, which retains advantages of both
the orthotropic plate method and finite element concept.
Figure 3.1: box structure and finite strips
For a structure with constant cross-section and end boundary conditions that do not change
transversely, stress analysis can be done using finite strips (Figure 3.1) instead of finite
elements. In each strip, the displacement components at any point are expressed in terms
of the displacement parameters of nodal lines by means of simple polynomials in the
transverse direction and continuously differentiable smooth series in the longitudinal
direction. With the stipulation that such series should satisfy the boundary conditions at the
ends of the strip. Using strain-displacement relationships, the strain energy of the structure
and the potential energy of the external load can be expressed in terms of the displacement
parameters. At equilibrium, the values of the displacement parameters should make the
total potential energy of the structure minimum. This yields a set of linear algebraic
equations with the displacement parameters as unknowns. Then, by solving the equations
for the displacement parameters, the displacement and stress components at any point in
the structure can be obtained.
16
3.2 ENERGY APPROACH FOR A SIMPLE BEAM
The energy approach as related to the finite strip method is best discussed using a simple
beam under a point load at midspan (Figure 3.2). The boundary conditions at both ends
(y=0 and y=l) are as follows.
( )
( ) …..…………. ( )
Figure 3.2: Simple beam under point load at midspan
Where w and M are the deflection and bending moments, and „EI’ is the flexural rigidity.
The deflection of the beam can be approximately represented by a half-sine wave.
( ) ……..…………… ( )
In which δ is the unknown coefficient.
The assumed displacement function in the Equation (3.2) also satisfies the end conditions
given in Equation (3.1). In order to obtain the best approximation, the value of should
make the total potential energy developed in the system become minimum. For the beam
shown in Figure (3.2) the total potential energy Π is defined as
Π ∫( ) ………………... ( )
Where U and W are the strain energy and the potential energy of the load, respectively.
Thus, the first derivative of Π w.r.t must be zero. i.e.
……………… ( )
Substitution of Equation (3.2) into (3.3) yields
17
∫ ……………… ( )
………… ( )
Then the value of is obtained by solving equation (3.4):
……………. ( )
The deflection function proposed in equation (3.2) becomes
( ) ……………… ( )
From which the bending moment is obtain as follows.
( ) ……………….. ( )
The maximum deflection and bending moments occur at midspan with values of
and
The exact solutions are
and
This indicates that the energy approach using one sine function yields a maximum
deflection that is in good agreement with the closed-form solution; however, the maximum
bending moment is underestimated. The accuracy of the analysis can be improved by
simulating the deflection curve using a series of sine functions.
( ) ∑ ………………… ( )
Where m is the unknown coefficient of the mth series term and r is the number of terms
required in the analysis. Applying the energy approach again yields.
( ) ∑
18
( ) ∑ ………………… ( )
The resulting deflection and bending moment at midspan are listed in Table 3.1. The
results illustrate that the convergence of the series for deflection is fast whereas the
convergence of the bending moment is still slow. However, the error is only of the order of
4% when five symmetrical terms are used
Table 3.1: Deflection and moment at midspan
1 0.02053 0.20234
3 0.02079 0.22516
5 0.02082 0.23326
7 0.02083 0.23740
9 0.02083 0.23990
Beam theory 0.02083 0.25
3.3 PLATE STRIP
3.3.1 Displacement function
Figure 3.3: Rectangular plate under transverse loading.
19
Figure 3.3 shows a simply supported rectangular plate under transverse loading. Although
the analysis of the plate as a single element using the energy approach is still possible, it is
extremely difficult to postulate a displacement function that can simulate all the possible
deformations under any load combinations and boundary conditions. If the plate is divided
into a number of longitudinal strips (Figure 3.4), the deflected surface of each strip may be
adequately modeled using simple displacement functions.
Figure 3.4: Plate divided into strips.
All the strips are smoothly connected to each other along strip boundaries referred to as
nodal lines, and all the displacement fields of the individual strips constitute the
deformation pattern of the entire plate. Since the ends of the strip are simply supported.
The appropriate displacement function must give zero deflection at both ends. Furthermore
the longitudinal bending moments must also be zero at the support sections. A series of
sinusoidal functions can be taken to represent the deformed surface in the longitudinal
direction, and polynomial functions in each strip may produce an adequate simulation of
the deflected shape in the transverse direction. Thus the displacement function for a strip
becomes a combination of sinusoidal series and polynomial functions and takes the form.
( ) ∑ ( ). /
∑ ( ). / …………… ( )
20
Where are unknown coefficients and r is the number of series terms
required in the analysis.
To ensure the continuity conditions between adjacent strips more conveniently,

should be expressed in terms of the displacement parameters. The
deflection amplitudes and at the two nodal lines i and j of a strip can be chosen as
the displacement parameters in the following manner (Figure 3.5).
Figure 3.5: Deflection amplitudes for a plate strip.
∑ …………… ( )
This implies that the two adjacent strips have the same deflection along their common
nodal line i since both strips possess the same . In order to guarantee a smooth
deflected surface for the entire plate, the slope must also be continuous across strip
boundaries. Therefore it is also necessary to take the transverse slope amplitudes and
(Figure 3.5) at nodal lines i and j as the displacement parameters, which are defined
as:
21
∑ …………… ( )
To include the four displacement parameters wim , θim , wjm , θjm , a third order polynomial
is required in equation (3.12):
( ) ( ) ……………( )
And fm(x) must satisfy following conditions

( )
At x=0, fm (0) =wim,
( )
At x=b, fm (b) =wjm,
From equation (3.15), the above conditions lead to
……………… ( )
Solving above equations, the displacement function can be written as
( ) ∑( ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ). /
………. (3.17)
In matrix form
( ) ∑, -{ }
( ) ∑ , -* + …………( )
Where { }m includes the displacement parameters and [N] is a matrix of transverse shape
functions called hermitian cubic polynomials.
22
3.3.2 Energy formulation
The strain energy of a plate strip is given by
∫ ∫( )
……….. (3.19)
Where Mx, My, and Mxy, are the transverse, longitudinal and twisting bending moment,
resp.
∫∫ ( )
{ }
∫ ∫* + * + ……… ( )
In which {M} is moment vector and {K} is the curvature vector.
The curvature vector can be expressed on terms of the displacement parameters as
* + , - ∑, - * + ( )
Where [B] m is the strain matrix in the form
, - [ ]
Where,
23
And
The relationship between the moments and the curvatures are.
( )
( )
……… (3.22)
Where Dx and Dy are the flexural rigidities, Dxy is the torsional rigidity, and D1 is the
coupling rigidity. They are as follows
( )
( )
………… (3.23)
Ex, Ey, and Exy are the elastic modulus, µx, µy are Poisson‟s ratio in x and y directions.
For an isotropic plate, it is only necessary to set Ex = Ey = E, µx = µy = µ
In matrix form equation (3.22) becomes
* + { } [ ]* +
Where [D] is the elasticity matrix
* + , -* + ………… ( )
Substituting Equation (3.21) into Equation (3.24) we get
* + ∑ , -, - * + ………… ( )
24
Then, by substituting equations (3.21) and (3.25) into (3.20), the strain energy of the strip
can be expressed in terms of the displacement parameters as follows
∑ ∑, - ∫∫ , - , - , - * +
Above equation contains the following integrations.
∫ ∫ {
Because of the orthogonal properties of the trigonometrical functions, it can be written as
∑, - ∫∫ , - , - , - * + ( )
For the plate strip under distributed transverse load of intensity q(x, y), the potential energy
is given by
∫∫ ( )
By substituting the displacement function in above equation, the potential energy of the
external load can be expressed in terms of displacement parameters
∑, - ∫∫ , - ( ) ( )
3.3.3 Stiffness matrix and load vector
After integration, equation (3.26) and (3.27) are reduced to
∑, - , - * + ( )
∑, - * + ( )
Where [k]m is a 4 x 4 stiffness matrix and {p}m is a 4 x 1 load vector of the strip
25
, - ∫∫ , - , - , -
, - [ ]
................ (3A)
Where
The load vectors are as follows
* + ∫∫ , - ( )
1) Point force p0 at (x0, y0)
( )
( )
* + { }
( )
{ } ( )
2) Uniform load of intensity Q0 on the entire strip
26
* + , ( ) -
{ }
{ }
3.4 PLANE STRESS STRIP
3.4.1 Displacement functions
For a Plate subjected to in-plane forces (Figure 3.6) all the stresses in the direction of its
thickness are negligible and the plate mid-plane remains plane after deformation.
According to the theory of two dimensional elasticity the strain-displacement relationships
are
Figure 3.6: Plate under in-plane loading.
* + { } ( )
{ }
Where „u‟ and „v‟ are displacement component in x and y direction resp.
The stresses related to strains are
27
* + { } [ ]{ }
( )
* + , - * + ( )
Where , - is the elasticity matrix for the in plane stress analysis.
For a rectangular plate with two simply supported ends, the boundary conditions are
u=0 and at y= 0 and y =l
In this case, plate can be analyzed using plane stress strips at any point in the strip the
displacement component can be represented as
( )
{ } ∑ { } ( )
( )
In which km = m /l and ….. Are unknown coefficient
By following the procedure used for plate strip, the coefficient ….. Can be
express in terms of displacement amplitudes along nodal lines i and j,
and the equation (3.32) can be written as
( )
{ } ∑[ ]{ }
( )
{ } ∑, - * + ( )
Where X= x/b, [N]m is the matrix of displacement functions, and { }m is the vector of
displacement parameters.
3.4.2 Stiffness matrix and load vector
The strain energy in the plane stress strip is defined as
∫ ∫( ) ∫ ∫* + * + ( )
By substituting the displacement function, equation (3.33) in the strain displacement

relationships equation (3.30) and then into the stress-strain relationships equation (3.31),
the strain and stress vectors can be expressed in terms of displacement parameters as
28
* + ∑, - * + ( )
And
* + ∑, - , - * + ( )
In which [B]m is the strain matrix in the following form:
, -
( )
( )
[ ]
……… (3.37)
By substituting equation (3.35) and (3.36) in equation (3.34) the strain energy can be
written as
∑ * + ∫ ∫, - , - , - * + ( )
Similarly, the potential energy of external loading can also be expressed in terms of
displacement parameters as
∫ ∫, -{ } ∑ * + ∫ ∫, - { } ( )
Where px and py are the components of load distributed in the plane of the strip. Thus, the
stiffness matrix and the load vector of the strip are obtained and given by
, - ∫∫ , - , - , - ……… … ( )
* + ∫∫ , - { } ( )
The elements of stiffness matrix are as below:
29
, - [ ]
........... (3B)
In which
And
The load vectors are as below:
1) Point force (Fx, Fy) at (x0, y0)
. /
. /
* +
. /
{ }
{ . / }
30
2) Line load of intensity qx on line x=x0 from y1 to y2
* +
{ }
{ }
Where
( )
3) Uniform load of intensity (px, 0) in area of the entire strip
⁄
* + , ( ) -
⁄
{ } { }
3.5 FINITE STRIP FOR BOX AQUEDUCT
A box aqueduct is an assembly of rectangular plates that can offer resistance to both
bending and in-plane loadings. This type of structure can be analyzed using the flat shell
strip, which is formed by combining the plate strip and the plane stress strip so that it is
capable of simulating both the bending and in-plane deformations.
The total potential energy of the flat shell strip is the algebraic sum of those from both the
in-plane and bending deformations. For instance, if a strip is simply supported at two
opposite ends, the total potential energy can be obtained as
Π ∑* + , - * + ∑* + * + ( )
Where * + , - is the vector of the displacement

parameters in the strip coordinate system
31
, - , -
, - , -
, - ( )
, - , -
[ , - , - ]
In which the elements of sub-matrices are given in equation 4.3 and4.4 and
* + , - is the load vector in the strip coordinate

system.
3.6 COORDINATE TRANSFORMATION
The above derivations are carried out in a local coordinate system, wherein the x and y
axes coincide with the mid-surface of a strip. In folded plate structures, any two plates will
in general meet at an angle and, in order to assemble the stiffness matrices, the
displacement vectors and the load vectors of non-coplanar strips, a global coordinate
system common to all the strips must be established.
Figure 3.7: Coordinate transformation.
In Figure 4.2 x, y and z are individual coordinates of a strip, and ̅ , ̅ and ̅ are the global
coordinates; y and ̅ coincide with the intersection line of two adjoining strips. The local
and global displacement components are related as
̅ ̅
̅ ̅
32
………… (3.44)
This relationship is also applicable for nodal line j. thus for a strip, the following
transformation is obtained.
, -
* + [ ] * ̅+ , -{ ̅} ( )
, -
Where
, - [ ] ( )
By substituting equation 4.8 into equation 4.5, the total potential energy of the strip can be
expressed in terms of the global displacement vector and global load vector as
Π ∑ { ̅} , - , - , -{ ̅} ∑ { ̅} , - * +
Π ∑ { ̅} , ̅ - { ̅} ∑ { ̅} * ̅ + ( )
Thus, the stiffness matrix and the load vector of the strip in the global system are obtained
as
, ̅- , - , - , - ( )
* ̅+ , - * + ( )
By following the assembling and minimization procedure described earlier, a set of linear
algebraic equations for the entire box structure is established as
, ̅- * ̅+ * ̅+ ( )
After the global displacement parameters related to all the nodal lines and all the series
terms are obtained from equation 3.50, equation 3.45 is used to transfer back to the local
coordinate system. The displacements, internal moments and stresses at any point in the
structure can then be computed using equations 3.18, 3.25, 3.33 and 3.36.
33
3.7 CLOSING REMARK
Finite strip method is developed in this chapter to analyse the box type aqueduct. The
derivations in this chapter can be used to analyse only the prismatic strips i.e. prismatic
box can be analyzed. The FSM for non-prismatic strip is developed in the next chapter.
34
CHAPTER 4
THEORETICAL FORMULATION-II
FINITE STRIP METHOD FOR NON-PRISMATIC STRIP
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Finite strip method for prismatic plate has been presented completely in the previous
chapter. To evaluate the effect of haunch geometry of plate becomes non-prismatic. In this
chapter FSM with non-prismatic strip is developed so that haunches can be modeled
properly.
4.2 NON-PRISMATIC PLATE
A non-prismatic plate is shown in Figure 4.1. It is having thickness t1 at x=0 and t2 at x=b
and length „L‟.
Figure 4.1: Non-prismatic Plate.
The thickness of plate at a distance x can be obtained as follows.
( )
Where
The Equation set (3.23) can be written as follows.
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
35
( )
………… (4.2)
4.3 STIFFNESS ELEMENTS FOR PLATE IN BENDING
The stiffness matrix takes the form as described in Equation (3A), the elements of which
are as follows.
, ( )-
, -
, -
, -
, -
, -
, -
, -
, -
, -
, -
, -
36
, -
, -
, -
, -
, -
, -
, -
, -
, -
, -
, -
, -
………… (4.3)
Where I0 to I8, are constants which are as follows.
( )
( )
[ ]
( )
[ ]
( )
[ ]
37
( )
[ ]
( )
[ ]
( )
[ ]
( )
[ ]
( )
[ ]
Where T=t1-t2
4.4 STIFFNESS ELEMENTS FOR IN PLANE BENDING
The stiffness matrix takes the form as described in Equation (3B), the elements of which
are as follows.
[ ]
[ ]
………… (4.4)
Where C1 to C5, are the constants which are as follows.
( )
38
( )
( )
( ) ( )
[ ]
( )
[ ]
39
4.5 THE COMPUTER PROGRAM
4.5.1 Introduction
It is clear that a computer programme is necessary for the solution of Equation 3.50. It
should be noted that the overall stiffness matrix is symmetrical and the non-zero element
exist only in neighborhood of the leading diagonal forming narrow band. If a sub-
programme is written so that only half band of matrix elements are required (in a
rectangular array), considerable core storage and computing effort can be saved in the
solution of equation.
Computer programme is developed on the basis of direct stiffness method. The essential
steps in writing a programme are as follows.
1) Presenting input data to computer

2) Evaluation of stiffness matrix of individual strips.
3) Assembling of structure stiffness matrix
4) Forming the load vector
5) Solving the assembled equations for the displacements.
6) Computing the internal forces in the members and reactive forces at the support.
7) Presentation of the results.
4.5.2 Presenting Input Data.
INPUT STATEMENT IN PROGRAM
1. <NJ> <NM> <NJR> <NLD>

2. <XV> <YV> <XYV> <EX> <EY> <AL> <IMD>
3. L, (ICON (L, J), J =1, 2), TL (I).... connectivity
4. L, (CORD (L,J), J =1,2 .... co-ordinates
5. LJR (I), LFIX (I), UR (I, J), J = 1, 2.... Fixity codes
6. NML, NJL
7. LML, (LCODE (J), J = 1 to 7)..... Load code member-wise
8. LJL (P (IDF), JDF = 1, NDF).... Joint load.
9. IMEM, (PROP (IMEM, J), J=1,5)
10. NCONC ... No. of conc. loads
11. (WZ(I), AX(I), AY (I), I=1, NCONC .. conc. load with location
12. WZ ... udl in bending
13. PX ... in plane udl
40
14. NCONC ... No. of conc. load in plane
(WX(I), WY(I), AX(I), I = 1, NCONC .. In plane conc. load
15. WZ1 ... Triangular load is bending
16. NCONC ... No. of line loads in plane
17. PX (I), AX (I), AY1 (I), AYZ (I), I = 1, NCONC
18. WZ, X1, X2, Y1, Y2 patch load in bending
Following basic data should be given to the computer
1. No. of nodal lines (NJ)

2. Number of strips (NM)
3. Number of restrained nodal lines (NJR)
4. Number of loaded strips (NML)
5. Number of loaded nodal lines (NJL)
These are the main parameters, which controls the number of data sets to be read
subsequently. The next input statement will provide the member connectivity and also its
thickness.
< Element No> < nodal line 1> <nodal line 2> < thickness
The next step would be to read the joint co-ordinate data. This consists of NJ sets of data,
each containing the co-ordinates (x, y) of the joints.
The next set consists of number of restrained nodal line data, each set giving the number of
the nodal line, the degrees of freedom prescribed and if non zero, the values of the
prescribed displacements.
< Nodal line number > < fixing code > <u><v><w><>
The load data is likewise read in NML number of sets of data are read into record the
number of strips, the load type and load parameters. Similarly NJL sets of data are read in
for the loads acting on the joints each containing name of the joint and the magnitude of
the load applied to the nodal line joint.
41
4.5.3 Assembling Structure Stiffness Matrix
A box girder is considered as assembly of rectangular plates. To determine overall

displacement matrix of the structure, it is required to assemble the overall stiffness matrix
from individual stiffness matrices of the strips.
The structure stiffness matrix say „SK‟ is set out as a two dimensional array storing only
the upper band of the symmetric stiffness matrix. Thus, in terms of sub matrices it has NJ
(No. of nodal lines) rows, max. difference in joint numbers (ND) columns. The band
spread depends on max. difference in joint numbers (ND). Thus, it is required to calculate
band width and it required to check if the array size allotted to stiffness matrix (SK) can
accommodate if calculation of this bandwidth can be done by scanning the connectivity
data.
After verification of this aspect, the elements of overall stiffness matrix (SK) are all set
equal to zero and the contribution from all strips are placed member-wise in sequence.
Thus, element is considered and the following steps are repeated.
a) Forming the element stiffness

b) Placing the coefficient in the structure stiffness matrix.
c) Storing the element stiffness in the back store.
From the connectivity data, co-ordinates are read and the direction cosines are computed.
Then using the cross-sectional area and material properties of the element, which are
already been read in, the element stiffness matrices are computed.
4.5.4 Assembling the load vector.
Load vector (RHS) is a single dimension vector of size (NJ x 4). The fixing end forces of
Loaded strips (NML strips ) are formed element-wise with the help of connectivity data
and those with opposite sign are placed in the appropriate location of RHS vector. These
are transferred to the back store for reuse. Next the actual applied joint loads are placed.
These would have been directly read in a NJL set of data.
4.5.5 Solution of Equations and Calculation of Member Forces
The elimination routine is then called to triangularize the coefficient matrix. It is usual to
overwrite this on the original stiffness matrix locations. This holds coefficients and pivots
42
required in back substitution and during modification of a fresh right hand side. The
solution routine is then called to solve for the displacements.
Calculation of member end forces is then performed member-wise using the complete
force displacement relations.
The programming language used is FORTRAN 90. Programme can handle any number of
joints and members depending upon memory allocation available with computer. The
programme can handle seven ± load conditions as below.
1. Concentrated load in bending.

2. Uniformly distributed load in bending.
3. In plane uniformly distributed load.
4. In plane concentrated load.
5. Triangular load in bending.
6. Line load in plane.
7. Patch load in bending.
Loads at nodal lines or member or both can be handled in the programme. Programme can
also handle support yielding.
4.5.6 Typical input and output file for a box Girder
A box Girder having inside dimensions 2.0x1.0 m2 Thickness of each wall is 0.2 m and
span 20 m length. Box Girder analyzed is shown in Figure 4.2
Figure 4.2: Box girder
43
Modulus of Elasticity Ex = Ey = Exy = 30,000 Mpa
1) Poisson‟s Ratio Vx = Vy = Vxy = 0.2

2) Density of concrete = 24 KN/m3
3) Number of strips = 3 Nos.
By virtue of symmetry only half of the structure is modeled. The flanges and webs are
divided into strips of identical widths. The input file of this problem is presented below.
A) INPUT FILE
INPUT STATMENT DATA
1) PROBLE NO 1 1
2) STRUCTURAL DATA <NJ> <NM> <NJR> <NLD>
<XV> <YV> <XYV> <EX> <EY> <AL> <EMD>
3) MEMBER CONNECTIVITY MEMBER NUMBER, END1, END2
4) JOINT COORDINATES JOINT, CORDX, CORDY
5) SUPPORT CONDITION JOINT, FIXITY CODE, UX, UY, UZ, UM
6) LOADING DATA NUMBER OF LOADED MEMERS,
NUMBER OF LOADED JOINTS,
MEMBERLOADED-LOADTYPE1, LOAD TYPE2
LOAD TYPE3.... LOAD TYPE7.
UNIFORMLY DISTRIBETED LOAD : WZ IN BENDING (Top & bottom slab)
UNIFORMLY DISTRIBETED LOAD : PX IN PLANE (vertical webs)
B) OUTPUT FILE
4.6 CLOSING REMARK
Finite strip method with variable thickness strip has been developed in this chapter for
analysis of box Girder of aqueduct. A computer program is developed based on the two
theoretical formulations, which can be used for the parametric investigations. Issues
related to modeling of box Girder are also discussed in this chapter. In the next chapter
parametric study for different sizes of box girder for same discharge through box girder
and for different span will be performed.
44
CHAPTER 5
PARAMETRIC INVESTIGATION
5.1 PRELIMINARY REMARKS
Analysis of box type aqueduct is complicated due to load sharing mechanism developed
from its integrated action. Box girder can be assumed as combination of bending plates
(top and bottom slab) and plane-stress plates (vertical wall). Structural stiffness matrix and
force matrix can be obtained by assembling those obtained from the flexural analysis and
from the plane stress analysis. Numerical methods like FSM provide efficient and accurate
analysis with minimum modeling effort and input requirements. Finite strip method model
such problems as one dimensional strips in the longitudinal direction using interpolation
function for the displacement field that satisfies the boundary conditions at the ends.
5.2 FINITE STRIP MODELING
It is important to select properly the number of strips and series terms to get acceptable
solutions. Selection of the best approach and the most suitable type of strip is based mainly
on the geometry of the structure, namely the shape and support conditions. Generating a
finite strip model depends upon the objective of analysis and the loading conditions, the
suitable finite strip model can be prepared. In using the finite strip method for the overall
analysis of a single span box girder aqueduct, following modeling will provide adequate
accuracy.
1) The flanges and webs are idealized as the orthotropic plates with equivalent elastic
properties.
2) Each web is divided into minimum 10 strips. The flanges in each cell are divided into
minimum 10 strips. If only the deflection and longitudinal stresses are required, fewer
strips are sufficient. If more accurate results are desired for shear stresses and for the
transverse bending moment, more strips should be used.
3) In Region with a higher stress gradient, narrower strips should be used. The width of
strip should change gradually from one strip to another.
4) If the cross-section and loads are both symmetrical about the centre line only half of
the box girder needs to be analyzed.
5) If the strip is subjected to uniform load, five to ten harmonics are adequate for the
analysis. For truck loading 20 to 30 series terms are necessary.
45
Numbering of nodal lines and strips is also important in minimizing the half band width of
a stiffness matrix. The nodal lines should be numbered, so as to keep the difference
between the numbers of all successive nodal lines within each strip at a minimum.
5.3 VALIDATION OF RESULTS
Validation of the computer program result is performed for four numerical problems
presented by M.S. Cheung et al. (1969).
Problem No 1: Simply supported square plate under uniform load
A square plate with side length „a‟ is simply supported along the four edges and is
subjected to a uniform load of intensity p. Due to symmetry, only half the plate needs to
be analyzed and only symmetrical series terms with odd numbers are included in the finite
strip simulation. One, two and three plate strips of equal width are employed in the
analysis. The results of maximum deflections and bending moments are presented in
Table 5.1, in which D = Et3/ 12(1 - 2) is the flexural rigidity of the plate and  = 0.3. No
of terms T in all the tables is calculated as follows. T = (m+1)/2
Figure 5.1: Simply supported square plate
46
Table 5.1: Simply supported plate under uniform load
No of
WD/pa4 Mx/pa2 My/pa2
terms
No of
strips
Present Present Present
T m Cheung Cheung Cheung
results results results
1 1 0.004140 0.004139 0.05608 0.05608 0.05400 0.05400

1
2 3 0.004089 0.004088 0.05459 0.05458 0.04945 0.04945
1 1 0.004111 0.00411 0.05016 0.05015 0.05197 0.05196
2 2 3 0.004060 0.004060 0.04867 0.04866 0.04744 0.04743
3 5 0.004065 0.004064 0.04897 0.04897 0.04847 0.04847
1 1 0.004110 0.004109 0.04957 0.04957 0.05178 0.05178
2 3 0.004059 0.004059 0.04805 0.04805 0.04724 0.04724

3
3 5 0.004063 0.004063 0.04836 0.04836 0.04827 0.04827
4 7 0.004062 0.004062 0.04825 0.04825 0.04789 0.04789
Theory 0.00406 0.0479 0.0479
It can be observed from Table 5.1 that the present results are in excellent agreement with
those obtained by M.S. Cheung (1969).
Problem No 2: Simple beam modeled by plane stress strips
A simple beam of span length 10 m, depth 1 m and thickness 0.2 m is subjected to a

uniform load of intensity q = 100 kN/m from above. The material properties are E =
30000 MPa and  = 0.2. The beam is modeled using one, two and three plane stress strips
of equal width in order to take into consideration the shear effects. Only symmetrical
series terms are required in the analysis since the deformation is symmetrical about the
midspan. The resulting maximum deflection, longitudinal stresses and shear stresses are
presented in Table 5.2. The beam theory solution including shear effects is also given in
the table.
It can be observed that the use of only one strip and one series term is enough to produce
satisfactory results. For the maximum deflection and longitudinal stress with less than 4%
47
error, whereas three strips and ten series terms are needed to yield a value for the
maximum shear stress with an error of less than 5%.
Table 5.2: Simple beam modeled by plane strips
No. of
No. terms
Wmax (m) y max (MPa) yz max (MPa)
of
strips Present Present Present
1 1 0.02562 0.02561 38.70 38.70 2.05 2.047

2 3 0.02549 0.02582 37.27 37.27 2.29 2.29
1 3 5 0.02550 0.02574 37.58 37.58 2.39 2.39
5 9 0.02550 0.02574 37.52 37.52 2.49 2.49
10 19 0.02550 0.02574 37.50 37.50 2.60 2.60
1 1 0.02639 0.02637 39.08 39.06 2.16 2.15
2 3 0.02621 0.02649 37.65 37.62 2.40 2.39
2 3 5 0.02622 0.02651 37.95 37.93 2.49 2.49
5 9 0.02627 0.02651 37.89 37.87 2.57 2.56
10 19 0.02627 0.02651 37.87 37.86 2.61 2.61
1 1 0.02651 0.02654 39.11 39.08 2.93 2.93
2 3 0.02643 0.02667 37.65 37.62 3.26 3.25
3 3 5 0.02645 0.02668 37.97 37.94 3.38 3.38
5 9 0.02644 0.02668 37.90 37.87 3.48 3.48
10 19 0.02644 0.02664 37.89 37.86 3.57 3.57
Theory 0.02664 37.50 3.75
Problem No 3: Box Beam under Self – Weight
A simple box beam of span length 20 m deforms under self-weight. The outside width and
depth are respectively 2.2 m and 1.2 m. Thickness of each wall is 0.2 m. The material
properties are E = 30,000 MPa,  = 0.2 and  = 24.0 kN/m3. By virtue of symmetry, only
half of the structure is modeled and only symmetrical series terms are necessary. The
flanges and web are divided into strips of identical width. The maximum values of
deflection, longitudinal stress and shear stress obtained are presented in Table 5.3.
48
It can be noticed that the web can be modeled by only one strip in order to obtain the
satisfactory maximum longitudinal stresses. At the bottom surface of the midspan
however, in this case, the result for maximum shear stresses at the web centre of end
section has an error of 8% when 20 symmetrical series terms are used. If more accurate
shear stress is of interest, more strips should be used for each web. For maximum
deflection, the finite strip solutions converge to a value larger than the beam theory
solution, since the latter does not include transverse shear deformation.
Figure 5.2: Box beam under self weight
Table 5.3: Simple box being under self weight
No. of
No. of terms Wmax (m) y max (MPa) yz max (MPa)
strips Present Present Present
1 1 8.83 8.822 3.79 3.786 0.577 0.576
2 3 8.78 8.774 3.64 3.635 0.640 0.658
1 5 9 8.78 8.78 3.67 3.66 0.680 0.664
10 19 8.78 8.78 3.66 3.66 0.691 0.653
20 39 8.78 8.78 3.66 3.66 0.696 0.649
1 1 8.89 8.89 3.81 3.811 0.582 0.543
3 5 8.84 8.84 3.65 3.69 0.646 0.653
2 5 9 8.84 8.84 3.69 3.69 0.686 0.663
10 19 8.84 8.84 3.68 3.69 0.696 0.691
20 39 8.84 8.84 3.68 3.685 0.700 0.735
1 1 8.90 8.86 3.81 3.795 0.614 0.659
3 5 8.85 8.86 3.66 3.68 0.682 0.645
3 5 9 8.85 8.86 3.66 3.67 0.726 0.721
10 19 8.85 8.86 3.69 3.67 0.738 0.734
20 39 8.85 8.82 3.68 3.67 0.743 0.738
Theory 8.33 3.60 0.756
49
Problem No 4: Simply supported continuous plate
A rectangular plate of width a and length 3a, simply supported along four edges and also
along the intermediate lines ss and tt as shown in Figure 5.3 forms a simply supported
continuous plates over three spans with µ=0.2. The middle span is uniformly loaded while
the two side spans are unloaded. A series of calculations for half a plate were performed
for different meshes, using different number of series terms. The results are shown in
Table 5.4 in comparison with the exact solution.
From Table 5.4 it can be concluded that, more series terms are required to compute the
bending moment in the y direction.
The outcome of this example dictates that the total number of series terms is more critical
than the number of strips for the accuracy of the longitudinal bending moment while
number of strips has greater effect than the number series terms on the accuracy of Mx.
Figure 5.3: Simply supported continuous plate
50
Table 5.4: Deflection and moments of a continuous plate
WA WC MxB MyC MxC

Number of
Number
terms
of strips Present Present Present Present Present
T=(m+1)/2 Cheung Cheung Cheung Cheung Cheung
results results results results results
3 -0.0609 -0.0589 0.2892 0.291 -0.0273 -0.0201 0.0327 0.0347 0.0405 0.0501
9 -0.0584 -0.0589 0.2893 0.291 -0.0347 -0.0316 0.0322 0.0344 0.0367 0.0501
2
15 -0.0583 -0.0589 0.2898 0.291 -0.0365 -0.0316 0.0324 0.0344 0.0378 0.0501
21 -0.0583 -0.0589 0.2897 0.291 -0.0372 -0.0316 0.0323 0.0344 0.0374 0.0501
3 -0.0609 -0.0583 0.2891 0.289 -0.0273 -0.032 0.0324 0.0325 0.0404 0.0396
9 -0.0583 -0.0583 0.2892 0.289 -0.0346 -0.0358 0.0346 0.0323 0.0366 0.0395
3
15 -0.0583 -0.0583 0.2897 0.289 -0.0365 -0.0358 0.0320 0.0323 0.0377 0.0395
21 -0.0583 -0.0583 0.2896 0.289 -0.0372 -0.0358 0.0319 0.0323 0.0373 0.0395
Exact solution -0.0583 0.2896 -0.0381 0.0317 0.0375
Multiplier qa4/D qa2
51
5.4 CONVERGENCE STUDY
In general, an interpolation function representing a displacement field is admissible

provided it doesn‟t violet internal compatibility and the essential boundary conditions. The
compatibility requirement implies that the displacement field within the element and
across the element boundaries must be continuous. The element formation must be
complete and compatible in order to ensure a monotonic convergence i.e. the accuracy of
the solution increases consistently with the number of elements. The constant strain mode
is required to ensure that in the limit as the size of the element decreases due to an increase
in the number of elements, the strain doesn‟t keep on changing but rather approaches a
constant value within each element.
Convergence study is helpful in choosing number of terms in the deflection function and to
select number of strips. From above four examples we can conclude as follows.
1) Finite strip method converges very rapidly especially for the deflection.
2) From the validation problem no 2, it can be seen that three strips and more than 10
series terms are needed to yield better convergence for shear stress with an error of less
than 5%.
3) More series terms are required to compute the bending moments in the y-direction.
Thus, the total number of series terms is more critical than the number of strips for the
accuracy of longitudinal bending moment while the number of strips has greater effect
than the number of series terms in accuracy of transverse bending moment Mx.
5.5 COMPARISON OF RESULTS OF FSM AND APPROXIMATE METHOD
Analysis of the box Girder is carried out by using finite strip method for dead load, water
load, live load symmetric and live load unsymmetric conditions. Results obtained are
compared with approximate method of analysis. These results are presented in Table 5.5.
For dead load condition box girder is divided into 40 strips as show in Figure 5.4. In case
of water load condition box girder is divided into 48 strips. Line diagram for the same is
given in Figure 5.5. Finite strip analysis for box girder in case of live load symmetric and
unsymmetric condition is carried out with 44 strips each. Line diagram for the same is
given in Figure 5.6. Results obtained by finite strip method and by the approximate
method are presented in Table 5.5. From the table it is observed that, there is variation in
the results of FSM and Approximate method. This variation is due to the fact that finite
strip method analyse structure as whole system.
52
Table 5.5: Comparison of FSM and Approximate method
TRANSVERSE STRESS σx (KN/m2) MOMENT MX (KNm)

LOADING CONDITION
AT AT
AT END AT CENTER
TOP SLAB END CENTER
FSM -568.95 -612.56 8.12 -8.31
DL
APM -557.53 -543.51 8.36 -8.15
FSM -593.31 -625.77 7.82 7.69
WL
APM -177.06 - 0.88 0.88
FSM -340.02 -570.65 5.07 -8.32
LL (SYM)
APM -999.46 -2138.5 14.99 -32.07
FSM 232.56 -542.27 3.46 -7.93
LL (UNSYM)
APM 1444 -1929.3 21.66 -28.94
BOTTOM SLAB
FSM 498.82 489.37 7.07 -6.46
DL
APM 501.83 417 7.28 -6.25
FSM -1166.8 -2292.08 16.7 -33.87
WL
APM -1585.2 -2647.6 28.47 -22.54
FSM 110.98 123.79 1.5 1.47
LL (SYM)
APM 179.6 179.6 2.69 2.69
FSM 162.54 112.14 2.26 1.34
LL (UNSYM)
APM 215.66 257.73 4.49 3.86
AT
VERTICAL WALL AT TOP
BOTTOM
FSM 498.82 -568.95 7.07 -6.46
DL
APM 501.83 -557.53 7.28 -6.25
FSM -1166.8 -593.31 16.7 -33.87
WL
APM -1585.2 -177.06 28.47 -22.54
FSM 110.98 -340.02 1.5 1.47
LL (SYM)
APM 179.6 -999.46 2.69 2.69
FSM 162.54 232.56 2.26 1.34
LL (UNSYM)
APM 215.66 1444 4.49 3.86
Stress: + Ve Tension; -Ve Compression; Bending Moment: + Ve Hogging; -Ve
Sagging
The variation in top slab, bottom slab and vertical wall due to DL is negligible, However
due to WL it varies from 13 to 26%. Due to LL the variation is 70 to 80% in top slab, 24
to 30% in bottom slab. Thus it can be summarized that the approximate method
53
overestimates the stresses except in top slab due to WL. Therefore the approximate method
is conservative method.
Figure 5.4: Finite Strip modeling for dead load
Figure 5.5: Finite Strip modeling for water load
54
Figure 5.6: Finite Strip modeling for live load
Following graph represents the variation of transverse stress σx, transverse moment Mx and
longitudinal stress σy in various elements of box type aqueduct of cross-section 3.5m x
3.5m x 0.2m to get the idea about how the stresses varies along both transverse and
longitudinal directions.
Variation of stress σx in top slab for DL

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
-10
Stress KN/m2
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
Width
Graph 5.1: Variation of Transverse Stress σx in top slab of Box Aqueduct for DL
55
variation of stress σx in bottom slab for DL
60
50
Stress KN/m2
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
width
Graph 5.2: Variation of Transverse Stress σx in bottom slab of box Aqueduct for DL
variation of stress σx in vertical for DL
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Height
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100
Stress KN/m2
Graph 5.3: Variation of Transverse Stress σx in vertical of box Aqueduct for DL
It can be observed from Graph 5.1 to 5.3 that the top slab is completely in compression,
bottom slab is in tension in transverse direction and the vertical wall is in both
compression as well as in tension for transverse stress due to DL.
56
variation of moment Mx in top slab for DL
6
2
Mx (KNm)
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
-2
-4
-6
Width
Graph 5.4: Variation of Transverse Moment Mx in top slab of box Aqueduct for DL
variation of moment Mx in bottom slab for DL

5
4
3
2
Mx (KNm)
1
0
-1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
-2
-3
-4
-5
Width
Graph 5.5: Variation of Transverse Moment Mx in bottom slab of box Aqueduct for
DL
The variation of transverse moment in top and bottom slab due to DL is same i.e. sagging
moment in central portion and hogging moment at supports.
57
variation of moment Mx in vertical for DL
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Height
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Mx (KNm)
Graph 5.6: Variation of Transverse Moment Mx in vertical of box Aqueduct for DL
variation of stress σy in top slab for DL

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
-100
Stress KN/m2
-200
-300
-400
Width
Graph 5.7: Variation of Longitudinal Stress σy in top slab of box Aqueduct for DL
58
variation of stress σy in bottom slab for DL
400
300
Stress KN/m2
200
100
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Width
Graph 5.8: Variation of Longitudinal Stress σy in bottom slab of box Aqueduct for
DL
variation of stress σy in vertical for DL

1
0.8
0.6
Height
0.4
0.2
0
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
Stress KN/m2
Graph 5.9: Variation of Longitudinal Stress σy in vertical of box Aqueduct for DL
bottom slab is in tension and the vertical wall is having both compression as well as in
tension for longitudinal stress due to DL.
59
variation of stress σx in top slab for WL
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
-20
-40
Stress KN/m2
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
Width
Graph 5.10: Variation of Transverse Stress σx in top slab of box Aqueduct for WL
variation of stress σx in bottom slab for WL

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
-20
-40
Stress KN/m2
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
Width
Graph 5.11: Variation of Transverse Stress σx in bottom slab of box Aqueduct for
WL
It can be observed from Graph 5.10 & 5.11 that the top and bottom slab are completely in
compression in transverse direction due to WL. This variation is similar to that of DL.
60
variation of stress σx in vertical for WL
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Height
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
Stress KN/m2
Graph 5.12: Variation of Transverse Stress σx in vertical of box Aqueduct for WL
In Graph 5.12 the variation of transverse stress in vertical wall is parabolic due to WL.
variation of moment Mx in top slab for WL

10.8
10.6
10.4
Mx (KNm)
10.2
10
9.8
9.6
9.4
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Width
Graph 5.13: Variation of Transverse Moment Mx in top slab of box Aqueduct for WL
Top slab is subjected to hogging moment in x direction throughout the width of aqueduct
due to WL. Graph 5.14 shows that the bottom slab is subjected to hogging moment at the
61
end and sagging moment at center due to WL. The magnitude of sagging is almost four
times that of the hogging moment at the end.
variation of moment Mx in bottom slab for WL

20
10
0
Mx (KNm)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

-10
-20
-30
-40
Width
Graph 5.14: Variation of Transverse Moment Mx in bottom slab of box Aqueduct for
WL
variation of moment Mx in vertical for WL

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Height
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20
Mx (KNm)
Graph 5.15: Variation of Transverse Moment Mx in vertical of box Aqueduct for WL
62
variation of stress σy in top slab for WL
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
-100
Stress KN/m2
-200
-300
-400
-500
-600
Width
Graph 5.16: Variation of Longitudinal Stress σy in top slab of box Aqueduct for WL
variation of stress σy in bottom slab for WL

600
500
Stress KN/m2
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Width
Graph 5.17: Variation of Longitudinal Stress σy in bottom slab of box Aqueduct for
WL
bottom slab is completely in tension and the vertical wall is in both compression as well as
in tension for longitudinal stress due to WL.
63
Variation of σy in top and bottom slab due to DL, LL and WL shown in Graphs indicates
that the longitudinal stress σy is maximum near the vertical wall and it is minimum at the
center of slab. This phenomena is called shear lag. FSM clearly shows the shear lag effect
which approximate method cannot predict.
variation of stress σy in vertical for WL

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Height
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-1000 -500 0 500 1000
Stress KN/m2
Graph 5.18: Variation of Longitudinal Stress σy in vertical of box Aqueduct for WL
5.6 PARAMETRIC INVESTIGATION FOR 10.75m SPAN AQUEDUCT
Parametric study for different cross-sections with different thickness which gives
approximately same discharge area have been analyzed by using FSM. The details of
cross-sections are presented in Table 5.6.
Table 5.6: Sizes of Aqueduct adopted for parametric investigation of 10.75m span
SR NO. B (m) D (m) THICKNESS (m)

1 0.2
2 3.5 3.5 0.25
3 0.3
4 0.2
5 3.8 3.2 0.25
6 0.3
7 0.2
8 4.25 3 0.25
9 0.3
64
5.6.1 Analysis of 3.5m x 3.5m cross-section
Analysis of 3.5m x 3.5m cross-section with different thickness is done using FSM and the
results are presented in Table 5.7 to 5.9.
Variation of stresses and moments is presented in Graph 5.19 to 5.30.
variation of stress σx in top slab for DL

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
-10
Stress KN/m2
-20 t=0.2
-30 t=0.25
-40 t=0.3
-50
-60
Width
Graph 5.19: Variation of Transverse Stress σx for various thickness in top slab of box
Aqueduct for DL

60
50
Stress KN/m2
40
30 t=0.2
20 t=0.25
10 t=0.3
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Width
Graph 5.20: Variation of Transverse Stress σx for various thickness in bottom slab of
box Aqueduct for DL
65
Table 5.7: Analysis of Aqueduct of size 3.5mx3.5mx0.2m
TRANSVERSE LONGITUDINAL
MOMENT MX (KNm) MOMENT MY (KNm)
LOADING STRESS σx (KN/m2) STRESS σy (KN/m2)
CONDITION AT AT AT AT
AT END AT END AT END AT END
CENTER CENTER CENTER CENTER
TOP SLAB
DL -21.96 -47.89 -370.75 -300.5 4.78 -5.35 0.734 -1.36
WL -117.2 -167.73 -542.64 -434.82 10.59 9.52 1.84 2.32
LL (SYM) 2.7 -11.93 -155.01 -161.95 3.31 -6.98 0.784 2.32
LL (UNSYM) 4.7 -12.5 -204.83 -172.51 2.61 -6.81 0.73 2.33
BOTTOM SLAB
DL 22.11 48.22 372.3 301.41 3.95 -3.71 0.568 -0.98
WL -128.66 -86.95 491.1 402.31 12.31 -36.25 2.15 -8.58
LL (SYM) 12.49 29.67 192.78 165.1 1.39 1.38 0.17 0.23
LL (UNSYM) 12.69 30.17 130.99 176.82 1.63 1.3 0.25 0.21
VERTICAL AT AT AT AT
AT TOP AT TOP AT TOP AT TOP
WALL BOTTOM BOTTOM BOTTOM BOTTOM
DL 48.89 -63.46 377.66 -379.05 -4 4.85 -0.8 0.97
WL 270.11 165.77 570.37 117.68 -14.77 -25.07 -3.04 -5.87
LL (SYM) -7.63 -15.55 190.43 -155.45 -1.38 4.43 -0.28 0.708
LL (UNSYM) -10.26 -10.27 253.21 -206.39 -0.98 3.89 -0.18 0.56
Stress: + Ve Tension; -Ve Compression; Bending Moment: + Ve Hogging; -Ve Sagging
66
TOP SLAB
DL -21.44 -46.97 -365 -295.78 5.7 -6.34 0.71 -1.77
WL -92.52 -130.9 -421.12 -337.22 10.36 9.33 1.65 2.1
LL (SYM) 2 -9.75 -124.62 -129.39 3.35 -7 0.82 2.3
LL (UNSYM) 3.72 -10.05 -159.38 -136.85 2.51 -6.83 0.766 2.31
BOTTOM SLAB
DL 21.57 47.24 366.23 296.51 4.87 -4.7 0.54 -1.39
WL -98.82 -66.63 381.05 312.02 12.08 -35.67 1.94 -8.61
LL (SYM) 10.29 23.78 154.29 131.93 1.39 1.37 0.11 0.173
LL (UNSYM) 10.72 24.03 109.5 140.3 1.78 1.29 0.23 0.15
DL 48.88 -60.53 371.7 -372.81 -4.93 5.78 -0.99 1.16
WL 209.86 128.68 442.33 91.22 -15.03 -24.6 -3.11 -5.7
LL (SYM) -6.06 -12.8 152.37 -124.5 -1.38 4.45 -0.28 0.73
LL (UNSYM) -8.42 -8.46 197.55 -160.48 -0.83 3.78 -0.14 0.55
67
TRANSVERSE LONGITUDINAL MOMENT MOMENT

LOADING STRESS σx (KN/m2) STRESS σy (KN/m2) MX (KNm) MY (KNm)
TOP SLAB
DL -21.086 -46.34 -361.08 -292.55 6.6 -7.34 0.58 -2.28
WL -75.96 -106.32 -340.12 -272.18 10.13 9.12 1.42 1.86
LL (SYM) 1.506 -8.36 -104.42 -107.66 3.39 -7.02 0.86 2.27
LL (UNSYM) 3.1 -8.48 -129.26 -112.73 2.42 -6.84 0.804 2.28
BOTTOM SLAB
DL 21.19 46.57 362.11 293.16 5.78 -5.7 0.422 -1.91
WL -78.99 -53.15 307.75 251.87 4.45 -35.06 1.7 -8.66
LL (SYM) 8.83 19.9 128.71 109.75 1.39 1.36 0.045 0.097
LL (UNSYM) 9.39 19.94 95.22 115.52 1.93 1.28 0.204 0.079
DL 48.86 -58.57 367.65 -368.58 -5.85 6.7 -1.18 1.35
WL 169.73 103.99 357.05 73.62 -15.24 -24.19 -3.17 -5.67
LL (SYM) -4.99 -11.07 127.07 -103.99 -1.38 4.47 -0.29 0.75
LL (UNSYM) -7.18 -7.32 160.55 -129.99 -0.68 3.69 -0.115 0.54
68
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Height
0.5 t=0.2
0.4 t=0.25
0.3 t=0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-100 -50 0 50 100
Stress KN/m2
Graph 5.21: Variation of Transverse Stress σx for various thickness in vertical of box
Aqueduct for DL
It can be observed from Graph 5.19 to 5.21 that the transverse stress σx do no change with
thickness substantially in top, bottom slab and vertical wall.

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
-100
Stress KN/m2
t=0.2
-200 t=0.25
t=0.3
-300
-400
Width
Graph 5.22: Variation of Longitudinal Stress σy for various thickness in top slab of
box Aqueduct for DL
69
400
300
Stress KN/m2
200
100
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Width
Graph 5.23: Variation of Longitudinal Stress σy for various thickness in bottom slab
of box Aqueduct for DL

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Height
0.6
0.5 t=0.2
0.4 t=0.25
0.3
0.2 t=0.3
0.1
0
-600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600
Stress KN/m 2
Graph 5.24: Variation of Longitudinal Stress σy for various thickness in vertical wall
of box Aqueduct for DL
It can be observed from Graphs 5.22 to 5.24 that the longitudinal stress in top slab, bottom
slab and vertical wall do not show any considerable variation as the thickness varies.
70
variation of stress σx in top slab for WL
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
-50
Stress N/mm2
t=0.2
-100 t=0.25
t=0.3
-150
-200
Width
Graph 5.25: Variation of Transverse Stress σx for various thickness in top slab of box
Aqueduct for WL
variation of stress σx in bottom slab for WL

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
Stress N/mm2
-50 t=0.2
t=0.25
-100 t=0.3
-150
Width
Graph 5.26: Variation of Transverse Stress σx for various thickness in bottom slab of
box Aqueduct for WL
In WL case the Transverse stress in top slab and bottom slab reduces considerably as the
thickness is increased by approximately 19 to 22% for every 50mm increase in thickness.
71
variationof moment Mx in top slab for WL
12
10
8
MX KNm
6 t=0.2
t=0.25
4
t=0.3
2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Width
Graph 5.27: Variation of Transverse Moment Mx for various thickness in top slab of
box Aqueduct for WL
variationof moment Mx in bottom slab for WL

20
10
0
MX KNm
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 t=0.2
-10
t=0.25
-20 t=0.3
-30
-40
Width
Graph 5.28: Variation of Transverse Moment Mx for various thickness in bottom slab
of box Aqueduct for WL
It can be observed from the Graph 5.27 and 5.28 that the transverse moment in top slab
and bottom slab remains unchanged with various thickness of elements of aqueduct.
72
variation of stress σy in top slab for WL
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
-100
Stress KN/m2
-200
t=0.2
-300 t=0.25
t=0.3
-400
-500
-600
Width
Graph 5.29: Variation of Transverse Stress σy for various thickness in top slab of box
Aqueduct for WL
variation of stress σy in bottom slab for WL

600
500
Stress KN/m2
400
300 t=0.2
200 t=0.25
t=0.3
100
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Width
Graph 5.30 Variation of Transverse Stress σy for various thickness in bottom slab of
box Aqueduct for WL
It can be observed from Graph 5.29 and 5.30 that the longitudinal stress varies
considerably in top slab as well as in bottom slab of box aqueduct with various thickness
of elements by approximately 19 to 22% for every 50mm increase in thickness.
73
5.6.2 Analysis of 3.8m x 3.2m and 4.25m x 3m cross-sections
Analysis of 3.8m x 3.2m and 4.25m x 3m cross-sections with different thickness is done
using FSM and the results are presented in Table 5.10 to 5.15.
Variation of stresses and moments is presented in Graph 5.31 to 5.39.
variation of stress σx in top slab for DL for 0.2m thickness

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
-20
Stress KN/m2
3.5X3.5
-40
3.8X3.2
-60
4.25X3
-80
-100
width
Graph 5.31: Variation of Transverse Stress σx for various size of box Aqueduct in top
slab for DL
variation of stress σx in bottom slab for DL for 0.2m thickness

100
80
Stress KN/m2
60
3.5X3.5
40
3.8X3.2
20 4.25X3
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
width
Graph 5.32: Variation of Transverse Stress σx for various size of box Aqueduct in top
slab for DL
74
TOP SLAB
DL -28.67 -61.08 -400.07 -311.75 5.89 -6.06 0.92 -1.57
WL -112.12 -173.77 -573.63 -441.95 8.8 7.75 1.44 1.92
LL (SYM) -2.06 -23.27 -170.14 -167.88 5 -8.28 1.06 2.6
LL (UNSYM) 1.79 -23.44 -247.97 -184.32 3.81 -7.88 0.92 2.6
BOTTOM SLAB
DL 28.81 61.41 401.69 312.69 4.84 -4.21 0.71 -1.13
WL -91.14 -38.15 528.16 415.88 17.52 -34.67 3.15 -8.43
LL (SYM) 15.91 37.8 204.46 170.44 1.5 1.5 0.18 0.27
LL (UNSYM) 15.92 38.05 112.41 188.1 1.8 1.36 0.28 0.236
DL 52.61 -68.46 406.45 -408.03 -4.89 5.97 -0.98 1.2
WL 268.74 164.39 599.58 125.55 -19.24 -23.49 -3.93 -5.4
LL (SYM) -7.99 -22.63 201.43 -172 -1.49 5.78 -0.3 1.04
LL (UNSYM) -15.53 -10.61 295.38 -251.38 -0.91 4.86 -0.16 0.79
75
TOP SLAB
DL -27.96 -59.82 -393.39 -306.46 7.01 -7.18 0.91 -2.05
WL -88.46 -135.36 -445.22 -342.64 8.58 7.57 1.22 1.69
LL (SYM) -1.94 -18.79 -136.56 -134.07 5.03 -8.3 1.08 2.55
LL (UNSYM) 1.56 -18.69 -191.16 -145.75 3.63 -7.9 0.922 2.56
BOTTOM SLAB
DL 28.07 60.08 394.68 307.21 5.96 -5.33 0.69 -1.61
WL -69.32 -28.43 409.92 322.48 1.71 -3.4 2.89 -8.47
LL (SYM) 13.06 30.28 163.65 136.155 1.5 1.49 0.11 0.19
LL (UNSYM) 13.56 30.24 97.34 148.78 2.03 1.34 0.28 0.164
DL 52.59 -65.28 399.59 -400.86 -6.03 7.11 -1.21 1.43
WL 208.79 127.55 465 97.32 -19.22 -23.04 -3.94 -5.29
LL (SYM) -6.32 -18.47 161.18 -137.75 -1.49 5.79 -0.31 1.06
LL (UNSYM) -9.51 -12.37 228.74 -193.93 -0.68 4.7 -0.11 0.76
76
TOP SLAB
DL -27.45 -58.93 -388.63 -302.68 8.12 -8.31 0.78 -2.64
WL -71.92 -113.07 -348.955 -274.68 7.82 7.69 0.86 1.52
LL (SYM) -1.88 -15.82 -114.11 -111.47 5.07 -8.32 1.09 2.5
LL (UNSYM) 1.43 -15.56 -153.32 -120.05 3.46 -7.93 0.925 2.51
BOTTOM SLAB
DL 27.55 59.15 389.71 303.31 7.07 -6.46 0.57 -2.2
WL -56.51 -33.85 378.71 268.52 16.7 -33.87 2.56 -8.66
LL (SYM) 11.19 25.29 136.39 113.235 1.5 1.47 0.037 0.111
LL (UNSYM) 11.98 25.07 87.06 122.59 2.26 1.34 0.27 0.077
DL 52.56 -63.13 394.71 -395.77 -7.16 8.23 -1.45 1.66
WL 169.94 107.03 423.07 106.51 -19.07 -22.73 -3.85 -5.17
LL (SYM) -5.2 -157.814 134.28 -114.9 -1.49 5.81 -0.32 1.09
LL (UNSYM) -8.13 -10.44 184.39 -153.32 -0.46 4.54 -0.062 0.74
77
Table 5.13: Analysis of Aqueduct of size 4.25mx3mx0.2m
TOP SLAB
DL -38.71 -80.59 -427.85 -311.89 7.68 -7.26 1.24 -1.95
WL -103.24 -180.11 -593.45 -426.69 7.42 6.22 1.13 1.67
LL (SYM) -8.3 -38.57 -177.99 -161.4 7.6 -10.38 1.5 2.76
LL (UNSYM) -2.62 -37.29 -294.48 -185.82 5.59 -9.35 1.21 2.86
BOTTOM SLAB
DL 38.84 80.91 429.56 312.81 6.24 -5.07 0.959 -1.4
WL -60.66 8.37 552.51 407.56 23.79 -34.92 4.36 -8.95
LL (SYM) 21.103 49.34 208.89 163.49 1.7 1.626 0.216 0.355
LL (UNSYM) 19.52 48.63 75.65 188.94 1.96 1.38 0.334 0.283
DL 58.24 -76.07 433.44 -435.32 -6.32 7.759 -1.27 1.55
WL 27.36 166.64 618.718 130.02 -24.58 -22.58 -5.04 -5.19
LL (SYM) -8.33 -33.67 204.75 -181.94 -1.69 7.91 -0.35 1.56
LL (UNSYM) -12.81 -23.31 339.61 -298.61 -0.93 6.36 -0.158 1.14
78
TOP SLAB
DL -37.68 -78.75 -419.82 -305.97 9.1 -8.61 1.26 -2.52
WL -83.57 -143.39 -467.3 -337.88 7.41 6.2 0.92 1.44
LL (SYM) -6.95 -30.96 -142.77 -128.86 7.63 -9.67 1.49 2.7
LL (UNSYM) -1.72 -29.62 -226.1 -146.47 5.32 -9.36 1.16 2.8
BOTTOM SLAB
DL 37.78 79.01 421.19 306.71 7.69 -6.41 0.98 -1.97
WL -48.5 5.75 434.93 322.71 23.73 -34.92 4.14 -9.17
LL (SYM) 17.27 39.51 167.38 130.57 1.7 1.61 0.14 0.27
LL (UNSYM) 16.77 38.6 70.19 148.99 2.27 1.37 0.35 0.205
DL 58.18 -72.44 425.27 -426.77 -7.79 9.22 -1.57 1.85
WL 216.47 131.72 487.29 102.509 -24.96 -22.56 -5.1 -5.19
LL (SYM) -6.59 -27.33 164.01 -145.87 -1.69 7.92 -0.35 1.58
LL (UNSYM) -10.59 -18.58 261.92 -229.48 -6.14 6.128 -0.085 1.087
79
TOP SLAB
DL -36.96 -77.51 -414.45 -301.97 10.53 -9.97 1.15 -3.23
WL -70.54 -119.03 -383.98 -278.95 7.42 6.18 0.685 1.17
LL (SYM) -6.07 -26.43 -123.67 -108 7.84 -10.86 1.5 2.74
LL (UNSYM) -1.08 -24.53 -180.36 -120.21 5.05 -9.38 1.128 2.73
BOTTOM SLAB
DL 37.05 77.728 415.59 302.59 9.12 -7.77 0.875 -2.67
WL -40.33 4.14 357.03 266.38 23.71 -34.95 3.88 -9.45
LL (SYM) 14.98 33.43 144.99 109.48 1.67 1.62 0.042 0.19
LL (UNSYM) 14.9 31.91 66.42 122.32 2.58 1.35 0.358 0.108
DL 58.17 -70.05 419.81 -421.07 -9.24 8.63 -1.86 2.15
WL 178.53 108.509 400.2 84.17 -25.16 -22.55 -5.17 -5.19
LL (SYM) -5.73 -23.88 142.07 -126.72 -1.65 8.12 -0.349 1.64
LL (UNSYM) -9.09 -15.44 209.99 -183.24 0.56 5.89 0.118 1.04
80
variation of stress σx in vertical for DL for 0.2m thickness
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Height
0.5 3.5X3.5
0.4 3.8X3.2
0.3
4.25X3
0.2
0.1
0
-90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90
Stress KN/m2
Graph 5.33: Variation of Transverse Stress σx for various size of box Aqueduct in
vertical for DL
variationof moment Mx in top slab for DL for 0.2m thickness

10
8
6
4
MX KNm
2 3.5X3.5
0
3.8X3.2
-2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
4.25X3
-4
-6
-8
-10
width
Graph 5.34: Variation of Transverse Moment Mx for various size of box Aqueduct in
top slab for DL
81
variationof moment Mx in bottom slab for DL for 0.2m thickness
8
4
MX KNm
2 3.5X3.5
0 3.8X3.2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 4.25X3
-2
-4
-6
width
bottom slab for DL
variation of stress Mx in vertical for DL for 0.2m thickness

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Height
0.5 3.5X3.5
0.4 3.8X3.2
0.3 4.25X3
0.2
0.1
0
-10 -5 0 5 10
MX KNm
vertical for DL
82
variation of stress σy in top slab for DL for 0.2m thickness
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
-100
Stress KN/m2
-200 3.5X3.5
3.8X3.2
-300 4.25X3
-400
-500
width
Graph 5.37: Variation of Longitudinal Stress σy for various size of box Aqueduct in
top slab for DL
variation of stress σy in bottom slab for DL for 0.2m thickness

500
400
Stress KN/m2
300
3.5X3.5
200 3.8X3.2
100 4.25X3
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
width
bottom slab for DL
83
variation of stress σy in vertical for DL for 0.2m thickness
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Height
0.5 3.5X3.5
0.4 3.8X3.2
0.3
0.2 4.25X3
0.1
0
-600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600
Stress KN/m2
vertical for DL
Graphs 5.31 to 5.39 shows the variation of Transverse stress, Transverse moments and
Longitudinal stress in various elements of box aqueduct it can be observed that the
transverse stresses σx and the moments Mx vary substantially as the size of box aqueduct is
increased the variation is more in top and bottom slab as the width of slab is more. The
transverse stress σx varies by 22 to 25% in top and bottom slab while 7 to 10% in vertical
wall. The transverse moment Mx varies by 18 to 23%. On the other hand variation in σy in
top and bottom slab and in the vertical wall is very small in all the three cross-sections.
Thus it can be concluded that a square type of aqueduct is preferable compare to a
rectangular aqueduct as it leads to lesser stresses and it gives economical solution.
5.7 PARAMETRIC INVESTIGATION FOR VARIOUS SPANS OF AQUEDUCT
Parametric study for different spans is performed by using FSM. The details of cross-
section and spans are presented in Table 5.16.
Table 5.16: Size of Aqueduct adopted for parametric investigation for various spans
THICKNESS
SR NO. SPAN (m) B (m) D (m)
(m)
1 15
2 20
3.8 3.2 0.3
3 25
4 30
84
The results obtained by analyzing the above mentioned cross-sections are presented in
Table 5.17 to 5.20.
variation of stress σx in top slab for DL

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
-10
-20
Stress KN/m2
15m
-30 20m
-40 25m
30m
-50
-60
-70
width
Graph 5.40: Variation of Transverse Stress σx for various spans of box Aqueduct
with size 3.8x3.2x0.3 in top slab for DL

70
60
50
Stress KN/m2
40 15m
30 20m
20 25m
10 30m
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
width
with size 3.8x3.2x0.3 in bottom slab for DL
85
Table 5.17: Analysis of Aqueduct of size 3.8mx3.2mx0.3m L=15m
TOP SLAB
DL -27.37 -58.75 -713.36 -639.7 8.12 -8.35 -0.84 -2.95
WL -70.14 -109.85 -614.57 -569.54 7.46 8.48 0.32 0.72
LL (SYM) -1.91 -15.29 -213.08 -210.6 4.86 -8.1 0.9 2.33
LL (UNSYM) 2.4 -14.9 -254.83 -219.63 2.55 -7.66 0.35 2.24
BOTTOM SLAB
DL 27.4 58.82 714.35 629.826 7.07 -6.4 -0.84 -2.56
WL -56.64 -31.53 695.97 561.84 16.45 -34.7 2.11 -8.24
LL (SYM) 10.54 23.64 234.06 213.6 1.45 1.56 -0.12 -0.1
LL (UNSYM) 13.167 23.26 184.49 235.69 3.01 1.42 0.283 -0.21
DL 58.819 -69.26 720.63 -721.74 -7.15 8.23 -1.45 1.66
WL 169.71 109.8 740.46 195.79 -18.99 -23.53 -3.7 -4.73
LL (SYM) -7.15 -16.65 232.51 -214.21 -1.41 5.62 -0.3 1.04
LL (UNSYM) -11.45 -13.32 283.15 -257.9 1.01 3.68 0.169 0.52
86
TOP SLAB
DL -27.25 -58.5 -1232.95 -1148.14 8.108 -8.33 -1.57 -3.66
WL -68.95 -1094.82 -1033.57 -1036.09 7.21 8.66 -0.417 -0.11
LL (SYM) -1.55 -14.79 -348.91 -346.59 4.63 -7.89 0.713 2.24
LL (UNSYM) 4.31 -14.05 -375.59 -353.23 1.776 -7.44 0.228 2.2
BOTTOM SLAB
DL 27.27 58.51 1232.93 1149.09 7.05 -6.41 -1.56 -3.27
WL -57.09 -31.64 1195.84 1033.46 16.16 -34.81 1.41 -8.7
LL (SYM) 10.14 22.62 369.32 349.69 1.39 1.54 -0.32 -0.31
LL (UNSYM) 13.61 21.94 332.73 357.04 3.42 1.4 0.15 -0.43
DL 69.35 -79.75 1241.35 -1242.45 -7.14 8.21 -1.45 1.66
WL 172.77 118.24 124.09 330.74 -18.76 -23.64 -3.59 -4.57
LL (SYM) -9.89 -17.92 368.43 -350.03 -1.35 5.44 -0.29 1
LL (UNSYM) -14.57 -9.98 404.88 -377.44 1.41 3.14 0.229 0.409
87
LOADING STRESS σx (KN/m2) STRESS σY (KN/m2)
TOP SLAB
DL -27.05 -58.18 -1894.43 -1811.21 8.04 -8.26 -2.49 -4.56
WL -67.93 -109.96 -1565.31 -1625.27 7.07 8.73 -1.27 -0.95
LL (SYM) -1.6 -14.62 -500.98 -498.6 4.56 -7.73 0.47 1.95
LL (UNSYM) 4.38 -13.68 -517.49 -503.12 1.66 -7.29 -0.24 1.91
BOTTOM SLAB
DL 21.06 58.18 1895.45 1812.19 6.98 -6.33 -2.49 -4.18
WL -57.59 -32.84 1829.54 1631.55 15.96 -34.72 -0.9 -9.45
LL (SYM) 9.96 22.22 520.91 501.63 1.38 1.48 -0.53 -0.53
LL (UNSYM) 13.59 21.33 495.73 506.86 3.47 1.35 -0.1 -0.65
DL 82.58 -93.02 1906.56 -1907.63 -7.07 8.15 -1.43 1.65
WL 177.28 129.85 1875.46 500.76 -18.57 -23.6 -3.5 -4.46
LL (SYM) -12.83 -21.04 520.73 -502.802 -1.34 5.33 -0.29 0.989
LL (UNSYM) -17.31 -12.97 545.91 -519.15 1.44 3 0.22 0.39
88
TOP SLAB
DL -27.28 -58.64 -2720.85 -2637.01 8.12 -8.38 -3.65 -5.73
WL -68.26 -112.03 -2250.7 -2374.55 7.06 8.64 -2.319 -2.03
LL (SYM) 1.77 -13.69 -652.34 -653.04 3.83 -7.73 0.388 2.79
LL (UNSYM) 8.9 -12.51 -661.15 -656.77 0.69 -7.16 -0.44 2.89
BOTTOM SLAB
DL 27.32 58.66 2722.05 2638.08 7.08 -6.47 -3.66 -5.36
WL -57.73 -33.3 2639.79 2392.84 16.03 -34.87 -1.94 -10.49
LL (SYM) 9.66 21.7 674.61 655.7 1.32 1.46 -0.76 -0.75
LL (UNSYM) 13.32 20.74 654.61 659.94 3.39 1.33 -0.34 -0.87
DL 100.5 -110.81 2736.68 -2737.56 -7.17 8.23 -1.45 1.67
WL 185.23 145.78 2687.13 717.34 -18.63 -23.63 -3.43 -4.37
LL (SYM) -16.1 -14.23 675.11 -650.81 -1.28 5.02 -0.27 0.87
LL (UNSYM) -20.3 26.44 694.62 -654.69 1.43 2.65 0.216 0.26
89
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Height
15m
0.5
20m
0.4
25m
0.3
30m
0.2
0.1
0
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Stress KN/m2
with size 3.8x3.2x0.3 in vertical for DL
variation of moment Mx in top slab for DL

10
8
6
4
15m
MX KNm
2
0 20m
-2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 25m
-4 30m
-6
-8
-10
width
Graph 5.43: Variation of Transverse Moment Mx for various spans of box Aqueduct
90
variation of moment Mx in bottom slab for DL
8
6
4
2 15m
MX KNm
0 20m
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 25m
-2
30m
-4
-6
-8
width
variation of stress Mx in vertical for DL

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Height
15m
0.5
20m
0.4
25m
0.3
30m
0.2
0.1
0
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
MX KNm
91
Graphs 5.40 to 5.45 show the variation of Transverse stress and moments in various
elements of box aqueduct. It can observe that though the span drastically increases the
stresses and moments in transverse direction do not show any variation. It is because the
box type structure is having same size, therefore the span of top and bottom slab is
constant in all the cases.

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
-500
Stress KN/m2
15m
-1000
20m
-1500
25m
-2000
30m
-2500
-3000
width
Graph 5.46: Variation of Longitudinal Stress σy for various spans of box Aqueduct

3000
2500
Stress KN/m2
2000
15m
1500
20m
1000
25m
500
30m
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
width
92
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Height
15m
0.5
20m
0.4
25m
0.3
30m
0.2
0.1
0
-4000 -2000 0 2000 4000
Stress KN/m2
The variation of longitudinal stress σy in top slab, bottom slab and vertical wall is shown in
Graphs 5.46 to 5.48. It increases as the span increases because it is related to bending in
longitudinal direction. The percentage variation is shown in Table 5.21
Table 5.21: percentage variation of longitudinal stress
Span (m) % increase w.r.t earlier span % increase w.r.t first span
15 --- ---
20 44.27% 44.27%
25 36.61% 64.68%
30 23.72% 73.06%
5.8 EFFECT OF PROVISION HAUNCHES
Many cross-sections of box type aqueduct with various thickness and spans are analyzed.
The effect of haunches in the box type aqueduct is evaluated here for the size of box girder
3.8m X 3.2m for various spans.
93
5.8.1 For span 10.75m to 20m
The observation from Table 5.12 to Table 5.18 indicates that the stresses and moments in
transverse and longitudinal directions are less. Also the thickness required is minimum.
Therefore providing haunches for spans 10.75m to 25m will not be so effective from the
point of view of economy.
5.8.2 For span 25m
The analytical results for span 25m with 0.15m thickness are presented in Table 5.22
From table it can be observed that the longitudinal stresses σy are very high and it is more
than the permissible bending stress σcbc in concrete (i.e. 7 N/mm2 for M20 grade concrete).
It leads to increase in the thickness of all the members till the stresses are within
permissible limits. The results for 3.8m X 3.2m with 0.2m thickness are shown in Table
5.23.
The alternative solution is to provide haunches. If we provide haunches of size 0.1b X 0.1d
at every corner throughout the length, the analysis results are tabulated in Table 5.24.
Comparisons of stresses in various cases are presented in Table 5.26.
94
TOP SLAB
DL -29.64 -63 -2020.6 -1930.6 4.73 -4.98 0.55 -1.36
WL -148.85 -228.5 -3768.8 -3599.4 8.78 8.88 1.02 1.05
LL (SYM) -2.29 -27.89 -983.14 -979.85 4.38 -7.53 0.90 2.45
LL (UNSYM) 7.86 -28.46 -1128.9 -1010.33 1.96 -7.1 0.47 2.40
BOTTOM SLAB
DL 29.69 63.01 2022.6 1932.4 3.68 -3.06 0.34 -0.99
WL -125.2 -46.73 3710.23 3540.6 17.85 -36.29 2.84 -7.85
LL (SYM) 19.17 43.37 1022.5 985.58 1.35 1.49 0.07 0.075
LL (UNSYM) 25.17 44.08 864.07 1017.44 2.946 1.36 0.42 0.051
DL 85.48 -106.17 2033.8 -2035.9 -3.72 4.8 -0.74 0.96
WL 376.7 279.1 3810 -2985.2 -19.29 -25.01 -3.85 -4.94
LL (SYM) -25.65 -39.22 1022.2 -986.1 -1.31 5.19 -0.27 0.90
LL (UNSYM) -35.46 -27.16 1188.8 -1135.6 1.05 3.24 0.16 1.03
95
CONDITION
AT AT AT AT
TOP SLAB
DL -28.45 -60.68 -1956.4 -1870.3 5.88 -6.09 -0.57 -2.09
WL -110.5 -166.9 -2736.4 -2619.6 8.72 8.7 0.48 0.49
LL (SYM) -18.39 -26.45 -998.8 -957.7 6.83 -6.32 0.87 -3.21
LL (UNSYM) 14.01 -18.7 -1014.6 -989.24 0.66 -7.07 0.25 3.39
BOTTOM SLAB
DL 28.48 60.69 1957.9 1871.68 4.83 -4.17 -0.57 -1.71
WL -88.89 -32.3 2694.1 2577.1 17.64 -35.66 2.27 -8.26
LL (SYM) 11.43 22.87 990.26 966.7 1.01 1.16 -0.24 -0.28
LL (UNSYM) 18.84 31.56 948.07 993.74 3.23 1.36 0.22 -0.29
DL 84.42 -99.7 1969 -1970.7 -4.89 5.96 -0.98 1.19
WL 277.4 203.3 2766.8 -2167.1 -19.48 -24.58 -3.88 -4.85
LL (SYM) -23.42 -100.7 991.6 -1015.3 -0.99 6.8 -0.2 1.34
LL (UNSYM) -30.96 43.06 1070.2 -1008.6 1.307 2.71 0.202 0.19
96
Table 5.24: Analysis of Aqueduct of size 3.8mx3.2mx0.15m L=25m with 0.1b X 0.1d haunch
CONDITION
AT AT AT AT
TOP SLAB
DL -27.26 -60.37 -1714.3 -1661.6 2.78 -4.32 -0.307 -1.18
WL -139.17 -221.48 -2978.1 -2890.8 10.26 10.17 0.88 1.51
LL (SYM) -10.43 -29.62 -797.65 -794.29 -0.74 -6.37 0.80 1.49
LL (UNSYM) -3.19 -29.01 -889.23 -818.34 -2.19 -6.07 0.45 1.59
BOTTOM SLAB
DL 27.08 60.23 1712.9 1662.1 2.41 -2.54 -0.33 -0.83
WL -78.29 -55.09 2914.6 2828.27 6.05 -33.49 -0.93 -7.23
LL (SYM) 21.26 42.24 821.83 799.7 1.73 1.715 0.031 0.21
LL (UNSYM) 15.62 42.53 918.47 823.5 0.24 1.55 -0.32 0.17
DL 58.5 -78.12 1734.3 -1740 -4.35 5.53 -0.87 1.11
WL 362.27 263.19 3027.7 -2979 -21.5 -25.5 -4.31 -5.1
LL (SYM) -5.69 -7.28 821.5 -785.35 -1.74 5.06 -0.35 1.02
LL (UNSYM) -12.39 13.49 932.7 -890.14 0.225 2.73 0.054 0.53
97
Table 5.25: Comparison of Aqueduct of size 3.8mx3.2mx0.15m L=25m with and without haunch
σx (kN/m2) σy (kN/m2) Mx (KNm) My (KNm)
LOAD HAUNCH
ELEMENTS AT AT AT AT AT AT AT AT
TYPE SIZE
END CENTER END CENTER END CENTER END CENTER
without
-29.64 -63 -2020.6 -1930.6 4.73 -4.98 0.55 -1.36
DL haunch
0.1bx0.1d -27.26 -60.37 -1714.3 -1661.6 2.78 -4.32 -0.307 -1.18
without
-148.85 -228.5 -3768.8 -3599.4 8.78 8.88 1.02 1.05
WL haunch
0.1bx0.1d -139.17 -221.48 -2978.1 -2890.8 10.26 10.17 0.885 1.514
TOP SLAB
without
-2.29 -27.89 -983.14 -979.85 4.38 -7.53 0.901 2.45
LL(SYM) haunch
0.1bx0.1d -10.43 -29.62 -797.65 -794.29 -0.74 -6.37 0.803 1.49
without
7.86 -28.46 -1128.9 -1010.33 1.96 -7.105 0.469 2.405
LL(UNSYM) haunch
0.1bx0.1d -3.19 -29.01 -889.23 -818.34 -2.19 -6.07 0.45 1.59
without
29.69 63.01 2022.6 1932.4 3.68 -3.06 0.34 -0.989
DL haunch
0.1bx0.1d 27.08 60.23 1712.9 1662.1 2.41 -2.54 -0.329 -0.831
without
-125.2 -46.73 3710.23 3540.6 17.85 -36.29 2.84 -7.85
WL haunch
BOTTOM 0.1bx0.1d -78.29 -55.09 2914.6 2828.27 6.05 -33.49 -0.93 -7.23
SLAB without
19.17 43.37 1022.5 985.58 1.35 1.49 0.067 0.075
LL(SYM) haunch
0.1bx0.1d 21.26 42.24 821.83 799.7 1.73 1.715 0.031 0.211
without
25.17 44.08 864.07 1017.44 2.946 1.36 0.424 0.0514
LL(UNSYM) haunch
0.1bx0.1d 15.62 42.53 918.47 823.5 0.24 1.55 -0.32 0.177
98
Table 5.25: (Continued)
HAUNCH
ELEMENTS LOAD TYPE BOTTOM TOP BOTTOM TOP BOTTOM TOP BOTTOM TOP
SIZE
END END END END END END END END
without
DL 85.48 -106.17 2033.8 -2035.9 -3.72 4.8 -0.747 0.963
haunch
0.1bx0.1d 58.5 -78.12 1734.3 -1740 -4.35 5.53 -0.87 1.108
without
WL 376.7 279.1 3810 -2985.2 -19.29 -25.01 -3.85 -4.94
haunch
VERTICAL 0.1bx0.1d 362.27 263.19 3027.7 -2979 -21.5 -25.5 -4.31 -5.1
WALL without
LL(SYM) -25.65 -39.22 1022.2 -986.1 -1.31 5.19 -0.268 0.904
haunch
0.1bx0.1d -5.69 -7.28 821.5 -785.35 -1.74 5.06 -0.35 1.02
without
LL(UNSYM) -35.46 -27.16 1188.8 -1135.6 1.05 3.24 0.163 1.034
haunch
0.1bx0.1d -12.39 13.49 932.7 -890.14 0.225 2.73 0.054 0.528
99
Table 5.26: Percentage reduction of stresses
HAUNCH TRANSVERSE LONGITUDINAL

ELEMENT LOADING
SIZE STRESS σx STRESS σy
DL 4 – 8% 13 – 15%
TOP AND
BOTTOM WL 3 – 7% 19 – 21%
SLAB
LL - 19 – 21%
0.1b X 0.1d
DL 26 – 32% 14%
VERTICAL
WL 3 – 6% 20%
WALL
LL 77 – 81% 20%
Provision of 0.1b x 0.1d haunch reduces the transverse stress by 4 to 8% for DL, 3 to 7%
for WL in top and bottom slab and 26 to 32% for DL, 3 to 6% for WL & 77 to 81% for LL
in vertical wall. Similarly it reduces the longitudinal stress by approximately 15 to 20% in
top slab, bottom slab and vertical wall.
5.8.3 For span 30m
For 30m span, to bring the stress within permissible limit two sizes of haunch as 0.2b x
0.1d and 0.2b x 0.2d have been tried.
The analysis results are as shown in Tables 5.28 and 5.29.
Comparison of stresses is presented in Table 5.31.
100
TOP SLAB
DL -27.67 -59.46 -2754.4 -2669.2 6.97 -7.22 -2.01 -3.8
WL -86.81 -129.8 -3024.4 -2932.3 8.43 8.47 -0.95 -0.94
LL (SYM) 2.55 -16.12 -779.6 -782 3.79 -7.7 0.55 3.08
LL (UNSYM) 11.05 -14.87 -798.18 -788.2 0.66 -7.09 -0.26 3.17
BOTTOM SLAB
DL 27.7 59.47 2755.4 2670.32 5.91 -5.29 -2.02 -3.43
WL -67.6 -24 2991.8 2899.27 17.19 -35.01 0.81 -9.46
LL (SYM) 11.33 25.91 806.98 785.07 1.34 1.49 -0.44 -0.435
LL (UNSYM) 15.47 24.94 774.55 791.85 3.3 1.35 -0.04 -0.55
DL 100.8 -113.38 2770.12 -2771.5 -5.99 7.06 -1.21 1.42
WL 224.98 176.16 3049.7 -2405.9 -19.38 -24.08 -3.86 -4.73
LL (SYM) -19.56 -15.84 807.57 -778.12 -1.3 5.01 -0.27 0.84
LL (UNSYM) -24.75 33.35 840.18 -791.6 1.38 2.66 0.21 0.22
101
TOP SLAB
DL -17.77 -62.34 -2190.8 -2144.6 3.58 -4.21 -3.7 -1.24
WL -76.93 -207.8 -3417.8 -3396 10.28 6.13 -4.56 0.60
LL (SYM) -6.73 -30.21 -890.51 -888.06 -1.91 -5.96 3.54 1.33
LL (UNSYM) 0.87 -25.64 -941.99 -902.46 -1.57 -5.61 3.45 1.94
BOTTOM SLAB
DL 20.62 69.45 2176.68 2142.72 3.03 -2.41 -3.74 -0.88
WL -18.37 5.75 3423.8 3353.21 5.25 -25.56 -6.66 -5.71
LL (SYM) 11.79 38.42 896.72 887.52 1.596 1.617 -1.33 0.18
LL (UNSYM) 6.77 36.89 928.69 895.77 6.255 1.46 -1.71 0.15
DL 69.08 -91.17 2198.28 -2219.3 -4.89 6.07 -0.98 1.21
WL 363.26 220.4 3519.4 -3421 -14.66 11.13 -2.98 2.14
LL (SYM) -5.63 33.47 898.3 -866.23 -1.68 4.77 -0.34 0.97
LL (UNSYM) -10.82 64.89 931.68 -914.77 -0.147 2.72 -0.03 0.55
102
TOP SLAB
DL -11.29 -64.14 -1921.08 -1897.76 4.27 -3.49 -17.74 -1.06
WL -50.48 -212.9 -2513.3 -2494.4 10.34 8.96 -20.87 1.4
LL (SYM) -4.48 -27.76 -664.76 -674.22 -3.49 -4.35 3.34 0.41
LL (UNSYM) -1.54 -25.76 -702.34 -684.75 -2.66 -4.29 3.04 1.31
BOTTOM SLAB
DL 11.56 65.02 1921.6 1898.3 3.68 -2.04 -17.68 -0.77
WL -26.11 -64.38 2473.45 2432.5 13.99 -25.95 -23.35 -5.7
LL (SYM) 7.86 39.08 684.95 677.72 1.66 1.33 -5.93 0.15
LL (UNSYM) 5.5 36.8 721.25 686.63 -0.136 1.2 -6.72 0.13
DL 76.42 -107.2 1946.02 -1951.61 -5.96 7.36 -1.19 1.47
WL 328.126 199.89 2557.4 -2521.6 -23.8 12.22 -4.51 2.44
LL (SYM) -5.99 30.57 686.26 -639.94 -1.98 8.32 -0.39 1.67
LL (UNSYM) -12.48 54.07 725.11 -674.09 0.089 5.74 0.02 1.155
103
Table 5.30: Comparison of Aqueduct of size 3.8mx3.2mx0.15m L=30m with and without haunch
LOAD HAUNCH
ELEMENTS
TYPE SIZE AT AT AT AT AT AT
AT END CENTER AT END CENTER END CENTER END CENTER
without
-29.27 -62.11 -2849.3 -2761 4.7 -4.95 0.4 -1.5
haunch
DL
0.2bx0.1d -17.77 -62.34 -2190.8 -2144.6 3.58 -4.21 -3.7 -1.24
0.2bx0.2d -11.29 -64.14 -1921.08 -1897.76 4.27 -3.49 -17.74 -1.06
without
haunch -148.21 -226.9 -5305.9 -5139.8 8.62 8.74 0.74 0.77
WL
0.2bx0.1d -76.93 -207.8 -3417.8 -3396 10.28 6.13 -4.56 0.603
0.2bx0.2d -50.48 -212.9 -2513.3 -2494.4 10.34 8.96 -20.87 1.4
TOP SLAB
without
haunch 5.36 -26.35 -1298.85 -1302.1 6.09 -6.5 1.07 -1.4
LL(SYM)
0.2bx0.1d -6.73 -30.21 -890.51 -888.06 -1.91 -5.96 3.54 1.33
0.2bx0.2d -4.48 -27.76 -664.76 -674.22 -3.49 -4.35 3.34 0.405
without
haunch 18.5 -25.86 -1401.5 -1327 0.76 -7 0.6 3.57
LL(UNSYM)
0.2bx0.1d 0.87 -25.64 -941.99 -902.46 -1.57 -5.61 3.45 1.936
0.2bx0.2d -1.54 -25.76 -702.34 -684.75 -2.66 -4.29 3.04 1.304
104
LOAD HAUNCH
ELEMENTS AT AT AT AT AT AT
TYPE SIZE AT END AT END
CENTER CENTER END CENTER END CENTER
without
93.32 62.12 2851.3 2762.9 3.64 -3 -0.28 -1.12
haunch
DL
0.2bx0.1d 20.62 69.45 2176.68 2142.72 3.03 -2.41 -3.74 -0.88
0.2bx0.2d 11.56 65.02 1921.6 1898.3 3.68 -2.04 -17.68 -0.77
without
-125.34 -48.15 5247.5 5080.9 17.5 -35.57 2.53 -7.9
haunch
WL
0.2bx0.1d -18.37 5.75 3423.8 3353.21 5.25 -25.56 -6.66 -5.71
BOTTOM 0.2bx0.2d -26.11 -64.38 2473.45 2432.5 13.99 -25.95 -23.35 -5.7
SLAB without
18.99 43.09 1343.9 1307.05 1.1 1.07 0.02 0.03
haunch
LL(SYM)
0.2bx0.1d 11.79 38.42 896.72 887.52 1.596 1.617 -1.33 0.18
0.2bx0.2d 7.86 39.08 684.95 677.72 1.66 1.33 -5.93 0.15
without
25.46 43.13 1215.3 1332.9 3.1 1.36 0.4 -0.08
haunch
LL(UNSYM)
0.2bx0.1d 6.77 36.89 928.69 895.77 6.255 1.46 -1.71 0.147
0.2bx0.2d 5.5 36.8 721.25 686.63 -0.136 1.2 -6.72 0.126
105
HAUNCH
ELEMENTS LOAD TYPE BOTTOM TOP BOTTOM TOP BOTTOM TOP BOTTOM TOP
SIZE
END END END END END END END END
without
102.18 -122.8 2865.87 -2867.9 -3.7 4.76 -0.74 0.95
haunch
DL
0.2bx0.1d 69.08 -91.17 2198.28 -2219.3 -4.89 6.07 -0.98 1.21
0.2bx0.2d 76.42 -107.2 1946.02 -1951.61 -5.96 7.36 -1.19 1.47
without
381.5 309.8 5348.3 -4221.8 -19.34 -24.54 -3.85 -4.82
haunch
WL
0.2bx0.1d 363.26 220.4 3519.4 -3421 -14.66 11.13 -2.98 2.14
VERTICAL 0.2bx0.2d 328.126 199.89 2557.4 -2521.6 -23.8 12.22 -4.51 2.44
WALL without
-32.34 -24.46 1344.9 -1294.4 -1.3 6.1 -0.26 1.22
haunch
LL(SYM)
0.2bx0.1d -5.63 33.47 898.3 -866.23 -1.68 4.77 -0.341 0.966
0.2bx0.2d -5.99 30.57 686.26 -639.94 -1.98 8.32 -0.397 1.67
without
-41.81 59.25 1477.8 -1394.5 1.18 2.8 0.18 0.19
haunch
LL(UNSYM)
0.2bx0.1d -10.82 64.89 931.68 -914.77 -0.147 2.72 -0.031 0.547
0.2bx0.2d -12.48 54.07 725.11 -674.09 0.089 5.74 0.0213 1.155
106
Table 5.31: Percentage reduction of stresses
HAUNCH TRANSVERSE LONGITUDINAL

ELEMENT LOADING
SIZE STRESS σx STRESS σy
DL 40% 22%
TOP AND
BOTTOM WL 48% 35%
SLAB
LL - 31%
0.2b X 0.1d
DL 25 – 32% 23%
VERTICAL
WL 20% 32%
WALL
LL 75% 33%
DL 61% 32%
TOP AND
BOTTOM WL 65% 52%
SLAB
LL - 48%
0.2b X 0.2d
DL 12 – 25% 18 – 34%
VERTICAL
WL 30% 45%
WALL
LL 75% 50%
Providing haunch of size 0.2b X 0.1d in 30m span reduces the transverse stress by 40% for
DL, 48% for WL in top and bottom slab, 25 to 32% for DL, 20% for WL and 75% for LL
in vertical wall. Similarly the longitudinal stress are reduced by 22% for DL, 35% for WL
and 31% for LL in top and bottom slab and 23%, 32%, 33% for DL, WL, and LL in
vertical wall.
As the size of haunch is increased to 0.2b x 0.2d the percentage reduction in stresses also
increases as presented in Table 5.31.
107
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION AND SCOPE FOR FURTHER STRUDIES
6.1 CONCLUSION
Finite strip method has been developed for both prismatic and non-prismatic strip for
analysis of box girder like structure i.e. box aqueduct. The box aqueduct with and without
haunches can be analyzed with this formulation. Detailed parametric study has been
performed for various sizes and spans of box aqueduct with and without haunches. Some
prominent conclusions are summarized here.
 Comparison of FSM and approximate method shows that, the variation in top slab,
bottom slab and vertical wall due to DL is negligible, However due to WL it varies
from 13 to 26%. Due to LL the variation is 70 to 80% in top slab, 24 to 30% in
bottom slab. Thus, it can be summarized that the approximate method
overestimates the stresses except in top slab due to WL. Therefore, the approximate
method is a conservative method.
 Variation of longitudinal stress σy in top and bottom slab due to DL, LL and WL is
such that the longitudinal stress σy is maximum near the vertical wall and it is
minimum at the center of slab. This phenomena is called shear lag. FSM clearly
shows the shear lag effect which approximate method cannot predict.
 The top slab of box aqueduct is completely in compression, bottom slab is in
tension and the vertical wall is having both compression and tension for both
transverse and longitudinal stress due to DL and WL.
 Top slab is subjected to hogging moment in x-direction throughout the width of
aqueduct due to WL. Bottom slab is subjected to hogging moment at the ends and
sagging moment at center due to WL. The magnitude of sagging is almost four
times that of the hogging moment at the ends.
 The transverse stress σx and longitudinal stress σy do not change as the thickness
varies for same cross-section and span.
 In WL case the Transverse and longitudinal stress in top slab and bottom slab
reduces considerably by approximately 19 to 22% for every 50mm increase in
thickness.
 The transverse moment Mx in top slab and bottom slab remains unchanged with
various thickness of elements of aqueduct.
108
 The transverse stresses σx and the moments Mx vary substantially as the size of box
aqueduct is increased. The variation is more in top and bottom slab as the span of
slab increases with increase in size. The transverse stress σx varies by 22 to 25% in
top and bottom slab while 7 to 10% in vertical wall. The transverse moment Mx
varies by 18 to 23%. On the other hand, variation in σy in top and bottom slab and
in the vertical wall is very small in all the three cross-sections. Thus, it can be
concluded that a square type of aqueduct is preferable compared to a rectangular
aqueduct as it leads to lesser stresses and it gives economical solution.
 The stresses and moments in transverse direction do not show any variation as span
of aqueduct increases even drastically. It is because the box type structure is having
same size, therefore the span of top and bottom slab is constant in all the cases.
 The longitudinal stress σy increases as the span increases because it is related to
bending in longitudinal direction.
When haunches are introduced:
 Provision of 0.1b x 0.1d haunch reduces the transverse stress by 4 to 8% for DL, 3
to 7% for WL in top and bottom slab and 26 to 32% for DL, 3 to 6% for WL & 77
to 81% for LL in vertical wall. Similarly it reduces the longitudinal stress by
approximately 15 to 20% in top slab, bottom slab and vertical wall.
 Providing haunch of size 0.2b X 0.1d in 30m span reduces the transverse stress by
40% for DL, 48% for WL in top and bottom slab, 25 to 32% for DL, 20% for WL
and 75% for LL in vertical wall. Similarly the longitudinal stress are reduced by
22% for DL, 35% for WL and 31% for LL in top and bottom slab and 23%, 32%,
33% for DL, WL, and LL in vertical wall.
6.2 SCOPE FOR FURTHER STUDIES
The present theoretical formation can be used and extended for the study of the following.
 Study of box girder with different thickness of vertical members, top and bottom slabs.
 Analysis of box girders with prestressed vertical members of the box girder.
 Study of continuously supported box girders.
109
REFERENCES
1) D. Johnson vector (2001); Essential of Design of Bridges; Oxford and IBH Publishing
Co., Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata.
2) M.S. Cheung, W Li, S.E. Chidiac (1996); Finite strip Analysis of Bridges; E and FN
SPON Madras
3) Raina V.K. (1988); Design of Bridges-Analysis, design and economics; Tata McGraw-
Hill Publishing Co. Ltd. New Delhi.
4) Santoshkumar Garg (1989); Irrigation Engineering and hydraulic structures, Khanna

Publishers, New Delhi.
5) T.R. Jagdish Jairam (2000); Design of Bridge structures; Prentice Hall of India Pvt.
Ltd. New Delhi.
6) Varshani Gupta (1988), Theory and design of irrigation structures Vol.II; New Chand
and Bros, Roorkee.
7) IRC 6:- 1994 edition: Loads and stresses.
8) IRC 1893: 1984 edition: Criteria for earth quake resisting design of structures.
9) IRC 83 Part-II: 1987 Elastomeric bearings.
10) IS 456:2000: Plain and reinforced concrete code for practice.
11) POWELL G. H. and OGDEN D. W. Analysis of orthotropic steel plate bridge decks.
Proc. ASCE. May 1969. Vol. 95 No. ST5, PP 909-922,
12) Cheung, M.S., and Cheung, Y.K. (1971). “Analysis of curved box girder bridges by
the finite-strip method”, International Association for Bridges and Structural
Engineering (IABSE), 31(1), I-8.
13) Dhirendra N. Buragohain, Babu L. Agrawal, “Analysis of Curved Box Girder

Bridges.”Journal of the Structural Division, Vol. 99, No. 5, May 1973, pp. 799-819
14) Cusens A.R. and Loo, Y.C. (1974). “Application of the finite- strip method in the
analysis of concrete box bridges”, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. London. 57(2), 251-273.
15) Chung, M.S., and Chan, M.Y.E (1978). “Finite strip evaluation of effective flange
width of bridge girders”, Can. J. Civ. Eng., 5(2), 174-185.
110
16) M.S. Cheung, W Li, (1989); Finite Strip Analysis of Continuous Haunched Box
Girder Bridges; J. Struct. Eng. 1989, 115:1076-1087.
17) Cheung, M.S., and Jaeger, L.G. (1992). “Spline finite strip analysis of continuous
haunched box-girder bridges”, Can. J. Civ. Eng., 19, 724-728.
18) Abdullah M.A and Abdul Razzak A.A (1990). “Finite Strip Analysis of Prestressed
Box Girders.” Computers. Structures. 36(5), 817-822.
19) Cheung. M.S. (1984). “Analysis of continuous curved box-girder bridges by the finite
strip method”, Japanese Soc. Civ. Eng., 1-10 (in Japanese).
20) Cheung Y. K. “Finite strip method in the analysis of elastic plates with two opposite
simply supported ends.” Proc. Institution of Civil Engineers, Dec. 1968. Vol. 40, PP.
1-7
21) Cheung, Y.K. “Analysis of Curved Box Girder Bridges by Finite Strip Method.”
Publications IABSE. v. 31/I, 1971, p. 1-19 Article. 1971
111

Finite Strip Analysis of Aqueduct With Variable Thickness Strip

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Finite Strip Analysis of Aqueduct With Variable Thickness Strip

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

A

FINITE STRIP ANALYSIS OF AQUEDUCT WITH VARIABLE

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

FOR THE AWARD OF

SOLAPUR UNIVERSITY, SOLAPUR

Mr. JUNAID ISHAQUE AHMED SHAIKH

PROF. Dr. J. B. DAFEDAR

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

This is to certify that the dissertation entitled,

FINITE STRIP ANALYSIS OF AQUEDUCT WITH VARIABLE THICKNESS

PROF. Dr. J. B. DAFEDAR PROF. V. K. PATKI PROF. Dr. J. B. DAFEDAR

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

I express my sincere thanks to Prof. V. K. PATKI, Head of Dept, NKOCET, Solapur

I express my sincere thanks to Prof. P. A. SANGAVE, NKOCET, Solapur for helping

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... viii

1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1

2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 10

3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 16

4.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 35

5.1 PRELIMINARY REMARKS ............................................................................... 45

6.1 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 108

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 110

Figure No. Title Page No.

1.2 Aqueduct with earthen banks and retaining walls…………....2

1.3 Single box type Aqueduct...…………………………………...2

1.4 Multiple box type Aqueduct………………….……………….3

1.5 Force exerted by water on box girder………………………....4

1.6 IRC class „A‟ train loading…………………………………….5

3.1 Box structure and finite strip………………………………...16

3.2 Simple beam under point load at midspan…………………..17

3.3 Rectangular plate under transverse loading………………...19

3.4 Plate divided into strips……………………………………...20

3.5 Deflection amplitudes for a plate strip……………………...21

3.6 Plate under in-plane loading………………………………...27

3.7 Co-ordinate transformation..………………………………...32

4.1 Non-prismatic Plate………………………………………….35

4.2 Box girder……………………………………………………43

5.1 Simply supported square plate……………………………...46

5.2 Box beam under self weight………………………………...49

5.3 Simply supported continuous plate………………………...50

5.4 Finite Strip modeling for dead load………………………...54

5.5 Finite Strip modeling for water load………………………..54

5.6 Finite Strip modeling for live load………………………….55

Table No. Title Page No.

3.1 Deflection and moment at midspan……………………………………....19

5.1 Simply supported plate under uniform load………………………….......47

5.2 Simple beam modeled by plane strips………………………………….....48

5.3 Simple box being under self weight………………………………............49

5.4 Deflection and moments of a continuous plate………………………......51

5.5 Comparison of FSM and Approximate method………………………......53

5.6 Sizes of Aqueduct adopted for parametric investigation of 10.75m span...64

5.7 Analysis of Aqueduct of size 3.5mx3.5mx0.2m ………………………….66

5.8 Analysis of Aqueduct of size 3.5mx3.5mx0.25m………………………..67

5.9 Analysis of Aqueduct of size 3.5mx3.5mx0.3m …………………………68

5.10 Analysis of Aqueduct of size 3.8mx3.2mx0.2m…………………………..75

5.11 Analysis of Aqueduct of size 3.8mx3.2mx0.25m ………………………..76

5.12 Analysis of Aqueduct of size 3.8mx3.2mx0.3m………………………….77

5.13 Analysis of Aqueduct of size 4.25mx3mx0.2m …………………………..78

5.14 Analysis of Aqueduct of size 4.25mx3mx0.25m …………………………79

5.15 Analysis of Aqueduct of size 4.25mx3mx0.3m ………………………....80

5.17 Analysis of Aqueduct of size 3.8mx3.2mx0.3m L=15m………………….86

5.18 Analysis of Aqueduct of size 3.8mx3.2mx0.3m L=20m………………….87

5.19 Analysis of Aqueduct of size 3.8mx3.2mx0.3m L=25m………………….88