Eijcse2025 PDF

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Volume 1, No 3, 2010
© Copyright 2010 All rights reserved Integrated Publishing services
Research article ISSN 0976 – 4399
Analysis and Design of Underpass RCC Bridge
Mohankar.R.H 1 , Ronghe.G.N 2
1 Lecturer, Civil Engineering Dept., G.H Raisoni College of Engineering, Nagpur, India.
2 Professor, Applied Mechanics Dept., Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology,
Nagpur, India
roshanmohankar@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
The Underpass RCC Bridge is very rarely adopted in bridge construction but recently the
Underpass RCC Bridge is being used for traffic movement. In this paper, the analysis of
the underpass RCC bridge is carried out. The analysis of this underpass RCC bridge is
done by considering fixed end condition. Finite Element Method (FEM) analysis is
performed and results are presented. Comparison of different forces between 2D and 3D
models for fixed end condition is provided. In this study we show a 2D model can be
effectively used for analysis purpose for all the loading condition mentioned in IRC: 6,
“Standard Specifications and Code of Practice Road Bridges” The Indian Roads
Congress and Directorate of bridges & structures (2004), “Code of practice for the design
of substructures and foundations of bridges” Indian Railway Standard.
Keywords: RCC Underpass bridge, FEM analysis.
1. Introduction
The Underpass RCC Bridge is very rarely adopted in bridge construction but recently the
Underpass RCC Bridge is being used for traffic movement. This underpass RCC bridge is
pushed inside the embankment by means of hydraulic jack system Since the availability
of land in the city is less, such type of bridge utilizes less space for its construction.
Hence constructing Underpass Bridge is a better option where there is a constraint of
space or land. Detailed analysis and design of underpass RCC bridge has not been carried
out till date. Ronghe G. N. and Gatfane Y. M (20042005) have worked on the analysis
and design of 2D underpass RCC bridge model.
In this paper 2D along with 3D analysis of underpass RCC bridge is carried out
considering six different loading conditions and eight different loading combinations
which are considering from IRC: 62000, “Standard Specifications And Code Of Practice
Road Bridges” The Indian Roads Congress and Directorate of bridges & structures
(2004), “Code of practice for the design of substructures and foundations of bridges”
Indian Railway Standard. The end condition is considered to be fixed for both 2D and 3D
underpass RCC bridge model.
1.1 Modeling of system
For the study of Underpass RCC bridge, earth pressure acting on side walls of underpass
RCC bridge because structure embedded as well as vertical loading due to imposed load
558
and live load from Bridge rules, “Rules specifying the loads for designing the super
structure and substructure of bridges and for assessing the strength of existing bridges”
(Indian Railway Standard code) on the top of underpass RCC bridge is considered. As
there is a top loading, there is reaction at bottom also. This underpass RCC bridge is
provided for city traffic also. For that purpose live load from IRC: 62000 inside the
underpass RCC bridge is considered.
Vertical
Earth Earth
Pressure due Pressure due
to backfill to backfill
Reaction at bottom
Figure 1: 2D Model of RCC Underpass Bridge
2D underpass RCC bridge model shown in Figure 1 is analyzed considering without soil
structure interaction.
Figure 2: 3D Model of RCC Underpass Bridge
3D underpass RCC bridge model shown in figure 2 is analyzed considering without soil
structure interaction.
559
2. Formulation
2.1 Loads on the top of slab
Total load for bending moment and shear force is considered from IRS code rules
specifying the loads for designing the superstructure and substructure of bridges and for
assessing the strength of existing bridges. For span of 8m total load for bending moment
981kN and total load for shear force is 1154kN is considered.
Dead load of earth fill over the box = Area x depth x density 1.1
Total vertical pressure on top slab = Imposed load + Dead load + Live load 1.2
2.2 Loads on sidewalls
The coefficient of active earth pressure of the soil is given by the equation
cos 2 (f - a )
Ka = 2
æ sin (f + d ) - sin (f - i ) ö
cos a ´ cos (a + d ) ´ çç 1 +
2
÷
è cos (a - d ) - cos (a - i ) ÷ø
1.3
where,
γ = Density of soil, ф = Angle of internal friction, d = angle of friction between wall and
earth fill
Where value of d is not determined by actual tests, the following values may be assumed.
(i) d = 1/3 ø for concrete structures.
(ii) d = 2/3 ø for masonry structures.
i = Angle which the earth surface makes with the horizontal behind the earth retaining
structure
( i =0 0 for embedded structure).
Since this concrete structure is embedded in soil, the value of d is considered as 1/3 ø
(for concrete structures) considered for calculation of coefficient of active earth pressure
of the soil.
2.3 Earth pressure acting on the sidewalls:
2.3. a) Earth pressure due to backfill
Earth pressure center of top slab = Ka ´ g ´ H 1.4
Earth pressure center of bottom slab = Ka ´ g ´ H 1.5
2.3. b) Earth pressure due to dead load surcharge
Earth pressure acting on sidewalls:
At Top = Imposed load of track + Earth pressure on the top of slab + Live load 1.6
AT Bottom = Horizontal effect of surcharge + Earth pressure center of bottom slab 1.7
560
2.4 Reaction at the bottom of box
Self weight of box = Weight of top slab + Weight of bottom slab
+ Weight of side walls 1.8
Total reaction at bottom=Self weight of box +Weight of imposed load
+Weight of live load 1.9
The boundary condition considered is fixed.
3. Analysis of 2D underpass RCC bridge model
A 2D underpass RCC bridge (Figure 1) is modeled considering 1m length for the
following details shown below. Box dimensions: 1mx7.5mx4.1m (LxWxH) (Center to
center). In addition to the dimensions mentioned in Figure 3, following parameters are
considered for the 2D analysis. Keeping all the parameters same, the analysis is carried
out using two methods viz. conventional slope deflection method (manual calculations)
and other by using SAP2000 (programming software). The manually calculated values
for the bending moment at corner A is 205kNm and corner C is 302kNm for dead load
case. For the same corners A & C, the SAP results are found to be 203kNm and 298kN
m respectively.
8
7.5 m
m
0.
A B
6
4.1
4.7 3.5
m
C D
0.6
m
7 m
0.5 0.
(a) (b)
m 5
Figure 3: (a) Center to center Dimensions of RCC Underpass Bridge
(b) Dimensions of RCC Underpass Bridge
Dimensions of underpass RCC bridge
Clear horizontal opening 7 m
Clear vertical opening 3.5 m
Slab thickness 0.6 m
Wall thickness 0.5 m
Outer to outer horizontal width 8 m
Outer to outer vertical height 4.7 m
Length underpass RCC bridge 1 m
Angle of internal friction (ф) 25 o
Density of soil (γ) 19 kN/m 3
Grade of concrete M40
561
Grade of steel Fe415
The max BM and SF obtained for 2D underpass RCC bridge model considering without
soil stiffness are shown in Table 1. Shear force and bending moment diagram after
analysis is shown in Figure 4 (a) & (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 4: (a) SF diagram for 2D Analysis (b) BMD For 2D Analysis
3.1 Validation of results
The bending moment results obtained by slope deflection method and SAP2000 program
for 2 dimensional model of underpass RCC bridge are approximately same. The slight
variation of results may be due to the variation of moment of inertia values. Based on this
validity of results further analysis of same 2D model for various combinations of loading
cases was carried out. Also it was observed that was the same corners of the 3D model
the bending moment results obtained were same and hence 3D analysis was carried out
using SAP2000.
Table 1: Max BM and Max SF of 2D
Max BM & Max SF of 2D model
Member Results
without soil stiffness (kNm)
Max SF 456.33
Top
BM Mid Span 572.72
Slab
BM Corner 339.94
Max SF 259.92
Bottom
BM Mid Span 372.73
Slab
BM Corner 147.11
Max SF 79.68
Side
BM Mid Span 204.67
Walls
BM Corner 339.94
562
3.2 Analysis of 3D underpass RCC bridge model
A 3D underpass RCC bridge is modeled considering total length 13m with details shown
above and there is no change in details except length. Box dimensions: 13mx7.5mx4.1m
(LxWxH) (Center to center).The max BM and SF obtained for 3D underpass RCC bridge
model considering without soil stiffness are shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Max BM and Max SF of 3D
Max BM & Max SF of 3D model
Member Results
without soil stiffness(kNm)
Max SF 458.85
Top Slab BM Mid Span 530.49
BM Corner 413.63
Max SF 282.49
Bottom
BM Mid Span 377.87
Slab
BM Corner 154.14
Max SF 78.93
Side
BM Mid Span 220.74
Walls
BM Corner 413.63
4. Comparison of Result of 2d & 3d Underpass Rcc Bridge Model

The comparison of the maximum bending moment and shear force values obtained for
2D and 3D underpass RCC bridge models which are considered without soil stiffness are
compared. The comparison between these two results (Table 3) shows that the values of
bending moment and shear force for 2D and 3D model for all loading cases considered
for the analysis purpose from IRC: 62000, “Standard Specifications and Code of
Practice Road Bridges” The Indian Roads Congress and combinations, are approximately
same.
Table 3: Comparison of Max BM and Max SF of 2D model and 3D model of the box
Comparison of Max BM of 2D & 3D model without soil stiffness
Max BM of 2D Max BM of 3D
%
Member Results model without soil model without soil
Difference
stiffness (kNm) stiffness (kNm)
Max SF 456.33 458.85 0.55
Top Slab BM Mid Span 572.72 530.49 7.96
BM Corner 339.94 413.63 17.82
563
Max SF 259.92 282.49 7.99

Bottom
BM Mid Span 372.73 377.87 1.36
Slab
BM Corner 147.11 154.14 4.56
Max SF 79.68 78.93 0.95
Side
BM Mid Span 204.67 220.74 7.28
Walls
BM Corner 339.94 413.63 17.82
5. Conclusions
From the analysis it can be observed that bending moment and shear force obtained for
2D and 3D model are approximately same. A 2D model can be effectively used for
analysis purpose for all the loading condition mentioned in IRC: 6 and Directorate of
bridges & structures (2004),“Code of practice for the design of substructures and
foundations of bridges” Indian Railway Standard. Further research is needed to verify the
use of 2D model for different parameters such as dynamic analysis, soil structure
interaction etc.
6. REFERENCES
1. Ronghe G.N. And Gatfane Y.M. "Analysis And Design Of A Bridge By A Push Back
System.” A Dissertation of M.tech In structural Engineering. 20042005.
2. Directorate of bridges & structures (2004), “Code of practice for the design of
substructures and foundations of bridges” Indian Railway Standard.
3. IRC: 212000, “Standard Specifications And Code Of Practice Road Bridges” The
Indian Road Congress.
4. IS 456:2000, “Plain and Reinforced concrete code for practice” Bureau of Indian
Standards.
5. IRC: 62000, “Standard Specifications And Code Of Practice Road Bridges” The
Indian Road Congress.
6. IRC: 82000, “Design criteria for prestressed concrete road bridges (PostTension
concrete)” The Indian Roads Congress.
564

Eijcse2025 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eijcse2025 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

4. Comparison of Result of 2d & 3d Underpass Rcc Bridge Model

Max SF 259.92 282.49 7.99

You might also like