COMPARATIVE STUDY OF RCC T-BEAM BRIDGE

BY
IRC: 112-2011 & IRC: 21-2000
By
A V PRANAY KUMAR REDDY
12011D2002
M.TECH(S.E)
Under the guidance of
Mrs. P. Srilakshmi
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR of Civil Engineering
Department,
JNTUH College of Engineering , Hyderabad.

Outline of Presentation

Introduction.
Literature review.
Aim of present study.
Bridge loading.
Method of Grillage analysis.
Design consideration.
Numerical Analysis.
Conclusion.
Scope for further study.

INTRODUCTION
Bridge construction has been one of the important
engagements of mankind from the earliest days and today.
Bridges are one of the most challenging of all civil
engineering works. The numbers and sizes of bridges have
continuously increased in last fifty years.
To cope up with this demand, tremendous efforts all over the
world in the form of active research in analysis, design and
construction of bridges is continuing.
The two major methods of practice in design are Working
stress design Method (using IRC:21-2000) and Limit state
design method (using IRC: 112-2011).

Literature review
Amit Saxena Dr. Savita Maru
In this paper the span of the bridge was studied for 25m. The
most obvious choice of this span is T- Beam and Box Girder.
A two lane simply supported RCC T- Beam Girder and RCC
Box Girder Bridge was analyzed for dead load and IRC
moving load. The dead load calculation has been done
manually and for live load linear analysis is done on Staad
Pro.
This study is on the basis of moment of resistance of section,
shear capacity of section effective solution from both T-Beam
and Box Girder Bridge.
For 25 m span, T-Beam Girder is more economical but if span
is more than 25 m, so Box Girder is always suitable. This type
of Bridge lies in the high torsional rigidity available because
of closed box section.

B.H.Solanki & Prof.M.D.Vakil

In India IRC has published new code IRC-112:2011 that
combines specifications for both RCC & prestress concrete
bridges.
In this paper the flexure design was carried out by LSM and
WSM. Emphasis is put on the variation in amount of concrete
and steel by both. It also shows the design charts for particular
grade of concrete and steel for various moment capacities.
As it always a question how it differs from older one whenever
theres new code of practice, this paper consist of flexure
design for different combination of grade of concrete & steel In
this paper the flexure design approach by both the IRC112:2011 & IRC-21:2000 is discussed.

Kamde D ,John,Hulagabali A
In this paper comparative design of a single-span bridge
using AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design specification, Indian
standard T beam girder bridge specification and deck
slab(excluding girders).
The difference in design philosophy, calculation procedures
was studied. Foundation design and related geotechnical
considerations are not considered. The span of the bridge
was studied for 10m.
It was found that the (i) shear force calculated is more in IS
method (ii) the amount of concrete in the deck portion is
more in IS method (iii) large amount of reinforcement was
calculated in case of IS method.
However for the design of more than 25m span above
results were reversed. The design using LRFD Method is far
safer than IS method (with/without Girder) because of
special provision for parapet wall along the bridge.

B.H.Solanki & Prof.M.D.Vakil

In this paper shear force for a section was assumed to be the
same for both Working stress approach (IRC:21-2000) and limit
state approach (IRC:112:2011).
Shear force is more critical force than other actions on the bridge
member, the design was carried out by the above two methods
for comparison of parameters such as shear strength, steel
required for shear, shear resisting capacity of member without
shear reinforcement .
Since shear is more critical than other actions on bridges
members,the combinations of fy grade of steel and fck grade of
concrete gives more shear strength so member requires minimum
or no shear reinforcement.

AIM OF THE PRESENT STUDY

The aim objective of this project is to know
which method requires more materials when
designed in Working stress method (IRC 212000) and Limit state method (IRC112-2011)
for T-beam girder bridge of span 10m, 15m, 20m
respectively, when all other difficulties arise
during the construction of bridge are assumed to
be same for both methods.

Bridge Loading
The loading has profound effect upon the design,
construction and eventually upon the cost of any bridge of a
given span.
Besides carrying their own weight, the decks are designed
for certain loadings imposed partly by the vehicles and the
users and partly by the nature.
In order to maintain uniformity in design, loading standards
have been laid down for the guidance of engineer.
Different countries, including India, have their own loading
standards. The code used in India is IRC:6-2010.

The description of actions and their notations given

as per IRC:6-2010.

Permanent action.
Variable gravity loads treated as permanent loads.
Variable actions.

METHOD OF GRILLAGE ANALYSIS

In recent years, the Grillage Analogy Method, which is a
computer-oriented technique, is increasingly being used in the
analysis and design of bridges.
When a bridge deck is analyzed by the method Grillage
Analogy, there are essentially five steps to be followed for obtaining
design responses:

Idealization of physical deck into equivalent grillage.

Evaluation of equivalent elastic inertias of members of grillage.
Application and transfer of loads to various nodes of grillage.
Determination of force responses and design envelopes.
Interpretation of results.

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
LIMIT STATE METHOD
Aims of Design
General performance requirements:
The bridge, as a complete structural system and its
structural elements should perform their functions adequately
and safely, with appropriate degrees of reliability during
design life and during construction. Adequacy of performance
is defined in terms of serviceability, safety, durability and
economy. Two basic groups of limit states are considered:
(a) Ultimate Limit States (ULS)
(b) Serviceability Limit States (SLS)

(a) Ultimate limit states (ULS)

Limit state of equilibrium

When subjected to various design combinations of ultimate loads the
bridge or any of its components, considered as a rigid body, shall not
become unstable.
Limit state of strength

The bridge or any of its components shall not lose its capacity to sustain
the various ultimate load combinations by excessive deformation,
transformation into a mechanism, rupture, crushing or buckling.

(b) Serviceability Limit States (SLS)

Limit state of internal stress
The internal stresses developed in the materials of
structural elements shall riot exceed the specified
magnitudes when subjected to combination of
serviceability design actions.
Limit state of crack control.

The cracking of reinforced, partially prestressed and

prestressed concrete structures under serviceability load
combinations is kept within acceptable limits of crack
widths in such a way as not to adversely affect the
durability or impair the aesthetics.

 Limit state of deformation

The deformation of the bridge or its elements when subjected
to combination of design actions shall not adversely affect the
proper functioning of its elements, appurtenances, and riding
quality.

Limit state of fatigue

The bridge or any of its components shall not loose its capacity
to carry design loads by materials reaching fatigue limits due to its
loading history

WORKING STRESS METHOD

Stresses that are likely to occur in plain and reinforced
concrete structure, under the worst combination of loads and
forces, specified in IRC: 6 shall be provided for in accordance
with accepted procedures of design and construction and in
conformity with the fundamental principles of mechanics
without exceeding limits of stresses.
The detailing of reinforcement in all components shall be as to
ensure satisfactory placement and good compaction of
concrete all around in the components with due consideration
being given to the construction techniques adopted.

Basis of Design:
The strength of a reinforced concrete structural member
may be assessed by commonly employed elastic theory
and it may be assumed that:
(i) The modulus of elasticity of steel is 200Gpa.
(ii) The modular ratio of 10 is adopted.
Unless otherwise permitted, the tensile strength of concrete is
ignored.
For working stress approach, service loads are used in the
whole design and the strength of material is not utilized in
the full extent.
In this method of design, stresses acting on structural
members are calculated based on elastic method and they
are designed not to exceed certain allowable values. In
fact, the whole structure during the lifespan may only
experience loading stresses far below the ultimate state
and that is the reason why this method is called working
stress approach.

NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
In this study a T- beam girder bridge has been analyzed using
grillage analogy and design performed as per Limit state method
and working stress method. The design data adopted for the
study are as follows:

Bridge data 1:
Effective span of Tee beam= 20 m
Width of carriage way= 7.5 m
Thickness of wearing coat =80 mm
Spacing of main girders =2.5 m
Width of kerb =0.5 m
Width of footpath =1 m
Thickness of deck slab = 250 mm
Modular ratio =10
Number of main Girders = 4
M30 Grade and Fe-415 Grade HYSD bars.
As width of carriage way is 7.5m, number of lanes proposed are 2.
Therefore LIVE LOAD combination: ONE LANE OF 70R OR TWO
LANES OF CLASS A.

Cross Section of Bridge- Deck

Plan of Bridge -Deck

DESIGN BASED ON IRC: 21-2000

Load calculation for grillage model

(i) Dead load:

Self weight -1
(ii) SIDL
a) Wearing coat (80 mm) = -1.84 kN/m2
b) Weight of kerb = -7.8 kN/m2
c) Weight of crash barrier = -14.86 kN/m2
d) Foot path load = -3.44 kN/m2

Sectional properties of longitudinal members:

A=1.3*106 mm2,
Yc=1400 mm,
Ixx =0.9676*10 12 mm4,
Iyy=108 mm4 ,
Izz=0.4838 *10 12 mm4

Cross Section of End Longitudinal girder

A=1.237*106 mm2,
Yc=1380 mm,
Ixx =0.936*10 12 mm4,
Iyy=108 mm4
Izz=0.468 *10 12 mm4

Cross section of Intermediate longitudinal girder

Design of B.M reinforcement for external

girder at L/2
B.M due to DL and SIDL for external longitudinal girder at mid
span
Load type

BENDING MOMENT (kN-m)

DEAD LOAD

1370

SIDL

936

B.M due to Live load for external longitudinal girder at mid span

Load type

BENDING

BENDING

MOMENT(kN-m)

MOMENT WITH

IMPACT FACTOR
(kN-m)
CLASS A

844

990

70R TRACKED

2420

2662

Mmax

(DL +SIDL)B.M +Max.

70RTRACKED OR 70R WHEELED)BM

=1370 + 936+ 2784

=5090 kN-m

OF

(CLASS

OR

CONCLUSIONS
From the design problem carried out in the project, the following
conclusions can be made:
1. The savings of materials in Limit state method is almost nil for
the deck slab.
2. In case of 10 m span it can be seen from the results the cross
section in the savings of steel in Limit state method in the design
for B.M in girder at mid span and quarter span is nearly 30 %
and 50 % less as compared to Working stress method.

3. In case of 10m span, the difference in the reinforcement

for shear force for girder and deck slab is negligible.
4. In case of 15m span, the savings in the concrete in the
design for B.M for the same amount of steel reinforcement
at mid span by Limit state method was around 7-9
%.However at quarter span the savings in concrete and
steel are 7-9 % and 18% as compared to Working stress
method.

5. In case of 20m span, the savings in the concrete and steel

due to B.M by Limit state method are around 9-11 % and
2% when compared to Working stress method.
It can be concluded that the Limit state method is
economical than Working stress method.

SCOPE OF FURTHER STUDY

1. The current study is limited to the load combination of dead load ,
SIDL and live load. The study can be extended by including
longitudinal forces, accidental actions, wind load etc.
2. The current study was done for R.C.C. T beam girder which can be
extended to prestressed girders.
3. The comparison can be checked for longer spans as the results may
vary when the B.M due to external loads are more.

REFERENCES
1. Amit Saxena & Dr. Savita Maru comparative study of the
analysis and design of T-beam girder and box girder
superstructure Published in IJREAT International Journal of
Research in Engineering & Advanced Technology, Volume 1,
Issue 2, April-May, 2013.
2. B.H.Solanki & Prof.M.D.Vakil Comparative study for
flexure design using
IRC 112:2011 & IRC 21:2000,
Published in International Journal of Scientific & Engineering
Research, Volume 4, Issue 6, June-2013.

3. Kamde D, John B and Hulagabali A (2014) Comparative

Study for the Design of single span bridge using AASHTO
LRFD and Indian Standard Method, International
Conference on Advances in Engineering & Technology
2014 (ICAET-2014) Page no:44.
4. B.H.Solanki & Prof.M.D.Vakil comparative study for shear
design using IRC 112:2011 & IRC 21:2000, Published in
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research,
Volume 4, Issue 6, June-2013.

5. E. C Hambly, Bridge Deck Behavior chapman and Hall,

Second Edition. 1991

6. N Krishna Raju, Design of Bridges Oxford and IBH

Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, fourth Edition.
7.

IRC:6-2010, Standard Specifications and Code

of
Practice for Road Bridges, Section
II, loads and
stresses.

8. IRC:112-2011, code of practice for concrete

bridges.

road

9. IRC:21-2000,Standard Specifications and Code of

Practice for Road Bridges", Section: III, cement concrete
(plain and reinforced).

THANK YOU