CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

Our nation being primarily an agricultural country. 90% of population is depending

upon it and 10% of population depending upon industrial activities. For conveying the
product materials such as food grains, industrial goods the roads are essential. The
roads and bridges are very important for growth of economy of the country. Now our
country is being developed by developing roads and bridges. The loss of fuel for
combustion and the associated cost resulting from waiting for the signal to change are
also estimated, and these are found to be significant. When it rains, it’s not just the
roads that are water logged all other streets also get full with water so it’s easy to
travel by flyover to get ease of rain water.

The world's first flyover was constructed and started in 1843 by the London and
Croydon Railway at Norwood Junction railway station to carry its atmospheric
railway vehicles over the Brighton Main Line. The first flyover in India was allowed
access on 14 April 1965 at Kemps Corner in Mumbai. The 48-foot-long bridge was
constructed in about seven months by Shirish Patel at a cost of ₹17.5 lakh.

A flyover is a construction built to span physical obstacles such as a body of water,

valley, or road, for the purpose of providing passage over the obstacle. Designs of
flyover vary depending on the function of the flyover, the nature of the terrain where
the flyover is constructed, the material used for construction and the funds available to
build it.

The flyover consists of number of spans with columns (piers), deck, and foundation
etc. In order to construct a flyover all these elements are to be analysis and designed
properly. For large construction this process of designing and analysing become
complicated when done manually time taking and sometimes lead to errors so in order
to meet these problems software's are used. The computer software's are the ones
which can perform this action of analysis and designing with minimum errors with in
short
1
SVEC/CE/2017-20
period of time such that the designing of complex flyover become easier while using
software's. Some of the famous software's which are generally used for analysis and
designing of structure are ETABS, ROBOT STRUCTUREL ANALYSIS,
STAADPRO.

1.2. OBJECTIVE OF PROJECT

This project deals with analysis and design of flyover components i.e. Deck Slab,
Pier, Pedestals, Abutment, and Pile Foundation that includes pile cap.The details of
the project are assumptions that are taken as average from flyovers that we studies
around Tirupati Smart City.

Deck slab is modelled and analysed using STAAD.Pro software and Designed in
Manual Method. Remaining components are analysed and designed using Limit State
Method of Design.

1.3. FLYOVER

A flyover has three main elements. First the substructure i. e foundation transfers the
loaded weight of the bridge to the ground. It consists of components such as columns
(Also called piers) and abutments. An abutment is the connection between the end of
the bridge and the road carried by the earth; it provides support for the end sections of
the flyover. Second, the superstructure of the flyover is the horizontal platform that
spans the space between columns. Finally, the deck of the bridge.

1.4 TYPES OF FLYOVER

1. Railway crossing

2. Road crossing

1.5. PARTS OF FLYOVER

a. Super structure

b. Sub structure

a) Super structure:

2
SVEC/CE/2017-20
The superstructure consists of the components that actually span the obstacle the
bridge is intended to cross and includes the following

1. Bridge deck

2. Structural members

3. Parapets (bridge railings), hand rails, side walk, lighting and some drainage
features.

b) SUB STRUCTURE:

The sub structure consists of all of the parts that are mentioned above that support the
super structure. The main components are abutments, Piers, footings and piling.

1.6. ELEMENTS OF FLY OVER

1.6.1. APPROACH SLAB:

The approach slab provides a transition between roadway pavement and the flyover.
The approach slab behaves as an intermediate flyover to span the portion of
embankment directly behind the abutment/back wall which was excavated to
construct the abutment/back wall

1.6.2. DECK SLAB:

deck is the surface of a flyover sometimes the deck is covered a railroad bed and
track, asphalt concrete, or other form of pavement for ease of vehicle crossing. A
concrete deck may be an integral part of the flyover structure (T-beam or double tee
structure) or it may be supported with I-beams or steel girders.

1.6.3. KERB:

Kerb is a component of a city road. A kerb (also termed as curb) is a vertical or

sloping member provided along the edge of a pavement or Shoulder to give strength
and protect the edge of pavement. It indicates the boundary between the pavement and
shoulder or sometimes island or footpath or car parking space.

1.6.4. HANDRAILS:

A handrail is designed to grasp by the hand so as to provide stability or support.

Handrails are commonly used while ascending or descending stairways and escalators

3
SVEC/CE/2017-20
in order to prevent injurious falls. Handrails supported by posts or mounted directly to
walls.

1.6.5. LONGITUDINAL GIRDER:

A girder bridge uses girders for supporting the girder. Because of the properties of
inertia, the height of a girder is the most significant factor to affect its load capacity.

1.6.6. BRIDGE BEARING:

A bridge bearing is a component of a flyover which typically provides a resting

surface between flyover piers and

the bridge deck. Bearing is provided to control movement and thereby reduce the
stresses involved.

1.6.7. ABUTMENTS:

In engineering, abutment refers to the substructure at the ends of a bridge span or dam
whereon the structure's superstructure rests or contacts.

1.6.8. PIERS:

A pier is a raised structure in a body of water, typically supported by well-spaced

piles or pillars.

6.FOUNDATION:
Foundation is the load transmitting members. The loads from the columns and the
walls to be transmitted to the solid ground through foundation.
Here, we adopted Pile foundation.

1.7. TYPES OF BRIDGE DECKS:

1. Solid Slab deck

2. Beam deck

3. Voided slab deck

4. Cellular deck

5. Discrete box deck

4
SVEC/CE/2017-20
1.7.1. SOLID SLAB DECK:

This type of bridge deck is the most cost efficient for shorter span less than20 meters.
Bridge deck can be built with or without cantilever Bridge deck with cantilever has
less weight with less reduction on second moment of area. Solid deck can be simply
constructed in-situ concrete and pre-cast concrete form.

In this project we used solid slab deck.

1.8. LOAD AND STRUCTURE:

The correct estimation of loads on a structure or a part of a structure leads the
designer to the safe and economical design. It is very important that no load which is
to be borne by the structure is over loaded.
Estimation of different types of loads expected to be borne by the structure throughout
its design life. Different kinds of loads may be estimated by using respective Indian
Standard Codes of practice.

Determination of worst combination of loads that may occur at one throughout the life
of structure. The standard codes of practice give guidelines for this. All the loads are
not expected at the same time for example, IS-875, wind and seismic force need not
be considered as acting simultaneously. The earthquake is a rare phenomenon. It is
therefore very unlikely that the maximum earthquake coincides with maximum of
other occasional forces like wind, flood etc., therefore for the design purpose these are
assumed not to occur simultaneously.

1.8.1. TYPES OF LOADS:

a. Dead load,

b. Live load,

c. Impact load load,

d. Other loads

a.DEADLOAD:
Dead loads are the load due to self weight of structure or structural members. Dead
loads and static loads remain reasonably constant throughout the life of a structure.
5
SVEC/CE/2017-20
The unit weight of different materials may be taken from IRC:21-2000 code of
practice for design loads for the buildings and structures part 1 dead loads.

b.LIVELOAD:
Live loads are loads which are not steady unlike the dead loads they can change their
magnitudes. Live loads are comprehensively described in tables 1 and 2 IRC:21-2000
part 2 imposes loads. IRC:6-2014 code gives information about the live load positions
and magnitude of live loads on bridge structure.

c.IMPACTLOAD:
Impact load are the loads caused by the vibration of live loads.

1.9. LIMITATIONS OF PROJECT

 This project only deals with concrete structure only, no composite bridge
structure deals in this project.
 Design will not have done for whole flyover, it’s just a model to show how
design of flyover components is done.
 Design of longitudinal girders and bridge bearings are not discussed in this
project.

6
SVEC/CE/2017-20
 CHAPTER 2
LITERATRURE REVIEW

Dzolev et al, This paper presents the analysis of reinforced concrete Girder Bridge
designed according to EN 1998-2, with the determination of the achieved ductility in
plastic hinges at the target displacement for the designed seismic action, for confined
and unconfined concrete cross sections, with and without the effects of geometric
nonlinearity. . In this paper, analyses were conducted for RC Girder Bridge with
confined and unconfined concrete cross sections [1, 2] with and without the effects of
geometric nonlinearity. Based on the pushover curves, it can be concluded that, for
the same level of horizontal displacement, lower values of baseshear are obtained if P-
Δ effects are applied. Obtained target displacement and achieved local ductility also
differwhether concrete is modelled as confined or unconfined, giving higher values in
favour of confined concrete. Results are presented only for the shorter column.

Rajeev Sharma (2015),This paper deals with theevaluation studies for the existing,
RC bridge using non-linear static analysis. For the seismic assessment of the bridge a
3 span bridge is selected which is located on the hindon river at Ghaziabad (Uttar
Pradesh).this area is highly vulnerable to the seismic activity because it is lie in the
Zone – 4 .so , the high magnitude earthquake may be occurs in this region(may be
greater than 7 magnitude). . For doing the seismic evaluation of the bridge at the time
of earthquake open sees software is used. The open sees model is used to describe the
various performances of the bridge.

T. Pramod Kumar et al, This paper deals with the analysis and design of super
structure of road cum railway bridge across Krishna river proposed ondownstream
side of existing bridge between Mahanadu road of Sithanagaram and P.N.Bus station,
Vijayawada.The bridge is made of through type steel truss which carries two railway
tracks at lower level and a roadway ofthree lane carriage way in the upper level. The
span length matches with that of existing nearby railway bridge.Analyses of top floor
members, truss members and bottom floor members are done usingSTAAD.Pro.
Thedesign of structural members of the truss, top floor and bottom floor members is
done as per Indian railwaystandard code and Indian roads congress code. In which

7
SVEC/CE/2017-20
they concluded that Road cum railway bridge reduce the construction cost by
providing single bridge for both railway traffic road traffic instead of providing two
separate bridges.It meets the increased railway and road traffic needs across the river
Krishna.It reduces the land acquisition problem by providing single bridge.

Karthiga et al, This paper presents a linear analysis of the substructure of rail over
bridge by consideringIRS 25t railway loading and road over bridge by considering
IRC class-A loading.Road over bridges are bridges over which the roadway can be
operated. On the otherhand, in rail over bridges, the rail track can be operated over the
bridge. The aim ofthis paper is to determine the various types of loads acting on the
structure andanalyze the substructure of road over bridge and rail over bridge using
STAAD Pro.The moment is obtained from STAAD Pro for road over bridge and rail
over bridgeand compared for the critical pier section. The loads and load
combinations areconsidered with respect to IRS and IRC codes.

R.Monteiro et al, This paper intends to readdress that issue from the modeling type
point of view. Currently, most of the structural seismic analyses are carried out
considering either fiber-based or plastic hinge structural models. Depending on the
choice, distinct ways of considering the non-linear behavior of the elements are
regarded and different parameters and calibration procedures need to be set. With the
purpose of investigating the accuracy of both modeling possibilities, a parametric
study is conducted on different bridge configurations, comparing pushover curves as
well as NSP results which make use of those pushover curves. Application issues,
such as advantages and/or limitations.

Chao Li et al, This paper studies the seismic responses of corrosion-damaged RC

bridges under spatially varying seismic ground motions. The chloride induced
corrosion damage to the bridge is considered in the analysis. Based on the time-
variant chloride corrosion current density, the extent of the reinforcement corrosion in
the bridge piers is estimated. The probability distributions of bridge column
reinforcement diameter and yield stress at different time steps after the bridge having
been in service are calculated using Monte Carlo simulation method.

Skew bridges analysis using grillage analogy., Vikash Khatri et., at (2012) In this
paper describes Grillage analysis is the most common method used in the bridge
analysis. In this method the deck is represented by an equivalent grillage of beams.

8
SVEC/CE/2017-20
The finer grillage mesh, provide more accurate results. It was found that the results
obtained from grillage analysis compared with experiments and more rigorous
methods are accurate enough for design purpose. The finite element method is a well-
known tool for the solution of complicated structural engineering problems, as it is
capable ofaccommodating many complexities in the solution. In this method, the
actual continuum is replaced by an equivalent idealized structure composed of
discrete elements, referred to as finite element, connected together at a number of
nodes.

Behaviour of a skew bridge., Dr. Maher Qaqish et., al. (2008) This method is
usually used for analysis of bridges based on the consideration of the bridge deck as
an elastic continuum in the form of an orthogonally anisotropic plate. Using the
stiffness method of structural analysis, it became possible to analyse the bridge deck
structure as an assembly of elastic structural members connected together at discrete
nodes. There are four distinct techniques which have been found useful by bridge
engineers: grillage and space frame analysis, folded plate method, finite element
method and finite strip method .The grillage analogy method involves a plane grillage
of discrete interconnected beams.

Praful N K and Balaso Hanumant analysed simply supported RC T-beam Bridge

by rational method and finite element method using STAAD Pro. This study
concluded that Courbon’s Method gives the average result with respect Bending
Moment values in the longitudinal girder has compared to Guyon Masssonet method
whereas Guyon Masssonet method underestimates the Bending Moment values when
compared with Courbon’s method. R.Shreedhar and Rashmi Kharde analysed the
bridge deck by both grillage analogy as well as by finite element method. This study
concluded that grillage analysis is easy to use and comprehend but analysis by finite
element method gives more economical design when compared with the grillage
analysis as finite element method gives lesser value in terms of bending moment
compared with grillage model.

9
SVEC/CE/2017-20
 CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

Deck slab analysis is done by using STAAD.Pro.V8i software by using instructions

provides in IRC 6 code and live loads are placed as per IRC 6 code and super imposed
loads i.e., Crash Barrier load is calculated as per IRC 5 code [clause 109.6.3 page no
33] and applied, wearing coat load also calculated and applied as super imposed load,
dead load is calculated by software itself. Design is completed after taking moments
from software after analysis completed.

Sub structure that is below deck slab is concluded that using limit state method of
design, the economy is achieved due to reduction in both reinforcing steel and
concrete volume due to reduction in sectional size. Also the limit state of deflection,
shear and bending stress are found to be safe as per IRC:112-2011 which is the latest
code of practice for designing reinforced and prestressed concrete bridges. The whole
structure is found to be stable against sliding and overturning.

10
SVEC/CE/2017-20
 CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF BRIDGE COMPONENTS

0.500 1.500 0.500 0.500

0.500

12.000

3.000 1.500

Fig.4.1.RCC DECK SLAB

4.1. PROJECT DETAILS (ASSUMPTIONS)

Total Width of Superstructure 12.000 m
Width of Carriageway 9.000m
Effective Span 28.200m
Width of railing 0.500m
Width of Footway 1.500m
Width of C/Barrier on Footpath side 0.500m
Width of C/Barrier on Median side 0.500m
Thickness of Deck slab at centre 0.225m
Thickness of Deck slab at cantilever root 0.225m
Thickness of Deck slab at cant end 0.225m
Nos. of Longitudinal Girders 4
spacing of Longitudinal girders 3.000m
Width of girder Flange at top 0.750m
Width of girder Flange at bottom 0.600m
Overhang of Deck slab at support 1.500m
Thickness of wearing coat 0.100m
Depth of haunch 0.075m
4.2. Material Properties:
Grade of Concrete Used M40
Grade of steel Fe 500
Charactristic strength of concrete (fck) 40MPa

11
SVEC/CE/2017-20
 (Table no:6.5 (IRC:112-2011))
Charactristic strength of steel (fy) 500 MPa
Table no:18.1 (IRC:112-2011)
Tensile strength of concrete (fctm) 3 MPa
Table no:6.5 (IRC:112-2011)
348 MPa
Design yield strength of shear Page 86 IRC-112-2011
reinforcement fywd = 0
Partial material safety factor for 1.5
concrete (γm) Basic Page 49: (IRC:112-2011)
Partial material safety factor for Steel 1.15
(γs) Basic Page 30: (IRC:112-2011)

Ultimate compressive strain in the 0.0035

concrete (єcu3) Up to fck ≤ Table no:6.5 (IRC:112-
2011)

modulus of elasticity of rienforcing of 200000 MPa

steel (Es) Clause 6.2.2 (IRC:112-2011)
modulus of elasticity of concrete (Ecm) 33000 MPa
Table no:6.5 (IRC:112-2011)
modular ratio αe (Es/Ecm) 6.06
page-126 IRC-112-2011
Ultimate tensile strain in the steel (єs) 0.00417
[{fy/(γs xEs)}
Coefficient to consider the influence of 0.67 Cube A2.10 Page : 244 (IRC:112-
the concret str 2011)
Factor (λ ) 0.8
0.8 Up to fck ≤ 60Mpa,Eq.A2-33
(IRC:112-2011); 0.8-((fck-60)/500) for
60<fck
Factor (η) 1
1.0 Up to fck ≤ 60Mpa,Eq.A2-35
(IRC:112-2011); 1.0-((fck-60)/250) for
60<fck<
fcd = (α*fck/γm) 17.867
page-49 IRC-112-2011
Factor Fav (ηfcdλ) 14.293
Factor β = (λ/2) 0.400
Cover 40 mm

4.3. LOADS ON DECK SLAB

IRC Class 70R Loading and IRC Class A Loading

This loading is to be normally adopted on all roads on which permanent bridges and
culverts are constructed. Bridges designed for Class 70R Loading should be checked

12
SVEC/CE/2017-20
for Class A Loading also as under certain conditions, heavier stresses may occur
under Class A Loading.

Fig4.2. Class 70R Vehicle (IRC-6 2014)

13
SVEC/CE/2017-20
 Fig.4.3. Class A Vehicle (IRC-6 2014)

Fig.4.4. Moving load arrangement (IRC-6 2014)

4.3.1. LIST OF SOFTWARE'S USED:
1. STAAD.pro (v8i)

14
SVEC/CE/2017-20
4.3.2. LOAD CALCULATION :

Dead load (self weight) :

Self weight of the structure is automatically calculated by staad itself.

Super imposed dead load :

Weight of wearing coat:

Thickness of wearing coat = 0.1 m

Unit weight of wearing coat = 22 KN/m^3

Load due to wearing coat = 2.2 KN/m^2

Weight of crash barrier:

Weight of crash barrier median side = 7.20 kn/m

Weight of crash barrier 14.40 kn/m^2

Weight of crash barrier footpathside = 7.20 kn/m

Weight of crash barrier footpath side 14.40 kn/m^2

WEIGHT OF RCC RAILING :

15
SVEC/CE/2017-20
Weight of RCC Kerb + Steel railing = 7.29 KN/m

Weight of RCC Kerb Weight of RCC Kerb Steel railing + Steel railing = 14 58 .
KN/m

The Live Loads are applied on the model as per IRC-6 2014 Table-2, Page16 ,
Analysis is done
by using STAAD.Pro Software.

4.4. STADD PRO REPORT:

STAAD PLANE
START JOB INFORMATION
ENGINEER DATE 19-Mar-20
END JOB INFORMATION
INPUT WIDTH 79
UNIT METER KN
JOINT COORDINATES
1 0 0 0; 2 24.3 0 0; 3 0 0 12.5; 4 24.3 0 12.5; 5 0 0 0.5; 6 24.3 0 0.5;
7 0 0 12; 8 24.3 0 12; 9 0 0 2; 10 24.3 0 2; 11 0 0 2.5; 12 24.3 0 2.5;
13 0 0 2.15; 14 24.3 0 2.15; 15 0 0 4.9; 16 24.3 0 4.9; 17 0 0 7.65;
18 24.3 0 7.65; 19 0 0 10.4; 20 24.3 0 10.4; 21 0.75 0 0; 22 0.75 0 12.5;
23 0.75 0 0.5; 24 0.75 0 12; 25 0.75 0 2; 26 0.75 0 2.5; 27 0.75 0 2.15;
28 0.75 0 4.9; 29 0.75 0 7.65; 30 0.75 0 10.4; 31 0.15 0 0; 32 0.15 0 12.5;
33 0.15 0 0.5; 34 0.15 0 12; 35 0.15 0 2; 36 0.15 0 2.5; 37 0.15 0 2.15;
38 0.15 0 4.9; 39 0.15 0 7.65; 40 0.15 0 10.4; 41 24.15 0 0; 42 24.15 0 12.5;
3 24.15 0 0.5; 44 24.15 0 12; 45 24.15 0 2; 46 24.15 0 2.5; 47 24.15 0 2.15;
48 24.15 0 4.9; 49 24.15 0 7.65; 50 24.15 0 10.4; 51 23.55 0 0;
52 23.55 0 12.5; 53 23.55 0 0.5; 54 23.55 0 12; 55 23.55 0 2; 56 23.55 0 2.5;
57 23.55 0 2.15; 58 23.55 0 4.9; 59 23.55 0 7.65; 60 23.55 0 10.4; 61 4.86 0 0;
62 4.86 0 0.416667; 63 0 0 0.416667; 64 9.72 0 0; 65 9.72 0 0.416667;
66 14.58 0 0; 67 14.58 0 0.416667; 68 19.44 0 0; 69 19.44 0 0.416667;
70 24.3 0 0.416667; 71 4.86 0 0.833333; 72 0 0 0.833333; 73 9.72 0 0.833333;
74 14.58 0 0.833333; 75 19.44 0 0.833333; 76 24.3 0 0.833333; 77 4.86 0 1.25;
78 0 0 1.25; 79 9.72 0 1.25; 80 14.58 0 1.25; 81 19.44 0 1.25; 82 24.3 0 1.25;

16
SVEC/CE/2017-20
83 4.86 0 1.66667; 84 0 0 1.66667; 85 9.72 0 1.66667; 86 14.58 0 1.66667;
87 19.44 0 1.66667; 88 24.3 0 1.66667; 89 4.86 0 2.08333; 90 0 0 2.08333;
91 9.72 0 2.08333; 92 14.58 0 2.08333; 93 19.44 0 2.08333; 94 24.3 0 2.08333;
95 4.86 0 2.5; 96 9.72 0 2.5; 97 14.58 0 2.5; 98 19.44 0 2.5;
99 4.86 0 2.91667; 100 0 0 2.91667; 101 9.72 0 2.91667; 102 14.58 0 2.91667;
103 19.44 0 2.91667; 104 24.3 0 2.91667; 105 4.86 0 3.33333; 106 0 0 3.33333;
107 9.72 0 3.33333; 108 14.58 0 3.33333; 109 19.44 0 3.33333;
110 24.3 0 3.33333; 111 4.86 0 3.75; 112 0 0 3.75; 113 9.72 0 3.75;
114 14.58 0 3.75; 115 19.44 0 3.75; 116 24.3 0 3.75; 117 4.86 0 4.16667;
118 0 0 4.16667; 119 9.72 0 4.16667; 120 14.58 0 4.16667; 121 19.44 0 4.16667;
122 24.3 0 4.16667; 123 4.86 0 4.58333; 124 0 0 4.58333; 125 9.72 0 4.58333;
126 14.58 0 4.58333; 127 19.44 0 4.58333; 128 24.3 0 4.58333; 129 4.86 0 5;
130 0 0 5; 131 9.72 0 5; 132 14.58 0 5; 133 19.44 0 5; 134 24.3 0 5;
135 4.86 0 5.41667; 136 0 0 5.41667; 137 9.72 0 5.41667; 138 14.58 0 5.41667;
139 19.44 0 5.41667; 140 24.3 0 5.41667; 141 4.86 0 5.83333; 142 0 0 5.83333;
143 9.72 0 5.83333; 144 14.58 0 5.83333; 145 19.44 0 5.83333;
146 24.3 0 5.83333; 147 4.86 0 6.25; 148 0 0 6.25; 149 9.72 0 6.25;
150 14.58 0 6.25; 151 19.44 0 6.25; 152 24.3 0 6.25; 153 4.86 0 6.66667;
154 0 0 6.66667; 155 9.72 0 6.66667; 156 14.58 0 6.66667; 157 19.44 0 6.66667;
158 24.3 0 6.66667; 159 4.86 0 7.08333; 160 0 0 7.08333; 161 9.72 0 7.08333;
162 14.58 0 7.08333; 163 19.44 0 7.08333; 164 24.3 0 7.08333; 165 4.86 0 7.5;
166 0 0 7.5; 167 9.72 0 7.5; 168 14.58 0 7.5; 169 19.44 0 7.5; 170 24.3 0 7.5;
171 4.86 0 7.91667; 172 0 0 7.91667; 173 9.72 0 7.91667; 174 14.58 0 7.91667;
175 19.44 0 7.91667; 176 24.3 0 7.91667; 177 4.86 0 8.33333; 178 0 0 8.33333;
179 9.72 0 8.33333; 180 14.58 0 8.33333; 181 19.44 0 8.33333;
182 24.3 0 8.33333; 183 4.86 0 8.75; 184 0 0 8.75; 185 9.72 0 8.75;
186 14.58 0 8.75; 187 19.44 0 8.75; 188 24.3 0 8.75; 189 4.86 0 9.16667;
190 0 0 9.16667; 191 9.72 0 9.16667; 192 14.58 0 9.16667; 193 19.44 0 9.16667;
194 24.3 0 9.16667; 195 4.86 0 9.58334; 196 0 0 9.58334; 197 9.72 0 9.58334;
198 14.58 0 9.58334; 199 19.44 0 9.58334; 200 24.3 0 9.58334; 201 4.86 0 10;
202 0 0 10; 203 9.72 0 10; 204 14.58 0 10; 205 19.44 0 10; 206 24.3 0 10;
207 4.86 0 10.4167; 208 0 0 10.4167; 209 9.72 0 10.4167; 210 14.58 0 10.4167;
211 19.44 0 10.4167; 212 24.3 0 10.4167; 213 4.86 0 10.8333; 214 0 0 10.8333;
215 9.72 0 10.8333; 216 14.58 0 10.8333; 217 19.44 0 10.8333;
17
SVEC/CE/2017-20
218 24.3 0 10.8333; 219 4.86 0 11.25; 220 0 0 11.25; 221 9.72 0 11.25;
222 14.58 0 11.25; 223 19.44 0 11.25; 224 24.3 0 11.25; 225 4.86 0 11.6667;
226 0 0 11.6667; 227 9.72 0 11.6667; 228 14.58 0 11.6667; 229 19.44 0 11.6667;
230 24.3 0 11.6667; 231 4.86 0 12.0833; 232 0 0 12.0833; 233 9.72 0 12.0833;
234 14.58 0 12.0833; 235 19.44 0 12.0833; 236 24.3 0 12.0833; 237 4.86 0 12.5;
238 9.72 0 12.5; 239 14.58 0 12.5; 240 19.44 0 12.5;
MEMBER INCIDENCES
1 1 31; 2 2 70; 3 4 42; 4 3 232; 5 5 63; 6 6 76; 7 5 33; 8 7 226; 9 8 236;
10 8 44; 11 9 84; 12 10 94; 13 9 35; 14 11 13; 15 12 104; 16 11 36; 17 13 90;
18 14 12; 19 13 37; 20 15 124; 21 16 134; 22 15 38; 23 17 166; 24 18 176;
25 17 39; 26 19 202; 27 20 212; 28 19 40; 29 21 61; 30 22 32; 31 23 53;
32 24 34; 33 25 55; 34 26 95; 35 27 57; 36 28 58; 37 29 59; 38 30 60; 39 22 24;
40 23 21; 41 24 30; 42 25 23; 43 26 27; 44 27 25; 45 28 26; 46 29 28; 47 30 29;
48 31 21; 49 32 3; 50 33 23; 51 34 7; 52 35 25; 53 36 26; 54 37 27; 55 38 28;
56 39 29; 57 40 30; 58 32 34; 59 33 31; 60 34 40; 61 35 33; 62 36 37; 63 37 35;
64 38 36; 65 39 38; 66 40 39; 67 41 2; 68 42 52; 69 43 6; 70 44 54; 71 45 10;
72 46 12; 73 47 14; 74 48 16; 75 49 18; 76 50 20; 77 41 43; 78 43 45; 79 44 42;
80 45 47; 81 46 48; 82 47 46; 83 48 49; 84 49 50; 85 50 44; 86 51 41;
87 52 240; 88 53 43; 89 54 24; 90 55 45; 91 56 46; 92 57 47; 93 58 48;
94 59 49; 95 60 50; 96 51 53; 97 53 55; 98 54 52; 99 55 57; 100 56 58;
101 57 56; 102 58 59; 103 59 60; 104 60 54; 106 61 64; 107 63 1; 109 64 66;
111 66 68; 113 68 51; 115 70 6; 117 72 5; 122 76 82; 124 78 72; 129 82 88;
131 84 78; 136 88 10; 138 90 9; 143 94 14; 145 95 96; 147 96 97; 149 97 98;
151 98 56; 154 100 11; 159 104 110; 161 106 100; 166 110 116; 168 112 106;
173 116 122; 175 118 112; 180 122 128; 182 124 118; 187 128 16; 189 130 15;
194 134 140; 196 136 130; 201 140 146; 203 142 136; 208 146 152; 210 148 142;
215 152 158; 217 154 148; 222 158 164; 224 160 154; 229 164 170; 231 166 160;
236 170 18; 238 172 17; 243 176 182; 245 178 172; 250 182 188; 252 184 178;
257 188 194; 259 190 184; 264 194 200; 266 196 190; 271 200 206; 273 202 196;
278 206 20; 280 208 19; 285 212 218; 287 214 208; 292 218 224; 294 220 214;
299 224 230; 301 226 220; 306 230 8; 308 232 7; 313 236 4; 315 237 22;
317 238 237; 319 239 238; 321 240 239;
ELEMENT INCIDENCES SHELL
108 1 61 62 63; 110 61 64 65 62; 112 64 66 67 65; 114 66 68 69 67;
18
SVEC/CE/2017-20
116 68 2 70 69; 118 63 62 71 72; 119 62 65 73 71; 120 65 67 74 73;
121 67 69 75 74; 123 69 70 76 75; 125 72 71 77 78; 126 71 73 79 77;
127 73 74 80 79; 128 74 75 81 80; 130 75 76 82 81; 132 78 77 83 84;
133 77 79 85 83; 134 79 80 86 85; 135 80 81 87 86; 137 81 82 88 87;
139 84 83 89 90; 140 83 85 91 89; 141 85 86 92 91; 142 86 87 93 92;
144 87 88 94 93; 146 90 89 95 11; 148 89 91 96 95; 150 91 92 97 96;
152 92 93 98 97; 153 93 94 12 98; 155 11 95 99 100; 156 95 96 101 99;
157 96 97 102 101; 158 97 98 103 102; 160 98 12 104 103; 162 100 99 105 106;
163 99 101 107 105; 164 101 102 108 107; 165 102 103 109 108;
167 103 104 110 109; 169 106 105 111 112; 170 105 107 113 111;
171 107 108 114 113; 172 108 109 115 114; 174 109 110 116 115;
176 112 111 117 118; 177 111 113 119 117; 178 113 114 120 119;
179 114 115 121 120; 181 115 116 122 121; 183 118 117 123 124;
184 117 119 125 123; 185 119 120 126 125; 186 120 121 127 126;
188 121 122 128 127; 190 124 123 129 130; 191 123 125 131 129;
192 125 126 132 131; 193 126 127 133 132; 195 127 128 134 133;
197 130 129 135 136; 198 129 131 137 135; 199 131 132 138 137;
200 132 133 139 138; 202 133 134 140 139; 204 136 135 141 142;
205 135 137 143 141; 206 137 138 144 143; 207 138 139 145 144;
209 139 140 146 145; 211 142 141 147 148; 212 141 143 149 147;
213 143 144 150 149; 214 144 145 151 150; 216 145 146 152 151;
218 148 147 153 154; 219 147 149 155 153; 220 149 150 156 155;
221 150 151 157 156; 223 151 152 158 157; 225 154 153 159 160;
226 153 155 161 159; 227 155 156 162 161; 228 156 157 163 162;
230 157 158 164 163; 232 160 159 165 166; 233 159 161 167 165;
234 161 162 168 167; 235 162 163 169 168; 237 163 164 170 169;
239 166 165 171 172; 240 165 167 173 171; 241 167 168 174 173;
242 168 169 175 174; 244 169 170 176 175; 246 172 171 177 178;
247 171 173 179 177; 248 173 174 180 179; 249 174 175 181 180;
251 175 176 182 181; 253 178 177 183 184; 254 177 179 185 183;
255 179 180 186 185; 256 180 181 187 186; 258 181 182 188 187;
260 184 183 189 190; 261 183 185 191 189; 262 185 186 192 191;
263 186 187 193 192; 265 187 188 194 193; 267 190 189 195 196;
268 189 191 197 195; 269 191 192 198 197; 270 192 193 199 198;
19
SVEC/CE/2017-20
272 193 194 200 199; 274 196 195 201 202; 275 195 197 203 201;
276 197 198 204 203; 277 198 199 205 204; 279 199 200 206 205;
281 202 201 207 208; 282 201 203 209 207; 283 203 204 210 209;
284 204 205 211 210; 286 205 206 212 211; 288 208 207 213 214;
289 207 209 215 213; 290 209 210 216 215; 291 210 211 217 216;
293 211 212 218 217; 295 214 213 219 220; 296 213 215 221 219;
297 215 216 222 221; 298 216 217 223 222; 300 217 218 224 223;
302 220 219 225 226; 303 219 221 227 225; 304 221 222 228 227;
305 222 223 229 228; 307 223 224 230 229; 309 226 225 231 232;
310 225 227 233 231; 311 227 228 234 233; 312 228 229 235 234;
314 229 230 236 235; 316 232 231 237 3; 318 231 233 238 237;
320 233 234 239 238; 322 234 235 240 239; 323 235 236 4 240;
START GROUP DEFINITION
MEMBER
_BEAMGIRDER 35 TO 38
_DIAPHRAGAM 45 TO 47 100 102 103
JOINT
END GROUP DEFINITION
ELEMENT PROPERTY
108 110 112 114 116 118 TO 121 123 125 TO 128 130 132 TO 135 137 139 TO 142
-
144 146 148 150 152 153 155 TO 158 160 162 TO 165 167 169 TO 172 174 176 -
177 TO 179 181 183 TO 186 188 190 TO 193 195 197 TO 200 202 204 TO 207 209 -
211 TO 214 216 218 TO 221 223 225 TO 228 230 232 TO 235 237 239 TO 242 244 -
246 TO 249 251 253 TO 256 258 260 TO 263 265 267 TO 270 272 274 TO 277 279 -
281 TO 284 286 288 TO 291 293 295 TO 298 300 302 TO 305 307 309 TO 312 314 -
316 318 320 322 323 THICKNESS 0.25
DEFINE MATERIAL START
ISOTROPIC CONCRETE
E 3.17185e+007
POISSON 0.17
DENSITY 25
ALPHA 1e-005
DAMP 0.05
20
SVEC/CE/2017-20
TYPE CONCRETE
STRENGTH FCU 40000
END DEFINE MATERIAL
MEMBER PROPERTY AMERICAN
1 TO 34 39 TO 44 48 TO 99 101 104 106 107 109 111 113 115 117 122 124 129 -
131 136 138 143 145 147 149 151 154 159 161 166 168 173 175 180 182 187 189 -
194 196 201 203 208 210 215 217 222 224 229 231 236 238 243 245 250 252 257 -
259 264 266 271 273 278 280 285 287 292 294 299 301 306 308 313 315 317 319 -
321 PRIS YD 0.25 ZD 0.25
MEMBER PROPERTY AMERICAN
45 TO 47 100 102 103 PRIS AX 2.3375 IY 1.47311 IZ 1.40737 YD 0.425 ZD 1.375
35 TO 38 PRIS AX 0.8625 IY 0.234 IZ 0.288171 YD 0.9
CONSTANTS
MATERIAL CONCRETE ALL
SUPPORTS
27 TO 30 57 TO 60 PINNED
DEFINE MOVING LOAD
TYPE 1 LOAD 40 60 60 85 85 85 85
DIST 3.96 1.52 2.13 1.37 3.05 1.37 WID 1.93
TYPE 2 LOAD 13.5 13.5 50.7 50.7 34 34 34 34 13.5 13.5
DIST 1.1 3.2 1.2 4.3 3 3 3 20 1.4 WID 1.84
LOAD 1 LOADTYPE Dead TITLE LOAD CASE 1
MEMBER LOAD
35 TO 38 UNI GY -21.56
LOAD 2 LOADTYPE Dead TITLE LOAD CASE 2
MEMBER LOAD
1 TO 104 106 107 109 111 113 115 117 122 124 129 131 136 138 143 145 147 149 -
151 154 159 161 166 168 173 175 180 182 187 189 194 196 201 203 208 210 215 -
217 222 224 229 231 236 238 243 245 250 252 257 259 264 266 271 273 278 280 -
285 287 292 294 299 301 306 308 313 315 317 319 321 UNI GY -17.19
1 TO 104 106 107 109 111 113 115 117 122 124 129 131 136 138 143 145 147 149 -
151 154 159 161 166 168 173 175 180 182 187 189 194 196 201 203 208 210 215 -
217 222 224 229 231 236 238 243 245 250 252 257 259 264 266 271 273 278 280 -
285 287 292 294 299 301 306 308 313 315 317 319 321 UNI GY -10.07
21
SVEC/CE/2017-20
LOAD GENERATION 1 ADD LOAD 1
TYPE 1 0 0 3.7 XINC 0.25 ZINC 0.25
TYPE 2 0 0 3.15 XINC 0.25 ZINC 0.25
LOAD GENERATION 1 ADD LOAD 2
TYPE 2 0 0 6.8 XINC 0.25 ZINC 0.25
PERFORM ANALYSIS PRINT ALL
PERFORM ANALYSIS PRINT ALL
FINISH

Fig.4 5. Deck slab model top view (bending moment)

Fig 4.6. Deck slab model 3D view (bending moment)

22
SVEC/CE/2017-20
 Fig 4.7. Deck slab model rendered view
4.4.1. FINAL DESIGN MOMENT FROM STAAD ANALYSIS FOR
DECK SLAB :
SLS-RARE SLS‐ QPC ULS SLS
ULS BM BM BM 0.3 BM 0.3 BM
KN/m.m KN/m.m KN.m/m KN.m/m KN.m/m
Span moments 55 40 7.5 16.5 12.0
Intermediate supports 49.5 24 3.0 14.85 7.20
moments at face of web
Intermediate supports 27.0 20 2.50 8.10 6.00
moments at face of flange
End supports moments at 71.00 61.50 23.00 21.30 18.45
face of web
End supports moments at 65.00 57.00 22.00 19.50 17.10
face of flange
Cantilever moments at face 47.50 33.00 11.00 14.25 9.90
of Flange
Cantilever moments at face 57.50 39.00 12.00 17.25 11.70
of web
4.4.2. REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE FOR DECK SLAB

Spacin Ast Check Check

g Area of Ast prov (In min for Ast max Ast
Sr.
No. Type Bar Nos Dia
(In
mm) steel mm2) (mm2) Ast min (mm2) max

23
SVEC/CE/2017-20
 Cantilever
1 slab

a) At face of
flange b1 12 200 565.49

b 12 200 565.49 1130.97 279 OK 5625 OK

b) At face of
web b1 12 200 565.49

b 12 200 565.49 1130.97 396 OK 5625 OK

2 Mid span slab a 10 200 392.70

a)Span
moments a1 12 200 565.49 958.19 279 OK 5625 OK

b) Intermediate b
12 200 565.49
Supports at
face of
web b2 958.19 396 OK 5625 OK
10 200 392.70

b) Intermediate b
12 200 565.49
Supports at
face of
flange b2 10 200 392.70 958.19 279 OK 5625 OK

c)End supports
at b1 12 200 565.49

face of web b 12 200 565.49 1130.97 396 OK 5625 OK

c)End supports
at b1 12 200 565.49

face of flange b 12 200 565.49 1130.97 279 OK 5625 OK

For Distribution steel:

0.2DL+0.2SIDL+0.3LL is considered
for distribution steel

Cantilever
1 slab 10 200 392.70 392.70 279 OK

2 Mid span slab

a)Span
moments 10 200 392.70 392.70 279 OK

b) Intermediate 10 200 392.70 392.70 279 OK

24
SVEC/CE/2017-20
 supports

CHECK FOR ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE

Effective
Ast Pro Depth of Depth Check for
BM MOR
Sr. No. Type t.m/m t.m/m
(mm2) NA (mm) d (mm) MOR

Cantilever
1 slab

a) At face of 1130.9
flange 5.09 7 34.16 179.00 8.13 OK

b) At face of 1130.9
web 6.16 7 34.16 254.00 11.82 OK

2 Mid span slab

a)Span moments 5.89 958.19 28.95 179.00 6.98 OK

b) Intermediate
Supports at face
10.11
of web 5.30 958.19 28.95 254.00 OK
b) Intermediate
Supports at face
6.98
of flange 2.89 958.19 28.95 179.00

c)End supports at face 1130.9

of web 7.61 7 34.16 254.00 11.82 OK

8.13
c)End supports at face 1130.9
of flange 6.96 7 34.16 179.00 OK

For Distribution steel:

0.3 Total B.M is considered for
distribution steel

Cantilever
1 slab 1.85 392.70 11.86 179.00 2.98 OK

25
SVEC/CE/2017-20
 2 Mid span slab

a)Span
moments 1.77 392.70 11.86 179.00 2.98 OK

b) Intermediate
supports 1.59 392.70 11.86 179.00 2.98 OK

CHECK FOR SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATE‐RARE

COMBINATION

Effective
Ast Pro Depth of Depth Check for
BM
Sr. No. Type t.m/m MOR
NA
t.m/m
(mm2) (mm) d (mm) MOR

1 Cantilever slab

a) At face of
flange 5.09 1130.97 34.16 179.00 8.13 OK

b) At face of
web 6.16 1130.97 34.16 254.00 11.82 OK

2 Mid span slab

a)Span moments 5.89 958.19 28.95 179.00 6.98 OK

b) Intermediate Supports
at face

10.11

of web 5.30 958.19 28.95 254.00 OK

b) Intermediate Supports
at face

6.98

of flange 2.89 958.19 28.95 179.00

c)End supports at face of

web 7.61 1130.97 34.16 254.00 11.82 OK

8.13
c)End supports at face of
flange 6.96 1130.97 34.16 179.00 OK

For Distribution steel:

0.3 Total B.M is considered for

distribution steel

1 Cantilever slab 1.85 392.70 11.86 179.00 2.98 OK

26
SVEC/CE/2017-20
 2 Mid span slab

a)Span moments 1.77 392.70 11.86 179.00 2.98 OK

b) Intermediate
supports 1.59 392.70 11.86 179.00 2.98 OK

CHECK FOR SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATE‐QUASI

PERMANENT COMBINATION

Stress in Check Check

Stress in steel
BM
Sr. No. Type t.m/m concrete concrete for steel

(Mpa)

(Mpa) stress stress

1 Cantilever slab

a) At face of
flange 1.18 2.74 OK 70.3 OK

b) At face of
web 1.29 1.31 OK 51.18 OK

2 Mid span slab

a)Span moments 0.80 1.75 OK 55.02 OK

b) Intermediate Supports
at face

of web 0.32 0.31 OK 14.8 OK

b) Intermediate Supports
at face

of flange 0.27 0.58 OK 18.34 OK

c)End supports at face of

web 2.46 2.52 OK 98.1 OK

c)End supports at face of

flange 2.36 5.47 OK 140.61 OK

CHECK FOR CRACK WIDTH

Sr. No. Type Equi.dia 5*(C+ф/2 ρρ.eff Ac eff Max. crack σsc (εsm-εcm) Crack Check for
me ) width

27
SVEC/CE/2017-20
 ter фeq spacing Srmax
Crack
mm mm2 (Mpa) Wk (mm) width

(mm) (mm)

1 Cantilever slab

a) At face of
flange 12.00 230 0.0101 112500 338.92 70.3 0.00021 0.073 OK

b) At face of
web 12.00 230 0.0098 115000 343.43 51.18 0.00072 0.247 OK

2 Mid span slab

a)Span moments 11.09 228 0.0085 112500 357.37 55.02 0.00013 0.048 OK

b) Intermediate

Supports at face
of

web 11.09 228 0.0083 115000 362.29 14.8 0.00061 0.220 OK

b) Intermediate

Supports at face
of

flange 11.09 228 0.0085 112500 357.37 18.34 0.00003 0.011 OK

c)End supports
at

face of web 12.00 230 0.0098 115000 343.43 98.1 0.00068 0.234 OK

c)End supports
at

face of flange 12.00 230 0.0101 112500 338.92 140.61 0.00025 0.085 OK

4.5. DESIGN OF SUB-STRUCTURE:

• Rectangular solid M35 concrete pier with size 1x9m

• Height = 6m

4.5.1 PIER DESIGN:

(a) Dead Load from super structure:

28
SVEC/CE/2017-20
Dead load from three girders:
49  18.33  3 = 2694.51kN  2695 kN
Cross beams at end:
10.5 24.2 = 88.2 kN
Intermediate cross beam:
10.5 3  4.2 = 132.3 kN

Total un-factored dead load = 2695 +88.2+132.2 = 2915.5 kN 2916 kN

(b) Live Load:

Live load in yy direction = 695.2 kN 700kN

Factored live load in yy = 1050 kN
ex = 150+450/2 = 375 mm = 0.375 m

Live load about xx direction = 413 kN

Factored live load = 1.5  1.1  413 = 682 kN 700 kN
[As the girder-B, reaction passes through the C.G of the pier, no eccentricity is due to
that reaction but the reaction due to girder-A will not pass through the C.G of the pier
so that the eccentricity and that reaction should be taken. ]

ey = 2.5 m

Mux = 682 2.5 =1705 kN-m

Muy = 1050  0.375 = 394 kN-m

So dead load from the super structure un-factored = 2916 kN

factored load = 2916  1.5 = 4374 kN

Live load in yy direction = 682 kN (factored)

Live load in xx direction = 1050 kN (factored)

ex = 0.375 m, ey = 2.5 m , Mux = 1705 kN-m and Muy = 394kN-m

(c) Stability Check:

Pier size = 9 1 = 9m2

We have provided rubber pad which acts as elastomeric bearing.
eeff length = 1.3  6 = 7.8 m (page-114, IRC : 112 – 2011)

29
SVEC/CE/2017-20
Total ht. of pier=6m

Pier cap is provided assuming thickness 250mm and 20mm projection.

So DL of pier cap=9x1.4.0.25x25=78.75KN.

We have to provide 6 pedestal of size (450x450)mm each having ht. 450mm.

DL of 6 pedestals=6x(0.45x0.45x0.45x0.25)=13.67KN

DL of pier=6x1x9x25+2(π/8x0.52x6x25)=1350+29.45≈1380KN

DL due to pier cap, pier, pedestal=1380+78.75+13.67=1472.742=1473 kN

Total DL =1473+2916=4389kN

Factored DL=4389x1.5=6584kN

1. Stress at pier base due to DL=6584/9=731.556kN/m2=0.731556N/mm2

2. Stress due to buoyancy effect

Ht.of water above pier base=5.5m

Submerged vol. of pier=49.5m3

Reaction due to buoyancy effect=49.5x10=495KN

Stress at pier base =495/9=55KN/m2(upward)=0.055N/mm2

3.stress due to eccentric loading due to LL

Stress in XX-dinn=P xx/A+Mx/Z

Max.=1050/9+(1705x6)/1x92

=116.67+129.3

=245.97KN/m2=2.246N/mm2

Min.=1050/9-1705/1x92/6

= 116.67-129.30= -12.63KN/m2

= -0.0126N/mm2

Stress in YY dinn

30
SVEC/CE/2017-20
Max.=Pyy/A+M/Z

=Pyy/A+Muy/Z

=682/9+394x 6/9

=75.77+262.667

=338.45KN/m2=0.338N/mm2

Min.=Pyy/A-M/z

=682/9 –{(394x 6)/9}

=-186.897KN/m2=-0.187n/mm2

4. Stress due to Longitudinal forces

i)Due to breaking

According to IRC 6:2000 the breaking force should be considered 20% of LL

i.e. 0.2x700=140KN.

LA=6+0.45+0.15=6.6m(breaking effect is considered from bearing)

Factored moment=140x1.5x6.6=1386kN/m

Z= bd2/6=9x12/6=1.5m3

So M/Z=140x1.5x6.6/1.5=924KN/m2 =0.924N/mm2

ii)Due to resistance of bearing:

from worst case analysis

Left side span=no LL only DL

Right side span=DL +LL

Left side coefficient=0(for worst analysis)

=>resistance by left side rubber pad is

=coefficient of bearing x DL of left span=0xDL of left span=0

31
SVEC/CE/2017-20
According to AASHTO LRFD code for elastomeric bearing coefficient of resistance
lies between 0.02 to 0.04

2)Right span coefficient of bearing=0.04

Dl + LL =4374+1050=5424KN

Resistance of bearing=0.04x5424+=217KN

La from bearing =6.6m

Z=9x1/6=1.5m3

Stress =I m/2=217x6.6/1.5=955Kn/m2 =0.955N/mm2

5.Wind analysis-(IS -875 part III):

Wind design speed (Vb)=K1VbK1K2K3

K1=1.08(referring to T1)

K2=category II (up to 10m) =1

K3=1(topographic factor)

Design wind pressure (Vz)=0.6Vz2=0.6x542=1750KN/m2

For wind expressed area is super structure area only.

Superstructure exposed area

={(18.33x0.25)+(18.33x1)+18.33x(1.4+0.15)}

=57.234m2

Total wind fence=1.75x51.234=89.82kN

Moment at base of pier=89.82xLA

LA=6+(0.45+0.05+1.4+0.95+0.25/2) =7.15m

Moment=89.82x7.15=642.213KN/m=643kNm

Factored wind moment=643x1.2=772kNm

Factored wind load=107.78kN

Wind stress at pier base=772/1x92/6=57.18=0.057N/mm

32
SVEC/CE/2017-20
According to code lead combination IS: 456:200

a)1.5(DL+LL)=1.5(4389+700)=7633.5KN

b)1.5(DL+WL)=1.5(4389+107.89)=6746KN

c)1.2(DL+LL+WL)=1.2(4389+107.89)=5396.27KN

At here LL should not be considered as our wind speed exceeds 130kmph(IRC

6:2000 LL-212.5)

So in our case no wind lead should be considered

6.Water current:

Intensity of water current(P)=52KV2(P-29 IRC-6)

K=0.66(semicircular easeway & cut way)

V=3m/s

P=52KV2=o.52x0.66x32=3.1KN/m2

Factored according to IRC-45:1972

P=3.1x1.4=4.34KN/m2

Area of obstruction=1x5.5=5.5m2

Force due to obstruction=4.43x5.5=23.87KN

It acts at h/3 distance from base ABC is the pressure distribution after water current
max. at top & min. at bottom

So moment = (23.87x5.5)/3=87.53/2≈88/2=44KNm

According to IRC-45:1972 the dirn is assumed to vary by 20.

Pressure IInl to pier=4.34xcos20=4.37kN/m2

Pressure perpendicular to pier =4.34xsin20=1.48KN/m2

FP=fence in parallel dinN to pier

=4.07x5.5x1=22.39KN

Fn=fence in perpendicular dinn to pier

33
SVEC/CE/2017-20
 =1.48x9x5.5=73.26KN

Moment considering max.stress at pier base

M=73.26x5.5/3=268.62/2 kNm=270/2=135KNm

Z=9x12/6=1.5m3

thus = M/Z=268.62/2/1.5=179.08Kn/m2=(0.179N/4)N/mm2

(d) STABILITY ANALYSIS:

At pier base

When dry(N/mm2) when HFL(N/mm2)

Maxm Minm Max m Minm

1)Di stress 0.732 0.732 0.732 0.732

2)buoyance ____ ____ -0.055 -0.055

3)eccentric

loading due to LL

->XX –dirn 0.246 -0.01263 0.246 -

0.01263

->YY –dirn 0.388 -0.187 0.388

-0.187

4)longitudinal Forces

Breaking 0.924 -0.924 0.924 -0.924

Bearing 0.955 -0.955 0.955 -

0.955

5) Water current

_____ ______ 0.09

-0.09

34
SVEC/CE/2017-20
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.245 -1.347 3.36

-1.58

Max. permissible bearing stress=0.45x35=15.75N/mm2 >3.360N/mm2 (OK)

Checking for 2m above pile cap

DL of pier=9x1x4x25+2(π/8x0.5x0.5x4x25)≈920KN

So total DL=2916+920+78.67+13.67=3929KN

Factored DL stress=3929/9=436.56KN/m2=.436N/mm2

Stress due to breaking =m/2=140x1.5x4.6/9x1x1/6=633KN/m2=0.644N/mm2

Resistance force due to bearing (stress)=m/2=217x4.6/1.5=665.47=0.666N/mm2

Above 2 meters above pile cap

When dry when HFL

maxmminm maxm minm

1)DL stress 0.436 0.436 0.436 0.436

2)buoyance ______ ______ -0.055 -0.055

3)eccentric loading

Due to LL

->XX dinn 0.246 -0.01263 0.246 -

0.01263

->YY dinn 0.388 -0.187 0.388 -0.187

4)longitudunaltenus

Breaking 0.644 -0.644 0.644 -0.644

bearing 0.666 -0.666 0.666 -0.666

5)watercurrent _____ _____ 0.09 -0.09

_____________________________________________________

35
SVEC/CE/2017-20
 2.38 -1.074 2.414
-1.22

Max. permissible bearing stress=0.45x35=15.75N/mm2 >2.414N/mm2 (OK)

Stability analysis above 4m from pile cap

When dry when HFL

Maxm minm maxmminm

1)DL stress 0.385 0.385 0.385 0.385

2)buoyancy _____ _____ -0.055 -0.055

3)eccentric loading

due to LL

XX dirn 0.246 -0.01263 0.246 -0.01263

YY dirn 0.388 -0.187 0.388 -0.187

4)longitudinalForces

Breaking 0.364 -0.364 0.364 -0.364

Bearing 0.376 -0.376 0.364 -0.364

5) Water current _____ ______ 0.09 -0.09

___________________________________________________

1.759 -0.55
1.793 0.78

So max value =1.793N/mm2<0.45x35=15.61N/mm2

(e) REINFORCEMENT IN PIER:

Rectangular column size (1x9)m

Or (1000x9000)mm

M35concrete and Fe 415 steel

Pu (factored) =6584+1050=7634kN

36
SVEC/CE/2017-20
Mux = 682x2.5=1705kNm

Muy=1050x0.375=394kNm

ey=2.5m and ex=0.375m

Checking whether column/pier is biaxially loaded or not.According to IRC -112:2011

(clause – 8.3.2 (3),P-74) LL=8.32

Iy=13x9/12=0.75mm4

z=1x93/12=60.75mm4

breq=iy√12=0.75√12=2.59

hreq=iz√12=60.75√12=210.44

As we know and slenderness ratio = eff. Length/center radius of gyration

In our case 2 radius of gyration Kyand Kx and Kz

iy 0.75
y=eff.length/Ky;Ky=
√ √A
=
91
= 0.288

So y =1.3x6/0.288=27.02

ix 60.75
z=eff. Length/Kz; Kz=
√ √A
=
91
= 2.59

So z = 1.36/2.59 = 3.00; zz = xx

Condition I

y/y=27.002/3.0022=9>2{both should be satisfied for axially loaded so our isBiaxial

loading}

z/y=1/9=0.111<2

ey=1.475m

ez or ex =0.375m

for axial compression

Condition – II

37
SVEC/CE/2017-20
(ey/heq)/(ez/beq) 0.2 or (ez/beq)/(ey/heq)0.2

Or (1.475/210.44)/(0.375/2.59) = (ey/heq)/(ez/heq) = 0.0435<0.2

(ez/beq)/(ey/heq)=(0.375/2.59)/(1.475/210.44)=20.65>0.2

Hence condition-II is satisfied

As the condition-I fails it should be designed as Bi-axially loaded column.

Design is done according to Sp-16

Assuming p=1.5

P/fck=1.5/35=0.042857=0.043

Uniaxial bending action about x on z axis

dI=45+20/2+10=65mm

dl/D=65/9000=0.00722

takingdI/D=0.05

Pu/fckbD=7634x103/35x1000x9000=0.0248=0.025

Muy=1050x0.375=394kNm

+ 1386kNm(breaking)

+ 1433kNm (resistance)

+ 135kNm(water current)

So Muy=3349kNm

Mux=1705kNm

Referring to chart-43 of SP-16, following P/fck=0.043

d’/D=0.05and Pu/fckbD=0.072

=>Muy1=0.072x35x1000x90002=204120KNm

dl/D]y axis=65/1000=0.065=0.1

referring to chant-43 of SP-16 following

38
SVEC/CE/2017-20
P/fck=0.043,d1/D=0.1,Pu/fckbD =0.025

Muy1/fck bD2=0.0672

=>Muy1=fck bD20.0672

=>Muy1=0.0672x35x9000x10002=21168KN

Referring to chart 63 of SP-16 and following the values of P=1.5 Fe=415 m=3

Puz/Ag=21

Puz=21x9000x1000=189000KN

Pu/Puz=7634/189000=0.041

Muy/Muy1=3349/21168=10.1

Mux/Mux1=1705/204120=0.0084

Referring to chart -64 Sp-16 and following

Pu/Puz=0.041 and Muy/Muy1=0.16

Mux/Mux1=0.85

The chart value of Mux/Mux1=0.85 .>>>Mux/Mux1=0.0084

So providing min. steel

P/fck =0.8/35=0.0228

Pu/fckbD=7634x103/35x1000x9000=0.0248=0.025

Referring to chart-43 and following d1/D=0.05

P/fck=0.0228 Pu/fckbD=7634000/3510009000=0.025

We get Mux1=0.48x35x1000x90002=136080KNm

d1/D for y axis = 65/1000=0.065=0.1

from chart-44 we get

Muy1/fck bD2=0.04

=>Muy1=0.04x35x9000x10002

39
SVEC/CE/2017-20
 =12600KNm

From chart-63, p=0.8%

Puz/Ag=18.2

Puz=18.2x9000x1000=163800KN

Pu/Puz=7634/163800=0.0467

Muy/Muy1 =3349/12600= 0.26

Mux/Mux1=1705/136080=0.0126

From chart -64,

The value Mux/Mux1=0.74>>>0.0126

So we have to providemin. Steel as 0.8% of Ag.

Ag=0.8/100x1000x9000=72000mm2

Providing 28ф bars, no. of bars=72000/{(π/4)x302}=102 bars

Spacing=18000/102=176.47c/c

Providing spacing 170mm c/c, which is lessthan 200mm(ok) .

IRC-112:2011 16.3.1(4) (P-174)

Astp=18000x(π/4)x302/170=74844mm2

According to IRC-112:2011 CL-16.3.1(2)

Min. vertical ref.=0.0024xAc=0.0024x1000x9000=21600mm2<Astp

Max. vertical ref.=0.04x1000x9000=360000mm2> Astp

f. SECONDARY REINFORCEMENT IN PIER:

 Provide 10 mm # transverse tie at spacing 200mm c/c throughout the section.

 Provide 10mm # 4-legged transverse reinforcement @ 200 mm c/c.

Since 1/4th of the main reinforcing bars i.e. 30mm # is 8.5 mm, that’s why we have
chosen 10mm # bars as lateral and transverse reinforcement.
4.5.2 PEDESTAL DESIGN:

40
SVEC/CE/2017-20
Pedestal on pier and abutment

DL from super structure = 505 kN.

LL from super structure = 453 kN.

Assuming the size of pedestal  450  450

Taking ht. as = 450 mm.

DL of pedestal  0.45  0.45  0.45  25  2.278 2.3kN

Total load = 505 + 453 + 2.3 = 960.3 961 kN

factored load = 1441.5  1442 kN.

Taking rubber paid size as 400  400  50 

L  B H

1442  103
  11.77 N / mm 2
Pressure or rubber paid 400  400

So providing rubber paid  16 '' 16 '' 2''

Pressure on loaded area = 9.0125 N/mm2

 0.45  t ck  1S : 456 : 2000   0.45  35  15.75 N / mm 2

Permissible bearing stress

According to CL – 34.4 IS : 456:2000

A1
A2
Pressure on loaded area and permissible bearing stress

A1
 15.75  2  31.5 N / mm 2  9.013
A2
Permissible bearing stress (ok)

min. size of pedestal (L  L) to carry out this type of pressure is

41
SVEC/CE/2017-20
 L
15.75  9.92
400

L  400  450 mm (ok)

= 229

According IRC - 112, P - 171 cc - 16.22

0.1N ED 0.1 1442

As min    0.35
tyd 415

or 0.002 A C  0.002  450  450  450 mm

2

0.15
  450  450  303.75 mm
min reinforcement 100

405
3bans

 162
Providing 16mm bans 4

400
  250mm c / c
Providing 3 bans in spacing 2

According to IRC – 112 page - 121

the spacing should not be more than 200 mm c/c

So providing 4-12 mm bars Fe-415 type


Ast p   122  4  452.389  405 mm 2
4 (ok)

400
  133mm 130 mm.c / c
Spacing 3

here eff. cover is assumed to be 25 mm.

So clear length = 450 – 2 25 = 400 mm.

According toRankire formula

1 1 1
 
Pc Pe P

PC  c  A  35  450  450  7087500  7087.5 kN

42
SVEC/CE/2017-20
 2 EI   31.5  1
2

Pe  
e 2 2  10492623.18kN


e 
v2 (are end is ticked and other end is hinged)

2
 450  450  4503
e    I  3417187500mm 4
 2 and 12

1 1
  2.3698  107 kN 1
Pe Pc

P  0.4 f ck A n  f ck A SC

A n  net area  450 2  453  202047 mm 2  A C

According to cl/. - 39.3 1S – 456 : 2000 (P-71)

Pu  0.4 t ck A C  0.67 t y ASC  0.4  35  202047  0.67  415  453  2828658  140996.25

1 1 1 1
 3.36  107 kN 1  
Pu Pu Pc Pe
; (ok)

4.5.3 ABUTMENT DESIGN:

Fig. Abutment showing all Dimensions

Preliminary dimensions

base slab width = 8m

43
SVEC/CE/2017-20
 thickness = 1.5m (base slab)

ht. of stem = 6m

top width of stem = 1.2m

bottom width of stem = 1.5m

 (angle of shearing resistance) = 35°

Yd (bulk density) = 19 kN/m3 (coarse sand)

e = 0.325m (for dead load)

According to IRC-6 : 2014, LL surchargeIS-456:2000,CL - 214.1.1.3 equivalent ht. of

soil for vehicular loading shall be 1.2m.

According IRC-6 : 2014

 
 
cos     
2
 1 
ka   
cos 2  cos       sin      sin      
1  cos      cos      
 

  350

  00  

  2 / 3    22.50

 2  35  22.5
3

 23.336  22.5

So   23.336

k a  0.243

2
 
 
cos      
2
1 
kp 
cos 2  cos       sin      sin     


1

 cos      cos      
 = 9.547

44
SVEC/CE/2017-20
 a) STABILITY ANALYSIS:

Earth pressure:

1 1
PA  k a H 2   0.246  19  9.952  231.37  232 kN / m
2 2

{ H  6  1.5  2.25  0.25  9.75m  0.25  9.95m

N
Providing abutment cap  9.3 1.5  25  0.25  87.185  93kN  10k m

350
  92.2 k N
Surcharge due to LL  0.85  2  0.08    3.6  2  0.08  m

(assuming class AA tracked vehicle)

Providing 2 wheeled vehicle  2  92.2  184.4  185 kN / m

185
ht   9.736  1.2m
So virtual 19 (acc to IRC-6:2014)

According to IRC – 112 : 2014,

Height above base to centre of pressure  0.42  9.95  4.179m

(LA for earth pressure)

Live Load Surcharge and approach slab

Horizontal force due to LL surcharge  1.2 19  0.243  9.95 = 56 kN/m

Horizontal force due to approach slab  0.3  25  0.243  9.95 = 18.15 kN/m

9.95
m
The above 2 forces act at a distance act at a distance 2 from base.

Vertical load due to LL surcharge and approach slab

  1.2  19  0.3  25  5  151.5kN / m

Weight of earth on heel slab:

 19  9.95  1.5   5  802.75 kN / m

Vertical load

49  3
  73.5kN / m
DL from super structure 2

45
SVEC/CE/2017-20
 Total DL from super structure = 73.5 + 26.25 = 99.75 kN/m.

Sl Details Force(kN) Lever Moment(kNm)

no* arm(m)

V H Mv
MH
1 DL from 99.75 ---- 2.075 208 ----
superstructure
2 Active Earth ---- 232 4.179 ----
pressure 960
3 Horizontal force
due to LL ---- 74.15 ---- 369
surcharge & 9.95/2
approach slab
4 Vertical load due to
LL surcharge & 151.5 ---- 5.5 833.25
approach slab -----
5 Self wt (1) 180 ---- 2.4 432
-----
6 Self wt (2) 22.5 ---- 1.833 41.2425
-----
7 Self wt (3) 300 ---- 4 1200
-----
8 Self wt (4) 25.3125 ---- 70.24
2.775 -----
9 Self wt (5) 802.75 ---- 5.5 4416
-----
Total 1581.8125 306.15 7200.7325 -----

Table [Stability Analysis of Abutment (Traffic Surcharge + Earth Surcharge)]

m v −m H
x́ =
v

7200.7325−1329
= =3.712 m
1581.8125

b
e  3.71  0.2800  b  8  1.33
2 6 6 (ok or safe)

FOS against overturning,

46
SVEC/CE/2017-20
 Stabilizing moment 7200.7325
  5.418  1.5  ok 
Overturning moment 1329

FOS against sliding,

u  0.9  v 0.45  0.9  1581.8125

FOS  
overturning force 306.15  2.09  1.5 (ok)

Taking another arrangement :

Removing surcharge so that providing LL

In our analysis the max. LL was found out to be 682 kN≅700kN

Factored LL = 700 1.5  1050 kN

Putting the LL just outside the abutment i.e. on deckslab.

So equivalent virtual surcharge ht. is zero (0).

Live load surcharge and approach slab.

Horizontal force, due to LL surcharge  0  19  0.243  9.95 = 0

Horizontal force due to approach slab

 0.3  25  0.243  9.95  18.15 kNm

9.95
It acts 2 from base of abutment.

Vertical load due to LL surcharge and approach slab  0.3  25  5  37.5 kN / m

Sl Details Force(kN) Lever Moment(kN-m)

no* arm(m)

V H Mv MH

1 DL from 99.75 ---- 2.075 208 ----

superstructure
2 Active Earth ---- 232 4.179 ---- 960
pressure
3 Horizontal force due
to LL surcharge & ---- 18.15 ---- 369
approach slab 9.95/2
4 Vertical force due to

47
SVEC/CE/2017-20
 LL surcharge & 37.5 ---- 5.5 207 -----
approach slab
5 Self wt (1) 180 ---- 2.4 432 -----

6 Self wt (2) 22.5 ---- 1.833 -----

41.2425
7 Self wt (3) 300 ---- 4 1200 -----

8 Self wt (4) 25.3125 ---- 70.24 -----

2.775
9 Backfill vertical 802.75 ---- 5.5 4416 -----
load
10 Live load 97.22 ---- 0 0 -----

Total 1565 250.15 6575 1050.3

Table- [Stability Analysis of Abutment Considering LL Surcharge]

6575  1050.3
x  3.53m
1565

8
e  4  3.53  0.47   1.33
3

6575
  6.26  1.5
FOS against over turning 1050.5 (ok)

  0.9  1565
  2.53  1.5
FOS against sliding 280.5 (ok)

Comparing the two condition we get the worst case as traffic load surcharge and earth
surcharge.

b) DESIGN OF STEM :

Design is done by considering surcharge i.e. both traffic surcharge and earth
surcharges.

Pressure at the top of the wall  k a    Y  0.243 19  y  4.62y

Pressure at the top of the stem  4.62 1.2  5.544 kN / m

2

 4.62   6  1.2   33.264 kN / m 2

Pressure at the bottom of the stem

Area under the pressure diagram will give force (P).

48
SVEC/CE/2017-20
 1
P  5.544  6   27.72  6
2  33.264  81.66  114.924  120 kN

(Pressure diagram of Stem)

1 6
M v  5.544  6  6 / 2   27.22  6 
2 3  99.792  163.32  263.112 kN  m  270kN  m

Factored M u  270  1.5  405 kN

0.5f ck  4.6 m u  0.5  35  4.6  405  106 

Ast  1  1   bd  1  1   1000  1430
fy  f ck bd 2  415  35  1000  1430 2 

 789.9 790  800 mm 2

Providing 25∅ bars,

1000
  613mm c / c
800 /( / 4  252 )
Spacing d = 1500 – 70 = 1430 mm c/c,

providing 20∅ bars


1000   20 2
 4  392.69 mm c / c
Spacing 800

providing 16∅ bars


1000   162
 4  255.327 cc
Spacing 800 = 200 mm c/c.

49
SVEC/CE/2017-20
 
1000   162
 4  1006 mm 2
Astp 200

This rf. to be provided for one face only i.e. in the back fill side.

According to the code both side to be equally reinforced so increasing rf. =

1006  2  2012 mm 2

Assuming the rectangular portion or stem should carry all the loads than acc. to

IS 456-2000 0.8% of A g=0.8/100×(1000 ×1200)

Ast required = 9600 mm2 = 10,000 mm2

10, 000
  5000 mm 2
So rf. to be provided 2 (each side)

providing 28∅ bars.

1000
  123.15mmc / c
5000
Spacing  / 4  282

Providing spacing 120 mm c/c.


1000   282
4  5132 mm 2
Astp = 120

5132
  8.33 NOS 9 nos

 282
No. of bars 4

So providing 9 bars of 28 bars in spacing 111 mm c/c.


9   282  5542 mm 2
Astp= 4 (in one face)

5542  2
  100  0.93%  0.8%
% ofAstp 1000  1200 (ok)

c) CHECK FOR SHEAR IN STEAM:

As calculated shear = 120 kN

Factored shear  120 1.5  180 kN

50
SVEC/CE/2017-20
 vu 180  103
v    0.159 N / mm 2
bd 1000  1130

A st
 100  0.93
bd

From T-19 IS – 456 : 2000

τ cp =0.6476 n/mm2

Checking according IRC-112:2011, cl-10.3.2, page-88

The design for shear resistance VRd,c≥ VEd

VRd,C   0.12k  801f ck   0.15FCP  b w d

0.33
 

200 200
k  1  1  1.38  2.0  ok 
d 1430

ASL 5542  2
L    0.0077  0.2  ok 
b d 1430  1000

cp  0.2 f cd
(max. value)

0.67  35
f cd   15.633
1.5

cp  0.2  f cd  3.1267

VRd,C   0.12k  801 t ck   0.15 cp  bd

0.33
 

49  18.33  3 10.5  5  4.2

N Ed  
2 2 (super structure load)

 1347.255  110.25

= 1460 kN. (DL from super structure)

N Ed 1460 103
  1.021 3.1267
A C 1430  1000

VRd,C  0.12  1.38  80  0.0077  35   0.15  1.0217  1000 1430  872809 N

0.33

VRd,C   Vmin  0.15 CP  b d

51
SVEC/CE/2017-20
Vmin  0.031 1.383/ 2  35  0.2973

VRd,C  644162.51  872809 kN

VED  180kN

VRd,C  872.809 kN

VEd  VRd,C
(so safe) (No. shear ref. reqd).

d) CHECK FOR LOAD FROM SUPER STRUCTURE:

Assuming the rectangular section will take all the loads.

Loads:

DL from super structure = 1460 kN.

Factored DL = 2190 kN.

LL in xx = 700 1.5  1050 kN

LL in yy = 682 kN.

e x  0.375m

e y  2.5 m

M ux  682  2.5  1705kN m

M uy  1050  0.375  394 kN m

52
SVEC/CE/2017-20
(Plan of top of Abutment Stem)

e x  0.325 m

e y  2.5m

1.23  9
iy   1.296 mm 4
12

93  1.2
ix   72.9 mm 4
12

beq  i y 12  4.49

h eq  i z 12  252.53

iy 4.49
ky    0.645
A 9  1.2

ix 72.9
kz    2.598
A 9  1.2

eff .length 1.3  6

y    12.1
ky 0.645

1.3  6 1.3  6
z    3.002
kz 2.198

y 12.1
  4.036  2
z 3.002

z 1
  0.2481  2
 y 4.036

y z
and
As the  z y
both should be less than 2 so we have to design as biaxial bending.

M UY  394 kNm (LL bending)

140  1.5  6.7  1407kNm (breaking moment)

+ 135(water current)  150 kNm

2190  0.375  821.25 kNm (for DL of super structure)

53
SVEC/CE/2017-20
M uy  394  1407  150  821.25
= 2772.25 kNm 2800 kNm.

M ux  1705kNm (due to eccentric loading of live load)

Pu   DL  LL from sup erstructure  dead load of a stem

+ dead load of dirt wall+ dead load of

 [2190  1050 sup er structure load [1.2  6  9  25  1620 kN]

abutment cap+ 3 pedestals (stem

load) [2.25  0.45  6  25  228 kN] (dirt wall) + 93kN (pile cap)

[3  0.45  0.45  0.45  25  7 kN]

+

=5188 kN (Total factored load by adding above)

Design checking for abutment whether the design reinforcement to be provided will
take the load or no additional reinforcement required. Solved referring to SP - 16.

P = 1.5%

P 1.5
  0.043
f ck 3.5

d1 70
  0.00777 0.05
D 9000

Pu 5188 103
  0.014
f ck bD 35  1200  9000

referring to chart-43

M ux1
 0.072
f ck bD 2

M ux1  0.072  35  1200  90002  244944 kNm

For YY

d1 70
  0.06 0.1
D 1200

Pu
 0.014 P  0.043
f ck bD t ck
,

referring to chart - 44

54
SVEC/CE/2017-20
 M uy1
 0.065
f ck bD 2

 M uy1  0.065  35  9000 1000 2  20475kNm

Referring to chart – 63,

P = 1.5%, Fe-415, M - 35

Puz
 20.5
Ag

Puz  20.5  9000  1200  221400 kN

Pu 5188
  0.023
Puz 221400

M uy 2800
  0.137
M uy1 20475

M ux 1705
  0.0069 0.007
M ux1 244944

referring to chart 64 and comparing values

Pu M uy
 0.023  0.137
Puz M uy1
and

M ux 
  0.87
M ux1 
We get chart

M ux  M 
   ux 
M ux1  M ux1 
chart from analysis

So reducing rf. and providing min rf.i.e., P = 0.8%

P 0.8
  0.0228
f ck 35

Pu 5188 103
  0.014
f ck bD 35  1200  9000

d1 70
  0.0077
D 9000

55
SVEC/CE/2017-20
 referring the chart - 43.

M ux1
 0.042
f ck bD 2

M ux1  0.042  35  1200  90002

= 142884 kNm.

d1 70
  0.06 0.1
D 1200

So referring to chart - 44.

M uy1
 0.039
f ck bD 2

M uy1  0.039  35  12002  9000  17691kNm

P = 0.8%, fck = 35, Fe - 415 and referring to chart - 64.

Puz
 18.2
Ag

 Puz  18.2  1200  9000  196560 kN

Pu 5188
  0.027
Puz 196560

M uy 2800
  0.158
M uy1 17691

M ux 1705
  0.012
M ux1 142884

Referring to chart 64 and comparing values

Pu M uy
 0.027  0.158
Puz
and M uy 1

M ux 
  0.85
M ux1  chart
We get

M ux  M 
   ux 
M ux1  M ux1 
chart from analysis

56
SVEC/CE/2017-20
 So providing min. reinforcement as 0.8% of Ag

Astreqd=0.8/100(1000× 9000)

=72000mm2

So providing min. rf. as 0.8% of Ag.

0.8
  1000  9000  72000 mm 2
Ast required 100

We have provided 5644  2  11288 mm

2

Reinforcement required = 72000 – 11288 = 60712 mm2 = 61000 mm2

18000
  181.69  180 mm c / c
61000 /(  / 4  282 )
Spacing

So providing 111 mm c/c spacing for 28 bans.


(  282 )  18000
Ast p  4  99851.70mm 2
111

99851.70   5644  2 

So % of steel 1200  900 = 1.03%

p 1.03
  0.0294
f ck 35
Spacing =

Pu 5188 103
  0.014
f ck bD 35  1200  9000

Referring to chart-43 of SP-16 we get

M ux1
 0.058
f ck bD 2

Referring to chart-44 of SP-16 we get

M uy1
 0.055
f ck bD 2

M ux1  0.058  35  1200  9000 2

= 197316 kNm

57
SVEC/CE/2017-20
 M uy1  0.055  35  9000  1200 2
= 24948 kNm

from chart - 64

p – 1.03%, fck = 35, Fe – 415

Puz
 18.8
Ag

Puz  18.8 1200  9000  203040 kN

Pu 5188 M uy 2800
  0.0255   0.158
Puz 203040 M uy1 17691
,

M ux 1705
  0.012
M ux1 142884

M ux  M 
  085  ux 
M ux1  M ux1  analytic
from chart - 64. chart

referring to chart - 64,

M ux 
  085  0.012
M ux1 
chart

Pu = 5188 kN

Puz  NRD  0.45t ck A C  0.75t 4 A C  IRC  112 

 0.45  35  1200  9000  0.75  415  111140 = 204692 kN.

So Pu<Puz

So taking  n  1

n n
 M ux   M uy 

   M    0.012   (0.158)1  0.17  1
1
 M ux1   uy1  (ok)

 Providing 10 - 4 legged stirrups throughout the section with spacing

200 mm c/c (IRC-112:2011)
 Providing approach slab of 3.5m length with 12 mm # bars with
spacing 150 mm c/c. (IRC – 6 : 2014)

58
SVEC/CE/2017-20
  Providing 30 mm # bars with 114 mm c/c spacing throughout the
18m.i.e., through both side of long section. Side face reinforcement.
e) DESIGN OF HEEL SLAB:

P = 1582 kN

e = 0.325 mm

1  82
z  10.667 m3
6

A  8  1  8m

1582 1582  0.325

 
 197.75  48.20  246 kN / m
2
Maximum soil pressure 8 10.667

P 1582 1582  0.325

P   
Minimum soil pressure A z 8 10.667 = 149.55 kN/m2

Total downward pressure = wt. of earth + self wt. of heel + surcharge

 6  19  1.5  25  230  114  37.5  230  381.5 kN / m

Fig-33 (Pressure diagram for Heel Slab)

Net pressure P  171.5 kN / m

2

Q  231.5 kN / m 2
Net pressure

1
 171.5  5   5  60  857.5  150  1007.5kN  1008kN
Shear 2

Q  857.5  2.5  150  5

Moment about 3  2143.75  250

 2393.75kN  2400 kNm

d  1500  70  1430mm

59
SVEC/CE/2017-20
 Factored M u  2400 1.5  3600kN

0.5  f ck  4.6 M u 
Ast  1  1   bd
fy  f ck bd 2 

0.5  35  4.6  3600 106 

 1  1   1000  1430  4850mm
2

415  35 1000 1430 2 

Providing 30 mm ∅ bars,


1000   30 2
 4  95.07 mm
Astreqd 7435

Providing 30 mm # bars @ 90 mm c/c


1000   302
Ast p  4  7854 mm 2
90

Provide30 mm ∅ bans with spacing 90 mm c/c.

f) SHEAR CHECK FOR HEEL SLAB:

Vu  1008 kN

Factored  1008 1.5  1512 kN

v u 1512  1000
v    1.057 N / mm 2
bd 1000  1430

Ast 7854
 100   100  0.56
bd 1000  1430

Referring T-19 Zs-456 : 2000

cp  0.53 N / mm 2   v
(so shear reinforcement(rf.) required)

Vsu    v  cp  bd   1.057  0.53 1000 1430  753610kN

Providing 24 legged 10 structures

60
SVEC/CE/2017-20
 0.87f y Asv d
Vus 
Sv


0.87  415  4   102  1430
 753610  4
SV  Sv  215.25mm

ASv 0.4

bSv 0.87 f y

314.16 0.4

1000Sv 0.87  415

314.16  0.87  415

 Sv   283.58 mm
1000  0.4

Sv  0.75d or 300mm (min. value)  0.75 1430 or 300 = 300 mm

Providing 4 legged – 10 stirrups with spacing 200 mm c/c throughout the heel
slabs. Provide 0.12% of Ag as distribution reinforcement.

Providing 16 bans spacing


1000  16 2
 4  111mm c / c
.12
 1000  1500
100

So provide 16∅bans as spacing 100mm c/c as distribution reinforcement.

g) DESIGN OF TOE SLAB:

Self-wt. of toe  1.5  25  37.5 N / mm

2

(Earth Pressure diagram for toe slab)

61
SVEC/CE/2017-20
(Net Pressure Diagram)

(Pressure diagram for toe slab)

1
Vu  190.5  1.5    208.5  190.5  1.5
2  285.75  13.5  299.25  300 kN

Factored Vu  300  1.5  450kN

1.5
A  285.75   13.5  1.5
Mu about 2 3  214.3125  6.75  221.0625 222 kNm

Mu (factored)  222  1.5  333kNm

0.5f ck  4.6M u  0.5  35  4.6  333 106 

Ast  1  1  2 
bd  1  1   1000  1430
f y  f ck bd  415  35  1000 1430 2 

= 650 mm2

min. steel

A st 0.85 0.85  1000  1430


bd f y  Ast  415
 2930 mm 2

vu 300 103
v    0.21N / mm 2
bd 1000  1430

Ast 2930
 100   100  0.21
bd 1000  1430

from T – 19, τ cp= 0.33 N/mm2 >Zv (ok)

No shear ref. required.

But provide 2-legged 10∅ stirrups with spacing 200 mm c/c.

62
SVEC/CE/2017-20
 Increasing the half reinforcement from stem and heel slab to the intersection
portion of heel slab and stem.


1000   30 2
 4  241.24 mm
Spacing of bars 2930

So provide 30 mm # bars with spacing 240 mm c/c spacing in toe.

h) DISTRIBUTION REINFORCEMENT:

So provide 16∅reinforcement with spacing 100 mm in toe slab.

The base slab thickness is increased upto 4.5m as that the abutment can be designed
as shallow foundation and stress at heel & toe will be safe.

4.6. FOUNDATION DESIGN:

4.6.1. DESIGN OF PILE CAP:

Vertical force vu = 10867kN

X - direction moment=Mux=1.5 L.L+1.4 W.C = 1747kN-m

X - direction moment=Mux=1.2(L.L)+1.4×W.C = 799 kN-m

Wind force and live load cannot be considered at a time as per IRC:6-2014

Mux=1747kN-m

Muy=3348 kN-m

∑ V ∑ Mux dy ∑ Muy dx
P= ± ±
n ∑ dy 2 ∑dx 2

∑dx 2=3׿=30.375m 2

∑dy 2=2׿=81m 2

10867 1747 × 4.5 3348 × 4.5

F1 = − +
6 81 2× 30.375

= 1811.2-97.056+248=1962.144kN

F2= 1811.2-97.056-248 = 1467kN

63
SVEC/CE/2017-20
F3= 1811.2+248 = 2060kN

F4= 1811.2-248 = 1564kN

F5= 1811.2+248+97.056=2157kN

F6 = 1811.2+97.056-248 = 1660.256kN

F1+F3+F5 = 6180 kN

F5 + F6= 3818 kN

a) DESIGN REINFORCEMENT FOR PILE CAP:

Mux=3818× 4.5=17181 kN −m

4.5
Muy=6180× =13905 kN−m
2

17181 ×106
(dreq)=
√ 3
0.36× 35 ×0.48 ×6.2 ×10 ×(1−0.416 × 0.48)

=756.64mm

dprovided=1800-200(pile+ P.C.C)-55-15=1530mm

0.5× 3.5
(Ast req.)y-direction¿ × ¿)=32548.206mm2
415

Providing 30 - mm ∅ bars @ 130mm c /c

(Ast prov.)y – direction=32896.1mm2

0.5 ×35
(Ast req.)x-direction = ׿ ]
415

=26194.87mm2

Providing 30 - mm∅ 280 mm c /c

(Ast)prov x-dir=26507.18mm2 ;

After considering the shear criteria (explained in next article), revised reinforcement
is given by, (Ast prov.)revised = 30mm-∅ @110mm c /c=¿67472.8422mm2

b) SHEAR FORCE FOR PILE CAP DESIGN:

64
SVEC/CE/2017-20
Shear will be checked at a distance d/2 fromface of column as per IS-2911-part 3

Xx =1.75m, Xy =0 m

d/2=750mm ,(d/2)+150=900mm¿ 1750 mm .

So the full reaction of the piles will be considered as the shear force to be resisted by
the cap.
VEd = Vu =6180-361.25= 5820kN-m

As per IRC:112-2011,

VRdc = (0.12K(80 ρ1 fck )0.33+ 0.15 σ cp ¿ ×b w d

K=1+ 200 =¿1+ 200 =¿ 1.365<2.0 ¿ ¿ (Hence O.K)

d√ 1500 √
Due to no lateral compression pre stressing𝜎cp =0 kN/m2

Vmin =0.2925

(VRdc)min =0.2925×10.7 × 103 × 1500 =4694.29 kN.

A sc
Ρ1= =0.00165<0.02
bw d

VRdc =0.12×1.365 × ( 80× 0.00165 ×35 )0.33 ×10700 ×1500

= 4356.33kN< (vmin)Rdc < VEd

Hence let us provide 30 mm∅ bars @ 110 mm c /c

(Ast prov.)x-direction=97472.8422mm2

Ρ1 =0.0042

VRdc =5929.60kN> VEd = 5820 kN (OK)

c) ANCHORAGE LENGTH:

ℓbnet. = αaℓbAstreq./Astprov. ,(cl-15.2.4.3 of IRC:112-2011)

αa=1,ℓb=k∅=30 × 30=900mm

(Astreq./Astprov.)x-direction = 0.388

65
SVEC/CE/2017-20
(Astreq./Astprov.)y-direction = 0.989

Hence calculated ℓbnet. will be smaller than ℓ b. But let’s continue the bars of base up to
top of the cap having 60 mm cover at top.

4.6.2 DESIGN OF UNDER-REAMED PILE:

4.6.2.1. SOIL DESIGN OF PILE:

Scour depth=3.72m

Pile cap=1.8m

Water current parallel to pier=22.39 kN

Water current to pier=74kN

Maximum load on outer most piles on 4-corners =2157 KN

Фpile¿ 1.2 m

Lpile =11.7m

leffect = 0.7Lpile =0.7×11.7=8.19 m (table 11.1 of IRC:112-2011)

8.19
leff/d¿ =6.825 ( short column ) .
1.2

Qu= ApNcCp+ AaNcCa’ + Ca’As’ + αCaAs (clause-5.2.3.1 of IS: 2911-part 3) [for

cohesive soil]

n
π π
Qu= ( Du2 – D2 ) [0.5 DunN + Nq∑ d r]+ D2 (0.5DN + dfNq)
4 r=1 4

+(0.5 πDK tanδ)  (d12 + df2 – dn2) [for sandy soil] (Cl-5.2.3 of IS:2911-part3)

Du =3m,D=1.2m.

n =2,  =18.87 kN/m3(soil testing report)

N=22.21875=22.22(average of all value)

Nq=17.293(fig-2 ,is 2911-3-1980,page- 15) and ∑ d r = 6+10.5 = 16.5 m

Df =11.7m,K=1.75

δ =∅=25.375° ( average of all values )

66
SVEC/CE/2017-20
d1= 6m, dn=10.5m

(Qu)2ud =39438.41+4602.503+1849.34=45890.253 kN

Providing single under ream at 6m depth, we have

(Qu)1ud = 15359.71+4602.503+4041.44 = 24003.654 kN

Let us provide single under ream

Qu
(Qu)compression =9601.462 kN =
2.5

Qu
(Qu)uplift = = 8001.218 kN
3

Due to group action, 10% strength will be reduced of each pile as per IS:2911-3-
1980(CL-5.2.8.1)

So (Qu)comp =9601.462× 0.9=8641.31=8640 kN

(Qu)uplift=7201.09kN=7200kN

4.6.2.2 ALL FORCES TO BE CARRIED BY EACH PILE:

a. Vertical force due to super-structure+live load +pier+ pile cap+moment(in

both direction)= 2157kN

Though middlepiles will be having lesser load, let us take it as same as that of corner
piles.

b. Horizontal /Lateral Force:

As per IS2911-3-1980,appendix-c,

EI EI
T=5
√ K1
, R=4
K2√
Using table- 2 of appendix-c.IS:2911-3-1980,since all the layers are impervious
&66%(approx.) of soil is sand/gravel group with in 13.50m, let us chose

K1 =1.245(dense sand &submerged condition) = 1.245 kg/cm 2 = 0.1245 N/mm2

(category: dense sand in submerged condition)

Un-confined compression=2Cu

67
SVEC/CE/2017-20
Up to 4.5 m below the ground level ,unconfined compression is varying from 0.50-
0.64 in bore hole -1 up to 4,5 m below ground level of in all other case it is zero let us
take

K2 =7.75kg/cm2 (lower value )(table -3, appendix-c,IS:2911-3-1980)=0.775N/mm2

Modulus of elasticity of concrete Ec =5000√ f ck=5000× √35=29580 N /mm2

π
I= × d 4 =1.017876× 1011 mm4
64

T=777.556 m

R=249.32m

AS per IS:2911-3-1980,Appendix-c,note (above table-2)

Using flexible piles will be those for which embedded length is ≥ 4 R∨4 T

In our case, embedded length will be 11.7-(3.77-1.8)=9.78m≪ 4 R∨4 T

So chart cannot be used as given on appendix-C of IS:2911-3-1980

c. Calculation Of Water Force:

IRC-6;2014 ,cl-210.7(page-36)will be used .

K=1.25, V =3m/sec

P=52 KV 2=52× 1.25 ×32=585 kg /m2 = 5.85 kN/m2

The area obstructing the flow in short direction=(4.5+1.2)×1.92=10.944 m 2

So force FalongW.C =5.85×10.94=64.022 kN

(Fu)short face=1.4×64.012=89.63 kN

(Fu)long face =1.4×5.85 × sin ⁡(20)× 10.2× 1.92=54.857 kN

If the table -1 of appendix –B of IS:2911-3-1980 is extrapolated to the required dia of

pile i.e.1.2m ,for single under reaming ,it’ll be found that,
Lateral thrust that safely can be carried is 10.8t= 108kN¿ 89.63 kN

&¿ 54.857 kN

68
SVEC/CE/2017-20
(Hence safe against lateral force)
Also safe load in uplift resistance is given by (using extrapolation),

50.4t=504KN but minimum vertical force in our case is 1467kN¿ 504 kN ( ok )

As per appendix –B -1-11 of IS:2911-3-1980, the loads lesser than above extrapolated
loads need not be designed separately. Since in our case it is lesser, that’s why no
need of separate design for horizontal forces.

Using Brom’s chart (page -274of Foundation Engineering, PHI - publication by P.C.
Varghese),

e 1.92 L 9,78
= =0.1963=0.2 and = =8.15
L 9.78 b 1.2

From chart;

Hu 1+sin ∅ 1+ sin 25.375

3
=30and Kp = = =2.5
KpB γ 1−sin ∅ 1−sin 25.375

B = (1.2)3 = 1.728 m3 , γ =18.87 kN/m3

So Hu = 301.7282.518.87 = 2445.552 kN
For safe design, taking factor of safety 2.5, Hs = 978.2208 kN >> Fushort face and
Fulongface(Safe)

So our piles will be designed as short axially loaded columns with axial force
=Pu=2157 kN

4.6.2.3 DESIGN OF REINFORCEMENT FOR PILES:

Let us use IS 456:2000 for design.

Pu=0.4fck Ac+0.67fyAst (cl-39.3, IS456:2000)

Or 2157×10 3=0.4 × 35× ¿0.67× 415 × A st

Or 2157000=15.83×10 6−14 A st +278.05 A st

Or 264.05 A st=(-)1.367×10 7

69
SVEC/CE/2017-20
That means minimum reinforcement will be provided. Since the design is based on
IS456:2000,minimum reinforcement is 0.8% of Ag as against 0.4% of Ag as per IS:
2911 (3)

0.8
Ast = ׿
100

9048
=12.80=13 numbers
Providing 30mm∅ bars, no. of bars= π 2 .
× 30
4

As per clause -16-2-3 of IRC;112-2011,10 mm ф bars will be provided as transverse

reinforcement @ 200 mm c/c.

70
SVEC/CE/2017-20
 CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION

 This project concludes the planning, analysis and design of fly over structures.
 This project gives a model to understand how the flyover components
designed.
 This structure reduces the traffic control and enhances the safe driving.
 The structure is designed as per IRC class A loading and IRC 70R loading.
 This project helps to improve the urbanization of rural areas
 Also facilitate the connection of various system of road such as village road,
State highway, National highway etc.,

71
SVEC/CE/2017-20
 CHAPTER 6
REFERNCES

 IRC 21-2000 – STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND CODE OF

PRACTICE FOR ROAD BRIDGES SECTION II
 IRC: 5-1998 - SECTION I- GENERAL FEATURES OF DESIGN
(SEVENTH REVISION)
 IRC: 112-2011 - CODE OF PRACTICE FOR CONCRETE ROAD BRIDGES
 IRC: 6-2014 - SECTION II- LOADS AND STRESSES (REVISED
EDITION) IRC: 112-2011 - CODE OF PRACTICE FOR CONCRETE
ROAD BRIDGES
 IRC-SP-105-2015-EXPLANATORY-HANDBOOK-TO-IRC-112-2011
 IRC: 78-2014 - SECTION VII- FOUNDATIONS AND SUBSTRUCTURE
(REVISED EDITION)
  IS 456-2000 – PLAIN AND REINFORCED CONCRETE – CODE OF
PRACTICE
 DESIGN OF BRIDGE BY N. KRISHNA RAJU, (LIMIT STATE METHOD
OF DESIGN)

72
SVEC/CE/2017-20