Final Thesis,,,,,, PDF

EFFECT OF SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION ON REINFORCED CONCRETE
INTEGRAL BRIDGE
Submitted to
RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIKI VISHWAVIDYALAYA, BHOPAL (M.P)
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Award of Degree of
MASTER OF ENGINEERING
IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
With specialization in
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Submitted by
ANKUR
(0901CE15MT33)
Under the guidance of
Dr. S. K. JAIN
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering
MITS, Gwalior
CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

MADHAV INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE
GWALIOR-474005 (M.P)
MAY, 2019
Madhav Institute of Technology & Science,
Gwalior (M.P.)
(A Govt. Aided UGC Autonomous Institute Under RGPV Bhopal, Established in 1957)
CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION
I hereby certify that the dissertation entitled “Effect of Soil Structure Interaction on Reinforced
Concrete Integral Bridge” which is being submitted in the partial fulfillment of the requirement for the
award of Master of Engineering, with specialization in Structural Engineering, is a record of my own
work carried out under the supervision and guidance of Dr. S. K. Jain, Professor, Department of Civil
Engineering, Madhav Institute of Technology & Science, Gwalior.
All information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and
ethical conduct. I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work.
To the best of my knowledge the material presented in this dissertation has not been submitted elsewhere
for the award of any other degree/diploma.
Date: ANKUR
Place: (0901CE15MT33)
This is to certify that the above statement made by the candidate is correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
Guided by
Dr. S. K. Jain
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering
MITS, Gwalior
Approved by Forwarded by
Dr. M. K. Trivedi Dr. R. K. Pandit

Professor and Head Director
Civil Engineering Department MITS, Gwalior
MITS, Gwalior
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
When it truly comes to acknowledge somebody’s support and help it is really a difficult task especially
when the support expected is so whole hearted and unflinching.
I gratefully acknowledge my profound indebtedness towards my esteemed guide Dr. S. K. Jain, Professor
of civil engineering, MITS, Gwalior for his inspiring guidance, valuable suggestions and constant help at
all stages of this dissertation work. Without his help the completion of this dissertation would not have
been possible.
Also I would like to thanks Dr. M. K. Trivedi, Professor and Head of Civil Engineering Department,
MITS, Gwalior. I acknowledge support and motivation of Dr. Sanjay Tiwari and all other professors,
staff members of Civil Engineering Department of MITS, Gwalior who gave their utmost support till the
end of the dissertation.
I am highly thanks to Dr. R. K. Pandit, Director, MITS, Gwalior for providing excellent institution
environment, who extended all facilities and cooperation in the completion of this dissertation.
I would also like to gratefully acknowledge to National Highways Authority of India (Ministry of
Road Transport & Highways) for their cooperation and support to provide the necessary drawings of
highway bridges for dissertation work.
Last but not the least, I would like to thank my loving family and friends for their encouragement and
co-operation during the time of working throughout this dissertation work.
ANKUR
Date: (0901CE15MT33)
iii
ABSTRACT
Bridges are built for improving the mobility of people and materials and enhancing the quality of life of
the society. Bridges have three dimensional involvements in the benefits of community as scientific, social
and technological. The scientific dimension helps the engineer to evolve efficient structures with various
scientific developments like analysing forces and resultant flexural and shear stresses. There can be certain
amount of social dimension also involved in the choice of facility and priority over other social needs of
country. Technological development in design and evolve a form of structure which is acceptable in
economic, durable and efficient aspects. To promote an economical design, it needs to minimize the
quantity of required materials without any detrimental effect on bridge structure. In this study, Moments
have been analysed in the Bridge Structure considering effect of soil structure interaction. This analysis
has been performed with the help of STAAD pro v8i and STAAD BEAVA software.
The bridge under study is situated on NH-44 [Gwalior-Jhansi bypass].In this study, bridge structure has
been considered as Integral Bridge. End moments and forces have been compared with several soil
structure interactions. During this analysis, IRC class 70R loading has considered according to
IRC:6-2000. In the study, it has been observed that it is a common practice to assume infinite rigidity
while analyzing and designing foundation using conventional rigid method, in which effect of flexural
rigidity and modulus of subgrade reaction of supporting soil are ignored, but here, soil is considered to be
homogeneous elastic material. In the study of soil structure interaction, modulus of subgrade reaction is
mainly responsible for response of soil beneath the structure foundation. It is observed that Moments
values vary with the variation in modulus of subgrade reaction. Reinforced Concrete Bridge has been
analyzed for different cases by considering soil structure interaction and without considering SSI effect.
In this study, three analysis have been compared with IRC 70R Class loading.
In first analysis, moments have been obtained without soil structure consideration. In second analysis,
moments have been compared with consideration of soil structure interaction in which loose soil is taken.
In third analysis, dense soil is taken which had different value of subgrade modulus. It is observed that
moment value altered with loose soil dense soil. Moments are varying with the variation of point of
application of loading. It is helpful to develop an economical design which is preferable to conventional
designs. The objective of this study is to develop a workable approach for analysis of bridge structure on
elastic foundation that will provide the design with realistic moment value for use in the design of
reinforced integral bridge.
iv
CONTENTS
CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION…… ………………………………….................................. i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ....................................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................. iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .........................................................................................................iv
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................ vi
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................ viii
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1-3
1.1 General…………………………………………………………………………………….1
1.2 Loading to be considered………………………………………………………………….1
1.3 IRC Class 70R loading………………………………………………………… …… ......1
1.4 Subgrade Modulus…………………………………………………………………………1
1.5 Integral Bridge………………………………………………………………………….....2
1.5.5 Advantage of Integral Bridge Over Traditional Bridge……………………………….2
1.6 Objectives……………………………………………………………………………….....3
1.7 Scope………………………………………………………………………………………3
1.8 Organization of Dissertation……………………………………………………………....3
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................. 4-8
2.1 General………………………………………………………………………………….. 4
2.2 Effect of Soil Structure Interaction on the Bridge……………………………………….4
2.3 Concept of Modulus of Subgrade Reaction……………………………………………..7
2.4 Integral Bridge Analysis………………………………………………………………....8
CHAPTER 3: CASE BRIDGE STRUCTURE AND SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION
…………………………………………………………………………………….. 9-15
3.1 General…………………………………………………………………………………….9
3.2 About the Bridge:………………………………………………………………………….9
3.3 Calculation For Bridge structure……………………………………………………….....11
3.4 Classical Winkler Solution………………………………………………………………..13
3.5 Determination of Modulus of Subgrade Reaction………………………….......................14
v
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS…………………………………………….16
4.1 General………………………………………………………………...……………….16
4.2 Bending moment and fix end Moment ……………………….………..........................16
4.3 Analysis of Left End Span Beam ……………………………………..………………18
4.3.1 Loading at node-1…………………………………………..……………18
4.3.2 Loading at node-80…………………………………………..…………..19.
4.3.3 Loading at node-81…………………………………………..…………..21
4.3.4 Loading at node-82…………………………………………..…………..23
4.4 Analysis of Left End Span Beam …………………………………………..………....24
4.4.1 Loading at node-1……………………………………………...………..24
4.4.2 Loading at node-80…………………………………………...…….…..26.
4.4.3 Loading at node-81…………………………………………...….……..27
4.4.4 Loading at node-82…………………………………………....………..29
4.5 Analysis of mid span Span Beam …………………………………………...…………30
4.5.1 Loading at node-1……………………………………………...………...30
4.5.2 Loading at node80……………………………………………...………..32
4.5.3 Loading at node-81……………………………………………...……….33
4.5.4 Loading at node-82……………………………………………..……….35
4.6 Analysis of mid Span Beam …………………………………………………..……..36
4.6.1 Loading at node-1…………………………………………………...……36
4.6.2 Loading at node80…………………………………………………...…...38
4.6.3 Loading at node-81…………………………………………………...…..39
4.6.4 Loading at node-82…………………………………………………...…..41
4.7 Analysis of Right End Span Beam ……………………………………………..…..42
4.7.1 Loading at node-1……………………………………………………..…42
4.7.2 Loading at node80……………………………………………………….44.
4.7.3 Loading at node-81………………………………………………………45
4.7.4 Loading at node-82………………………………………………………47
4.8 Analysis of Right End Span Beam …………………………………………………48
4.8.1 Loading at node-1……………………………………………………….48
4.8.2 Loading at node80……………………………………………………….49
4.8.3 Loading at node-81………………………………………………………51
vi
4.8.4 Loading at node-82…………………………………………………….52
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………..54
5.1 General Observation ………………………………………………...54
5.2 Conclusions of Analysis………………………………………………..54
5.3 Scope of future work …………………………………………………..55
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………..56-57
ANNEXURE…………………………………………………………………………..XVII
LIST OF PUBLICATION……………………………………………………….… XVIII
PLAGIARISM CERTIFICATE…………………………………………………..,,,XIX
vii
viii
Figure
Figure Description Page
No.
no.
3.1 General View of Case Bridge 9
3.2 Dimensional details of Bridge 10
3.3 Cross of substructure and Superstructure 10
3.4 Maximum and minimum Forces and Moments in Structure 12
3.5 Bending moment Diagram of Bridge Structure without traffic load 13
3.6 Bending moment Diagram of Bridge Structure with traffic load 13
3.7 Winkler Foundation 14
4.0 Elaboration of Results diagram 17
4.1 End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam without Consideration of Soil 18
Structure Interaction. [ beam no. 10].
4.2 End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam with Consideration of Soil 18
Structure Interaction in Loose Sand. [beam no. 10].
Structure Interaction in Dense Soil.[for beam no. 10].
Structure Interaction. [beam no. 10].
Structure Interaction in Dense Soil[for beam no. 10].
ix
End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam without Consideration of Soil
4.10 23
End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam with Consideration of Soil
4.11 23
x
xi
4.22 End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam without Consideration of 29
Soil Structure Interaction. [beam no. 34]
Structure Interaction in Loose Sand. [beam no. 34]
Structure Interaction in Dense Soil [for beam no. 34]
Structure Interaction in Dense Soil[for beam no. 11]
xii
FIGURE DESCRIPTION
End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam with Consideration of Soil
4.33
Structure Interaction in Dense Soil[for beam no. 11] 34
End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam without Consideration of 35

4.34
xiii
FIGURE DESCRIPTION
xiv
End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam with Consideration
4.54 45
of Soil Structure Interaction in Dense Soil[for beam no. 12]
End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam without

4.55 45
Consideration of Soil Structure Interaction. [beam no. 12]
End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam with Consideration

4.56 46
of Soil Structure Interaction in Loose Sand. [beam no. 12]
4.57 End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam with Consideration 46
4.58 End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam without 47



xv
4.65 End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam with Consideration of 50
Soil Structure Interaction in Loose Sand. [beam no. 36]
Soil Structure Interaction in Dense Soil[for beam no. 36]
LIST 0F TABLE
Table No. CAPTION Page no.

3.1 Relationship between k-value and CBR value for homogeneous soil 14
subgrade
3.2 A range of values of subgrade reaction. These values should be used for 15
a guide. Local values may be higher or lower.
3.3 Modulus of subgrade reaction [kg/cm3] for cohesion less soil 15
3.4 Modulus of subgrade reaction [kg/cm3] for cohesive soil 15
xvi
xvii
i
ii
CHAPTER-1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
A bridge structure has a significant role in transportation infrastructure. To provide a passage
over an obstacle, bridge structure is constructed. This is essential to cross obstacles a river, a
road, railway or a valley etc. In recent days, reinforced concrete beam bridge structures are
critical for public transportation.
A topic of long standing interest to both structural and geotechnical engineers is traditionally
known as soil structure interaction for a long period this has involved linear elastic interaction
between the foundation and underlying soil. The appropriate analysis for this case is well
developed for both static and dynamic interaction. [Rolando P. Orense et al2010].
When the live loading varies due to traffic influence and seismic activities, then response of
soil takes a notable variation. In conventional design, this variation has been ignored with
assumption of fixed soil base but in reality, foundation soil is flexible when flexural rigidity of
footing is taken in to account, a solution is used that is based on elastic foundation.
1.2 LOADING TO BE CONSIDERED

While designing bridge structure, following loads forces and effects should be consider, where
applicable (a) Dead load (b) Live load
Live loads are those caused by vehicles which pass over the bridge and are transient in nature.
Hypothetically loadings which are specified to serve as design criteria genuinely. According to
IRC Standard live loads, there are four types of standard loadings are considered as per design
But we are considering IRC 70R class during analysis.
1.3 IRC CLASS 70R LOADING

This loading was originally included in the bridge code for which is used for rating of existing
bridges. This loading consists of a tracked vehicle of 700KN or a wheeled vehicle of total load
of 1000KN.contact length of tracked vehicle is 4.57meter. The nose to tail length of vehicle is
7.92meter and the specified minimum successive distance is 30meter. The wheeled vehicle is
15.22meter long and has seven axles with loads totalling to 1000KN.[IRC:6-2000]
1.4 SUBGRADE MODULUS

The ratio between the unit soil pressure and the corresponding settlement is termed the modulus
of subgrade reaction [ks] .it is mathematically expressed as
Ks= q/∆
Where q= intensity of soil pressure

∆= average settlement for an increment of pressure
This value can be determined by performing a Plate load test and value of subgrade also
depends on size and shape of plate used in test.
The subgrade is usually considered as Winkler foundation, also known as dense liquid
foundation. In Winkler model, it is assumed that the foundation is made up of springs,
supporting concrete slab. The strength of sub grade is expressed in terms of modulus of sub
grade reaction k which is defined as pressure per unit deflection of foundation as determine by
plate load test. [Joseph E. Bowles, 1997]
1.5 INTEGRAL BRIDGE: Those bridge which do not have bearings and joints are termed
as integral bridges. The elimination of bearing and mechanical expansion joints is beneficial to
reduce construction cost, operating cost and smooth riding. Integral bridges are good
alternatives to the traditional girder bridge with one or more short or medium spans.
Most important difference in structural arrangement between integral and traditional

bridge:1.in conventional bridge, super structure is connected to abutment by bearing. But in
integral bridge main girders are fixed to an abutment with diaphragm.
2. In traditional bridge, it is essential to use expansion joint but in integral bridge gap is
eliminated.
As per British standards it is recommended to prefer integral bridge where total length of super
structure is less than 60m and skews do not exceed 30 because in case of larger span, structural
arrangements could cause problem in transition zone.
1.5.1 HISTORY OF INTEGRAL BRIDGE
The integral construction developed in late 30’s with a five span bridge in Ohio State. Since then
the development of integral bridges has been largely owed to the research conducted in U.S.A.
Currently the integral bridge length allowed varies between countries and between states. The
bridge with the maximum length constructed has about 350 meters. When skewed abutments are
employed lateral earth pressures cause rotation of the deck in plan. Thus, the skew angle is also
limited up to about 30°. The use of curved deck in IABs to accommodate the thermal expansion
and contraction results in lower displacement of the abutments allowing grater lengths. The
longest integral curved bridge is the Sunniberg Bridge in Switzerland. The deck is 526 meters
long and has a curvature radius of 503 meters.
1.5.2 ADVANTAGES OF INTEGRAL BRIDGE OVER TRADITIONAL BRIDGE
Elimination of expansion joints and bearing to reduce construction cost of bridge and
maintenance cost, also to increase comfortable riding surface. Simplified structure without
bearing pad, end screen wall and cross expansion gap to reduce material consumption, earth
work volume with reduction of spread footing.
a. Faster progress and simplified construction progress.
b. Slender super structure bending moments are redistributed from sagging moment to hogging
moment.
c. Robust structure because of frame connectivity of super structure and sub structure increase
static indeterminacy and structure robustness. Because of higher ductility, integral bridges are
more resistant to seismicity and other accidental action e. g. Impact of vehicle on abutment and
displacement of abutment due to flood or terrorist attack.
d. Finally shorter and lower highway ramps leading to further reduction of earth work.
1.6 OBJECTIVES
Moments in a bridge structure are important parameters which play significant role to develop
an economical design. : Modelling of the bridge structure as per NHAI drawing with the help
of STAAD PRO V8I Software. Application of IRC class 70R loading at different points of
bridge span. Objectives of this dissertation are (i) to model abridge structure under
conventional design method (ii) after modelling, analysis of same bridge with loose soil as
elastic foundation which depends on modulus of subgrade reaction(iii) analysis of same bridge
with dense soil with the help of STAAD pro V8i software.
1.7 SCOPE
Modelling of Reinforced concrete Bridge with help of software and considered structure as
integral bridge. To analyse the bridge with application of IRC Class 70R Loading. Comparing
the moments which are obtained by different cases as (i) Consideration of soil structure
interaction with dense soil (ii) Consideration of soil structure interaction with loose
soil.(iii)Without consideration of soil structure interaction .
1.8 ORGANISATION OF DISSERTATION

In the current chapter a general introduction of present work is given along with objectives of
the study followed by scope and methodology. Chapter two highlights the previous research
work done on soil structure interaction with various method. Chapter three have detailed
description of bridge structure and soil structure interaction effect. Chapter four contains results
and discussions which are obtained from Staad pro v8i software with diagram. Chapter five
presents conclusions about results.
CHAPTER-2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 GENERAL
There are many number of studies have been considered on soil structure interaction and this
phenomenon is based on subgrade reaction of foundation soil. Some studies have been
observed on integral Bridge. Review of some studies is being presented in following
paragraphs:
2.2 EFFECT OF SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION ON THE BRIDGE

Gin-show Liou and S.C. Lai [1996] analysed a model for mat foundation with grid floor
beams as stiffness is presented here. In the model, sub grade reaction spring is assumed for
whole area under mat foundation, yield line theory of slab is used. The total analysis model for
mat foundation is simplified to be a grid beam system on an elastic foundation with segment
ally linearly varied spring constant. It is subjected to loading from column of building structure.
Some numerical comparison with result by sophisticated element model is made in order to
demonstrate effectiveness and efficiency of presented analysis model. With elastoplastic
behaviour of subsoil, yield criteria were compared with the case when soil behaves in linearly
elastic manner. On the basis of obtained interactive behaviour, it has been realized that force
value is frame elements given by consolidation analysis may be higher than from time
independent analysis. To define the complimentary recommendation for design of space frame
structure resting on consolidated soil. Future investigation would be necessary. Further studies
may be able to determine the effect of period of application of loads, the coefficient of
permeability of soil layer on behaviour of entire space frame.
Gouw Tjie Liong [2001] had an interesting experience on application of spring regular for a
design of a mass rapid transit railway station to an Over sea Project. Condition of soil reveals
that, deeper soils have extra stress as compared to the layer right underneath the raft basis. In
this paper, he desires to intricate underlying principle the spring steady concept, its issue and
alertness of particularly made Geotechnical software to resolve the problem of soil- structure
interplay. They determined that the distribution of soil reaction in clayey soil is curving
upward. In sandy soil the opposite reaction is visible. Vesie Equation clearly indicates that
modulus of sub grade reaction depends not best on width of foundation however also on elastic
parameter of soil as modulus of elasticity of soil, Poisson ratio, form element. The most recent
version of PLAXIS software program even comes with dynamic module that is capable to
evaluate soil shape interplay due to dynamic load and earthquake loading.
Boris Jeremic [2004] The evaluation supplied in the paper reveals the effect of inelastic
behaviour of both soil and structural additives of bridge shape at some point of seismic response
evolution of motorway bridge device. It is also demonstrated that now and again soil shape
interaction could have a useful impact on superstructure reaction and occasionally produces
destructive effect on machine conduct and is dependent on characteristic of earthquake motion.
In addition to that a unique technique to simulating soil foundation structure interaction using
area reduction method was supplied as an opportunity method to conquer present day problem
in nonlinear analogy incorporating soil basis shape interaction. Even though design spectra are
derived on a conservative basis, and the above assertion might also maintain for a big class of
systems, there are case histories that show that the perceived roles of SFS interplay is an over-
simplification and might cause risky design. To this give up, the shape is modelled with and
without SFS interplay results and the resulting damage, in phrases of dissipated plastic
electricity is used to set up kingdom of structure after the seismic load.
The impact of SFS interaction is taken into consideration to be beneficial to the structure below
the following situations: (1) there are not any widespread permanent deformations within the
structure due to yielding of the pier. (2) The power dissipation (hysteretic loops) of the machine
with SFS interaction is smaller than that with fixed basis, leading to the conclusion that there
may be much less harm to the structure. For the couple of- body model it turned into vital to
offer spring detail among everybody to model the inter body connections. The longitudinal and
vertical restrains shear keys and bearing pads. Three sets of 10 ground motions were selected
for the bridge website online corresponding to a few risks ranges event with a 50% probability
of being surpassed in 50 years; occasion with a ten% opportunity of being handed in 50 years,
and occasion with a 2% opportunity of being handed in 50 years.
Mark j. Masia [2004] In this study, a soil structure interaction model for finite element
simulation of structural response of lightweight masonry structure subjected to expansive soil
movement has been analyzed. It can simulate the crack in masonry wall panel .Use of simple
modelling assumption and static consideration to provide fast solution. This is flexible model
to consider a wide range of possible structural geometrics, material properties and crack
location. These factors have significant effects when SSI model must be used in sensitivity
studies and for probabilistic analysis of masonry structure.
Two methods are used to minimize solution time: (i) model simplicity (ii) static consideration
In model simplicity crack location and configuration are prescribed, so that modeling of crack
propagation is not required. In static consideration, it allows number of computation to be
reduced in finite element solution there by reducing total solution time. In this reduction of
number of global stiffness equation in finite formulation .all degree of freedom are ignored
which are not in interest.
Lance A Robert [2010] in this study, a performance based soil structure interaction design
approach for axial design of deep foundation, under the AASHTO strength and service limit
state is presented. The design approach can be integrated with load and resistance factor design
[LFRD] framework to develop an efficient methodology for satisfying these limit state criteria.
Probability distribution function were developed which provided the necessary statistical
parameter to compute a resistance factor and probability exceedance for a site specific design.
The use of LFRD approach has ensured that the optimum deep foundation system will ensure
safety and consistency in design. With improving efficiency significant time and money can
be saved by design on large projects.
Vinayak Demane et al. [2013] the model is analysed for bending moment, shear force and
axial thrust for different loading combination as per IRC-6-2010 standard. Box structure
directly rests on soil and pressure of soil acts on sidewall. To study the response of boxes with
rigid support bottom slab shear force, corner bending moment and mid span bending moment
values decrease about 50%,60%,40% from rigid support condition but these values decrease
with increase stiffness of soil. Top slab shear force is similar in both cases and corner bending
moment increases and mid span bending moment values decrease about to 5% to 10% but this
increases 20% to 30% in rigid condition.
Kamel Bezih et al. [2015] investigate failure probability for existing Reinforced Concrete
Bridge due to soil structure interaction effect. To achieve this goal, a numerical method was
developed for continuous beam on non-linear elastic foundation. The failure probabilities of
three critical cross-sections are computed with consideration of bearing capacity, internal angle
of friction of soil with random loading A coupled reliability mechanical approach is developed
to study the effect of soil structure interaction. The modelling of this interaction is incorporated
into the mechanical model of RC continuous beam, by considering nonlinear elastic soil
stiffness. The objective of the present paper is to show and to quantify the importance of soil
parameter uncertainties on redistribution of internal forces in RC structures. As well as their
effect on safety assessment of these structure. impact of soil variability- in order to well assess
the effect of the soil on structural safety, it has been chosen to consider only two random
variables in this reliability analysis, the friction angle with various coefficient of variation
values and resisting moment with coefficient of variation equal to 8%. This effect is strongly
amplified with the increase of the coefficient of variation of friction angle.
Panos Tasopelas et al. [2016] investigated impact of SSI on seismic isolated bridge. The myth
of SSI effect being safely neglected stems from the perception that phenomenon develops
flexibility during earthquake hence it reduces overall seismic loading. In this study of bridge
model consist of a single pier at the top of which the bilinear isolation carries the deck weight.
At the bottom the pier is monolithically connected to piles group cap. The difference between
gyromass and voigt model are up to 10-20% for both isolation displacement and shear force in
pier. Flexible pile group resting on a very soft soil can lead to great loss of accuracy. In voigt
model, 50% discrepancies are observed.
Gyromass is a mechanical element which has same dimension as mass. It is defined as
frequency independent unit generating a reaction force due to relative acceleration of nodes
between which the gyro mass is placed. Voigt model- consisting of a spring and a dashpot
connected to foundation mass is a simple option for modelling the impedance function.
Muhammad Tariq A chaudhary [2016]: Presented sub- structuring method and FEM version
for the evaluation of a four span bridge designed for 5 unique rock instructions and subjected
to ensemble of actual ground motions. SSI turned into contain through Winkler spring while
nonlinear behaviour of bolstered concrete pier column became modelled through an equal
linear version. It was located that the soil basis structure interplay could not be left out in all
cases of rock instructions and input floor motions. Under live load consequences, the abutment
rotates and laterally movements toward the backfill, the intensity of backfill pressure relies
upon at the magnitude of abutment displacement. Earth strain co-green K relying upon
displacement.
In this take a look at, its miles analysed that a set of boundary springs connected at abutment-
backfill interface nodes along the height and width of abutment are used to model the backfill-
abutment interplay effects. The maximum load effect on a bridge is based totally on position
of truck both in longitudinal and transverse directions, to calculate the most stay load results
on the bridge as abutment and pile shear force, maximum bending second are received . In the
estimation of live load results, the probability of the presence of more than one loaded design
lanes is taken in to attention.
2.3 CONCEPT OF MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION

Karl Terzaghi [1995] discussed the element which decides the value of coefficient of each
vertical and horizontal sub grade reaction of cohesion less sand and stiff clay. The theories of
vertical and horizontal sub grade response are based on hook’s law assumptions. According to
author, the coefficient of sub grade reaction is the ratio between this stress at any given factor
of floor of touch and agreement produced by way of load software. This paper consists of rules
for adopting the cost of coefficient of sub grade reaction. If the numerical values of the
coefficient are selected according with those rules, the result of computation of stresses and
bending moments in footings or mats may be considered fairly dependable. More dependable
facts concerning the ones cost might be acquired by way of using investigating relation
between horizontal displacement of inflexible, vertical walls advancing closer to with
extraordinary relative density and corresponding touch stress.
However, under ordinary situations the mistakes because of those simplifications are
appropriately taken care of by way of the normal thing of safety in layout, provided the
coefficients of sub grade response had been assigned numerical values which might be like
minded with each the elastic homes of the sub grade and the size of the location acted upon by
way of the sub grade response.
Hany Farouk [2014] analyzed that many structural designer usually represent the footing as
hinged and fixed support, but they consider footing as group of springs with spring’s coefficient
equal to area of modulus of sub grade reaction (ks). Soil structure interaction has an important
effect on modulus of sub grade reaction. The change in normal forces leads to increase in outer
column and decrease inner column .Considering SSI result relatively change in normal forces
resulted change in contact stress and settlement. It is well known that sub grade reaction
modulus is not a soil constant but it depends on many factors such as dimension of foundation,
soil condition, and load level and superstructure rigidity.
To calculate the contact stresses using modulus of sub grade reaction Winkler theory is used.
Distribution of modulus of sub grade reaction is non uniform and it is related to shape of contact
stress under the footing it is concentrated as edge division and value decreased at inner
dimension.
2.4 INTEGRAL BRIDGE ANALYSIS
W.A. Thanoon [2011] formulated of beam bending element which takes into account effect
of transverse shear deformation and axial interaction is given. An attempt has been made to
model an integral abutment bridge with foundation and backfill. Since the superstructure
members are connected to abutment, any movement of superstructure creates a shear force on
top of pile which leads to lateral displacement of pile. Numerically simulation of integral bridge
(i) three node isoperimetric beam bending element with three degree of freedom per node to
represent the superstructure and pile. (ii) Eight node conventional parabolic finite element to
represent the abutment. (iii) Winkler model to present the soil reaction. The integral abutment
bridge is one of the significant enhancements in road bridge technology during the later part of
20th century. Elimination of expansion joints, joint less bridge can be classified into four
groups: (i) flexible arch bridge (ii) slip joint bridge (iii) abutment less bridge (iii) integral
bridge. The lateral soil resistance both behind the abutment wall and next to piles can be
considered as series of uncoupled Winkler spring. Where these service of spring represent the
interaction between structure and soil.
Maximum displacement will occur at the top of abutment where the pressure load of soil is
neglect able. However if we go deeper the resistance pressure will increase to reach the
maximum value at the bottom of abutment. The result of the analysis have shown that shear
force at the tops of piles were only 12% to 16% of the nodal load which at the top of abutment.
This is due to fact that relative displacement between the piles and surrounding ground is small,
which results in low shear forces at top of piles. The stress concentration is highly consternated
at connection of the abutment with pile and approach slab as well.
CHAPTER-3
CASE BRIDGE STRUCTURE AND SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION

3.1 GENERAL
In this study, RC bridge structure has been analysed and compared with different cases. Those
three different cases are following.
(i)Effect of SSI consideration with dense soil (ii) Effect of SSI consideration with loose soil
(iii)Effect of without SSI consideration
The moments obtained for these three cases are compared. The Analysis has been performed
using STAAD –PRO V8i software on bridge structure as an Integral bridge.
Fig.3.1 GENERAL VIEW OF CASE BRIDGE
3.2 ABOUT THE BRIDGE:
It has been constructed on NH 44 (Gwalior Jhansi bypass) 58km from Riaru village, Gwalior
(Madhya Pradesh). The bridge has three spans, with total length of 56 meter which included
20m mid span and 18m both end spans. Bridge superstructure has been assembled with 12 main
longitudinal girder per span which are fixed with both side end cross girder. Thickness of
reinforced concrete slab is 230 meter wile depth of main girder is 1.2 meter. Elastomeric
bearing are used, which have made up 5 steel layer laminated with 5 elastomer layer of size
[10mm*3mm*5mm] and total size of bearing is [630mm*320mm*78mm]. There are 4 piers
and 2 abutment in bridge substructure. Grade of concrete for super structure is M-35, and for
substructure is M- 30. Grade of reinforcement as HYSD bar is Fe-415.
Fig. 3.2 Dimensional Details of Bridge
Fig. 3.3 Cross-section of Substructure and superstructure

3.3 CALCULATION FOR BRIDGE STRUCTURE:
Weight of deck slab:
Totalarea of deck slab= 27.5m * 56m = 1540m2
Total thickness of slab = 200mm[slab ] + 65mm[wearing coat]=265mm
Dead load of slab per unit length =(volume of per unit length*unit weight of reinforced
concrete)
[ (27.5m* 0.2m*1m )* 25] +[(27.5m* 0..065m*1m)*22.4] =137.5 + 40.04 = 177.54 KN/m
Total Weight of slab = RC slab + wearing coat = [(1540m2*0.2)*25KN/m3]+[

1540m2*2KN/m]=[7700+3080]=10780KN
[According to Indian standards, it is assumed that load of wearing course as 2KN/m2]
Weight of longitudinal girder:
There are 12longitudinal girders in each span.
Cross-sectional area of girder=540000mm2
Volume of girder per unit length= .54*1=.54m3
Load per unit length =volume*unit wt. of concrete = 0.54*25 =13.5 KN/m
Weight of cross end girder:
There are four cross girders in each span.
Cross-sectional area of cross end girder= (1.3m*0.8m) =1.04m2
Load per unit length= 1.04*25=26KN/m
Weight of parapet wall:
Cross- sectional area of parapet wall =.39m2
Weight of parapet wall per unit length= 9.75 KN/m
Total weight of parapet wall=1092 KN
Weight of pier:
There are four pier in bridge structure:
Area of one Pier cap= 12.48m2
Volume of one pier cap=12.48*2.4=29.952m3
Load of one pier cap= 29.952*25=748.8KN

Volume of one pier without cap= 119.91m3
Load of one pier without cap=2997.75KN
Total load of one pier =3746.55KN
There are two abutments in bridge structure
Cross-sectional area of one abutment cap = 0.98m2
Volume of one abutment cap= 0.98*27.5=26.95m3
Weight of one abutment cap=26.95m3*25kn/m3=673.75KN
Volume of one abutment without cap= 497.96m3
Weight of one abutment without cap=12449KN
Total weight of one abutment = 13122.75KN
Total weight of bridge structure:
2×[ weight of abutment]+ 4×[ weight of one pier with cap]+ 12×[ weight of longitudinal
girder]+ 6×[ weight of end cross girder]+ deck slab + parapet
wall=[26245.5+14986.2+9072+3744+10780+1092]=65919.7KN
Fig. 3.4 Maximum and Minimum forces and Moments in structure

Fig.3.5 Bending Moment Diagram of bridge structure without traffic load
Fig. 3.6 Bending Moment Diagram of bridge structure with traffic load
3.4 CLASSICAL WINKER SOLUTION
It represents soil mass as a system of identical but manually independent, closely spaced,
discrete, linearly elastic springs. According to this idealization, deformation of foundation due
to applied load is confined to loaded region only. Hence by comparing the behaviour of
theoretical model and actual foundation, it can be seen that this model essentially suffers from
a complete lack of continuity in supporting medium. The fundamental problem with the use of
this model is to determine the stiffness of elastic spring used to replace the soil below
foundation. Since the sub grade stiffness is the only parameter in Winkler model to idealize the
physical behaviour of sub grade.
Fig. 3.7 - WINKLER FOUNDATION
3.5 DETERMINATION OF MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION
(i) The strength of subgrade is expressed in terms of modulus of subgrade reaction[k] which is
defined as pressure per unit deflection of foundation as determined by plate load test. The k
value is determined from the pressure sustained at a deflection of 1.25mm. Though 750mm is
standard plate diameter, smaller diameter plate can be used in case of homogenous foundation
from practical consideration and the test values obtained with plates of smaller diameter may
be converted to standard 750mm plate value.
K750 =KФ (1.21 Ф+0.078) [IRC: 58-2015]
Ф=Plate diameter
KФ= modulus of sub grade reaction with plate diameter Ф meter
K750=modulus of sub grade reaction with plate diameter of 750mm
A minimum CBR of 8%is recommended for the 500mm of the select soil used as sub grade.
Table 3.1
Relationship between k-value and CBR value for homogeneous soil subgrade
Soaked CBR(% ) 2 3 4 5 7 10 15 20 50 100

K-value (MPa/m) 21 28 35 42 48 55 62 69 140 220
(ii) BOWLES (1974) computes a value of k from allowable bearing capacity as
ks = 120qa
It has been found to give about as reliable value as any method. An increase of 100-200% in
ks may change the structural behaviour only 15-25 %. Deflection will increase in direct
proportion to ks , but often any deflection is tolerable.
Table 3.2
A range of values of subgrade reaction. These values should be used for a guide. Local
values may be higher or lower.
SOIL VALUES OF KS IN KN/M3

Loose sand 4712-15709
Medium sand 9425-78545
Dense sand 62836-125672
Clayey sand 31418-78545
Silty sand 23563-47127
(iii) IS: 2950 (part I)-1981 [Code of practice for design and construction of raft foundation]
The modulus of subgrade reaction as applicable to the case of load through a plate of size
30cm×30cmOr beams on the soil is given in tables.
Table 3.3 Modulus of subgrade reaction [kg/cm3] for cohesion less soil
Relative density SPT Value For dry or moist state For submerged state
Loose <10 1.5 0.9
Medium 10-30 1.5-4.7 0.9-2.9
Dense 30 and over 4.7-18.0 2.9-10.8
SPT [Standard penetration test values obtained in the field for sand have to be corrected before
they are used in empirical correlations and design charts. (IS: 2131-1981)
Table 3.4 Modulus of subgrade reaction [kg/cm3] for cohesive soil
CONSISTENCY UNCONFINED MODULUS OF

COMPRESSIVE SUBGRADE REACTION
STRENGTH
Stiff 1-2 2.7
Very stiff 2-4 2.7-5.4
Hard 4 and over 5.4-10.8
Unconfined compressive strength test is a quick and simplest test and is often used to
determine the in-situ strength of soft, saturated, fine grained soil deposits.
CHAPTER -4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 General
In this chapter, End Moments and shear forces are obtained in three conditions with help of
Staad Pro V8i Software and Staad Beava Software.
As discussed, Three conditions of analysis are following.-
(1) End moments and shear forces in Beams without consideration of effect of soil structure
interaction.
(2) End moments and shear forces in Beams with consideration of effect of soil structure
interaction with loose soil in which subgrade modulus value is taken as 8000 KN/m3.
(3) End moments and shear forces in Beams with consideration of effect of soil structure
interaction with hard soil in which subgrade modulus value is taken as 25000 KN/m3.
In all conditions, 70R IRC loading is considered as Design live load as per NHAI Designs.
4.2 BENDING MOMENTS AND FIX END MOMENT:
Maximum Bending moment in First and third span = wl2/8= 546.75KN-m
Maximum bending moment in middle span = wl2/8= 675 KN-m
Fixed end moment of each beam in first and third span = wl2/12= 364.5 KN-m
Fixed end moment of each beam in middle span = wl2/12 = 450 KN-m
In this study analysis has been performed on STAAD PRO V8i software. After modelling with
consideration of all material properties and dimensions of structural member. IRC class 70R
loading is applied on different spans. We have selected six beams for analysis and four points
for application of loading.
In all figures [4.1-4.72] the red highlighted beam describes the case beam at which we have to
find fixed end moments and shear force. In all figures [4.1-4.72] the green highlighted loading
describe the point of application at which, the load has been applied.
Fig. No.: 4.0 Elaboration of Results diagram
4.3 ANALYSIS OF LEFT END SPAN BEAM [Beam No.10]
4.3.1. LOADING AT NODE-1:
IRC class 70R Loading has been applied at Node-1 (highlighted in green colour) and Case
beam is beam no.10 which has been analysed (highlighted in Red colour) as shown in
[Figure 4.1 –figure 4.3] for three different cases.
Fig.4.1:- End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam without Consideration of Soil
Structure Interaction [Beam No.10].
Fig. 4.2:-End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam with Consideration of Soil Structure
Interaction in Loose Sand [Beam No. 10].
Fig.4.3:- End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam with Consideration of Soil Structure
Interaction in Dense Soil [Beam No. 10].
CASES MOMENTS AT LEFT MOMENT AT RIGHT FIG.NO.

FIXED END FIXED END
AT RIGID CONDITION -237 1305 4.1
LOOSE SAND WITH SSI -249 1580 4.2
EFFECT
DENSE SOIL WITH SSI -230 1593 4.3
EFFECT
When the loading is done on Node 1, 80, 81, 82 and beam no. 10 is observed -
Moments increase 21 % in loose sand condition and 22 % in dense soil condition
approximately. Moments decrease 2% in loose sand condition and increase 17% in dense soil
condition approximately.
4.3.2 LOADING AT NODE -80
beam is beam no.10 which has been analysed (highlighted in Red colour) as shown in [Figure
4.4–figure 4.6] for three different cases.
Fig.4.4:-End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam without Consideration of Soil
Structure Interaction [Beam No. 10].
FIXED END FIXED END
AT RIGID CONDITION 20.4 -203 4.4
LOOSE SAND WITH SSI 20.2 -197 4.5
EFFECT
DENSE SOIL WITH SSI 19.9 -239 4.6
EFFECT
4.7–figure 4.9] for three different cases
Structure Interaction [Beam No. 10].

FIXED END FIXED END
AT RIGID CONDITION 1.6 -6.06 4.7
EFFECT
DENSE S-OIL WITH SSI 29.2 -348 4.9
EFFECT
4.3.4 LOADING AT NODE-82
[Figure 4.7–figure 4.9] for three different cases
Fig.4.10:-End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam Without Consideration of Soil
Structure Interaction [beam no. 10].
Fig.4.11:- End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam With Consideration of Soil Structure
Interaction in Loose Sand [beam no. 10].
Fig. 4.12:- End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam with Consideration of Soil Structure
Interaction in Dense Soil [beam no. 10].

FIXED END FIXED END
AT RIGID CONDITION 0.001 4.42 4.10
LOOSE SAND WITH SSI -2.43 61.4 4.11
EFFECT
DENSE SOIL WITH SSI 1.27 96.1 4.12
EFFECT
4.4 ANALYSIS OF LEFT END SPAN BEAM [Beam No.34]

FIXED END FIXED END
EFFECT
DENSE SOIL WITH SSI 31.6 -312 4.15
EFFECT
Fig.4.16:- End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam without Consideration of soil
Fig. 4.17:-End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam with Consideration of Soil Structure
Interaction in Dense Soil.[beam no.34].

FIXED END FIXED END
LOOSE SAND WITH SSI 2.13 100 4.17
EFFECT
DENSE SOIL WITH SSI -2.81 112 4.18
EFFECT
4.4.3 LOADING AT NODE 81
beam is beam no. 34 which has been analysed (highlighted in Red colour) as shown in [Figure
4.19 –figure 4.21] for three different cases.
Structure Interaction [for beam no. 34].
Interaction in Loose Sand [beam no. 34]
Interaction in Dense Soil.[for beam no. 34].

FIXED END FIXED END
AT RIGID CONDITION -91.3 1023 4.19
EFFECT
DENSE SOIL WITH SSI 155 1644 4.21
EFFECT
4.4.4. LOADING AT NODE 82
Interaction in Loose Sand [for beam no. 34].
Interaction in Dense Soil.[beam no. 34].

FIXED END FIXED END
AT RIGID CONDITION 6.71 -162 4.22
LOOSE SAND WITH SSI -1.98 -162 4.23
EFFECT
DENSE SOIL WITH SSI 15.1 326 4.24
EFFECT
4.5 ANALYSIS OF MID SPAN BEAM [Beam No.11]
4.5.1. LOADING AT NODE -1
beam is beam no. which has been analysed (highlighted in Red colour) as shown in [Figure
Fig.4.26:-End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam with Consideration of Soil Structure
Interaction in Loose Sand [beam no. 11]
Interaction in Dense Soil. [ beam no. 11]

FIXED END FIXED END
AT RIGID CONDITION 1071 -2.98 4.25
LOOSE SAND WITH SSI 1175 -197 4.26
EFFECT
DENSE SOIL WITH SSI 1599 -283 4.27
EFFECT
4.5.2. LOADING AT NODE-80
Structure Interaction [for beam no.11].
Fig. 4.30:- End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam with Consideration of Soil
Structure Interaction in Dense Soil [for beam no. 11]

FIXED END FIXED END
EFFECT
EFFECT
beam is beam no. 11 which has been analysed (highlighted in Red colour) as shown in
Fig.4.31 End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam without Consideration of Soil
Structure Interaction [ beam no. 11].
Interaction in Loose Sand [ beam no. 11].

FIXED END FIXED END
LOOSE SAND WITH SSI -91.6 -98.4 4.32
EFFECT
EFFECT
Interaction in Loose Sand [ beam no. 11].
Interaction in Dense Soil.[ beam no. 11].

FIXED END FIXED END
AT RIGID CONDITION -5.32 4.41 4.34
LOOSE SAND WITH SSI -96 -90.6 4.35
EFFECT
EFFECT
When the loading is done on Node 1, 80, 81, 82 and beam no. 11 is observed -
Moments increase 9 % in loose sand condition and 49 % in dense soil condition approximately.
4.6 ANALYSIS OF MID SPAN BEAM [Beam No. 35]


FIXED END FIXED END
LOOSE SAND WITH SSI -166 -38.4 4.38
EFFECT
EFFECT
Fig.4.42 End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam with Consideration of Soil Structure
interaction in Dense soil [beam no. 35].

FIXED END FIXED END
LOOSE SAND WITH SSI -38.4 -165 4.41
EFFECT
EFFECT
Interaction in loose Sand [beam no. 35].

FIXED END FIXED END
AT RIGID CONDITION 783 -235 4.43
EFFECT
EFFECT
Fig.4.46:-End Moment and End forces Diagram of beam without Consideration of Soil
Fig.4.47:- End Moment and End forces Diagram of beam with Consideration of Soil Structure
Interaction in Loose sand [beam no. 35].
FIXED END FIXED END
EFFECT
EFFECT
4.7 ANALYSIS OF RIGHT END SPAN BEAM [Beam No. 12]
Fig.4.49:- End Moment and End forces Diagram of beam without Consideration of Soil
Interaction in Loose sand [beam no. 12].
interaction in Dense Soil [beam no. 12].

FIXED END FIXED END
AT RIGID CONDITION -203 20.4 4.49
LOOSE SAND WITH SSI -199 20.3 4.50
EFFECT
EFFECT
Fig.4.52:- End Moment and End forces Diagram of beam without Consideration of Soil

FIXED END FIXED END
EFFECT
EFFECT
Fig.4.55:-End Moment and End forces Diagram of beam without Consideration of Soil
Fig.4.56:-End Moment and End forces Diagram of beam with Consideration of Soil Structure
Interaction in Loose Sand [beam no.12].

FIXED END FIXED END
LOOSE SAND WITH SSI 67 -2.66 4.56
EFFECT
DENSE SOIL WITH SSI 98.6 -1.46 4.57
EFFECT
Interaction in Dense Soil. [beam no. 12].
FIXED END FIXED END
EFFECT
DENSE SOIL WITH SSI -329 28.0 4.60
EFFECT
4.8 ANALYSIS OF RIGHT END SPAN BEAM [Beam No. 36]
IRC class 70R Loading has been applied at Node-1(highlighted in green colour) and Case beam
is beam no.36 which has been analysed (highlighted in Red colour) as shown in [Figure 4.61 –
figure 4.63] for three different cases.
Interaction in Loose Sand [beam no.36].
Fig4.63:- End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam with Consideration of Soil Structure

FIXED END FIXED END
LOOSE SAND WITH SSI 101 2.12 4.62
EFFECT
DENSE SOIL WITH SSI 112 -2.82 4.63
EFFECT
FIXED END FIXED END
EFFECT
EFFECT
Fig 4.67:- End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam without Consideration of Soil
Fig4.68:-End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam with Consideration of Soil Structure
Fig4.69:- End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam with Consideration of Soil Structure

FIXED END FIXED END
AT RIGID CONDITION -168 6.98 4.67
LOOSE SAND WITH SSI -173 -16 4.68
EFFECT
EFFECT
[Figure 4.70–figure 4.72] for three different cases.
Fig4.70:- End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam without Consideration of Soil

FIXED END FIXED END
EFFECT
EFFECT
CHAPTER -5
CONCLUSIONS
5.1 GENERAL
There are many bridges structures which have been analysed with consideration of soil
structure interaction effect and without SSI effect. From the Study, it is observed that any
deformation in soil strata beneath of structure affects the behaviour of structure. According to
Terzaghi’s theory, Soil is considered as an elastic material. The values of resisting moments of
structure have a reduction, which is beneficial and accountable for economical structural
design. Further works are undergoing to take into account the effect of long term soil
deformations as well as non-linear behaviour of RC bridge structures.
As explained in present study, bridge Structure has been analysed for two cases i.e.by
considering hard soil strata and loose soil strata beneath the foundation for 70R IRC loading.
Results of analysis are presented in previous chapter and various observation made are
discussed below.
 Various load positions, corresponding moment diagrams for Bridge Structure in three
conditions. (1) Moment diagram without soil structure interaction. (2) Moment diagram
with loose soil structure interaction. (3) Moment diagram with hard soil strata structure
interaction.
 It has been observed that moments are reducing when loose soil is considered with
effect of 70R IRC Loading.
 Effect of soil structure interaction provides a foundation with a group of springs. In this
condition, when the traffic is applied on the bridge structure, soil strata produce a
reaction which opposes the upcoming traffic load and some part of traffic loading is
dissipated by springs of soil as considered.
 As per results in previous chapter 4 it is observed that negative moments produce in the
mid span due to presence of continuous beam.
In present study, the moment of resistance offered by reinforcement is lesser than moment of
resistance with loose soil. It requires less reinforcement to develop an economical section.
The reason behind that in case of soft soil the structure deflect as a whole body. Hence due to
flexibility offered by soil, moments are lesser for Structure resting on soft soil.
5.2 CONCLUSION OF ANALYSIS
[a] During analysis of Beam no.10 on STAAD pro, it has been observed that moments are
increasing approximately 20% when loading is done on NODE -1 but moments are decreasing
17 % when the loading is done on NODE-80.
[b] When the loading is done on Node 1, 80, 81, 82 and beam no. 34 is observed -
approximately.
[c] When the loading is done on Node 1, 80, 81, 82 and beam no. 35 is observed -
approximately.
[d] When the loading is done on Node 1, 80, 81, 82 and beam no. 35 is observed -
approximately.
[e] When the loading is done on Node 1, 80, 81, 82 and beam no. 12 is observed -
Moments increase 5 % in loose sand condition and decrease 2% in dense soil condition
approximately.
[f] When the loading is done on Node 1, 80, 81, 82 and beam no. 36 is observed -
Moments increase 39 % in loose sand condition and 62% in dense soil condition
approximately.
In View of above Conclusions it is recommended that in design of bridge structure, Analysis

and design methods should be carried out for realistic load pattern and consideration of soil
structure interaction should be adopted.
5.3 SCOPE FOR FUTURE WORK
The present study is an attempt to comparison of moments in normal condition and

consideration with soil structure interaction following are some of the areas where the present
study can be extended-
(1) In this study seismic loading can be also analysed to develop a design of earthquake
resistant structure.
(2) This analysis can be done with different type of IRC class traffic loading as IRC class
AA, IRC class A and IRC class B loading.
(3) Soil with different subgrade modulus can be adopted during analysis and compared
various parameters as stress, deflection etc.
REFERENCES:
1. Aristorenas, G., and Gomez, J. (2014),“Subgrade Modulus –Revisited”, Design issues for
Structural Engineers, Structure Magazine.
2. Bezih, K., Chateauneuf, A., Kalla, M. and Bacconnet, C. (2015), “Effect of Soil Structure
Interaction on Reliability of Reinforced Concrete bridges” Ain Shams Engineering
,Journal 6, pp. 755-766.
3. Bowles, J.E. (1997) “Foundation Analysis and Design” Internatinal Edition 1997, The
Mcgraw-Hill Companies.
4. Demane, V. and Cholekar, S. (2013), “Soil Structure Interaction of Underpass RCC
Bridge” International Journal of Scientific Research and Management, Vol-1, No.-4, pp.
255-267.
5. Farouk, H. and Farouk, M. (2014), “Effect of Elastic Soil Structure Interaction on Modulus
of Subgrade Reaction” Recent Advances in Material, Analysis, Monitoring and Evaluation
in Foundation and Bridge Engineering, GSP-253, pp. 111-118.
6. Fartaria, C., “Soil Structure Interaction in Integral Abutment Bridges”,Architecture and
GeoResources ,1, 1049-001, Lisbon, Portugal.
7. Ginnakau, A., Chen, W. and Chacko, J. (2015), “Evaluation of Soil Structure Interaction
Effect for Two Major Bridge in Turkey” 6th International Conference on Earthquake
Geotechnical Engineering, New Zealand.
8. IRC 6 (2000) “Standard Specification and Codes of Practice for Road Bridges” (Fourth
revision), Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
9. IRC 58 (2015) “Guidelines for the Design of Plain Jointed Rigid Pavements for Highways”
(fourth Revision), Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
10. IS 2950 (1981), “Code of Practice for Design and construction of raft foundation”, (part-
I), Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
11. Jain, S.K., Choubey, U.B., and Gupta, U. (2007) “Effect of the soil structure interaction on
the behavior of the box culverts”, M.E. Dissertation, SGSITS, Indore.
12. Jeremic, B., Kunnath, S., and Larson, L. (2004), “Soil Foundation Structure Interaction
Effects in Seismic Behavior of Bridges” World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Vancouver, Canada, Paper No. 294.
13. Kosarwal, M. and Jain, S.K. (2017) “Estimation of Natural Frequencies of Highway
Bridges using Ambient Vibration Testing”, M.E. Dissertation, MITS, Gwalior.
14. Liou, G.S. and Lai, S.C. (1996) “Structural Analysis Model for Mat Foundation”, Journal
of Structural Engineering, Journal of Structural Engineering, 122, pp. 1114-1117.
15. Masia, M.J., Kleeman, P.W., and Melches, R.E. (2004) “Modeling Soil Structure
Interaction for Masonry Structure”, Journal of Structural Engineering, vol-130, No.-4, 130,
pp. 641-649.
16. Muhammad Tariq A. Chaudhary (2016), “Effect of Soil Foundation Structure interaction
and Pier Column Non-linearity on Seismic Response of Bridge Supported On Shallow
Foundation”, Australian Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol-17, no.-1, pp. 67-86.
17. Orense, R.P., (2010) “Soil Foundation Structure Interaction”, Ist Edition, CRC press.
18. Ponnuswamy, S. (2008) “Bridge engineering”, Second Edition, Tata Mcgraw-Hill
Publishing Company Limited.
19. Ranjan, G. and Rao, ASR. (2016) “Basic and Applied Soil Mechanics”, Third edition, New
Age International Limited.
20. Roberts, L.A., Fick, D., and Misra, A. (2010) “Design of Bridge Foundation Using a
Performance Based Soil Structure Interaction Approach” Structures Congress, 2010, pp.
133-145.
21. Siliva, P.F. and Manzari, M.T. (2008), “Soil Structure Interaction Analysis of Bridge
Columns Supported on CISS Piles” Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil
Dynamics IV, GSP 181.
22. Terzaghi, K. (1995), “Evaluation of Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction” Geotechnique, Vol-
5, No.-4, pp. 41-50
23. Thanoon, W.A. (2011), “Soil Structure Interaction For Integral Abutment Bridge Using
Spring Analogy Approach”, IOP Conference Series Material Science and Engineering,
012035.
24. Tribedi, A. (2013) “Correlation between Soil Bearing Capacity and Modulus of Subgrade
Reaction” Design Issues for Structural Engineers, Structure Magazine.
25. Tsopelas, P., Spyridoula, M., Papathanasiou, AlperUcak (2016) “Soil Structure Interaction
of Seismic Isolated Bridges” International Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol-4, No.-1, pp.
57-64.
26. Victor, D.J. (2013) “Essential of Bridge Engineering”, Oxford and IBH Publishing
Company Pvt. Ltd.
ANNEXURE
THIS BRIDGE IS MODELLED ON STAAD PRO V8I IN TWO PARTS, FOLLOWING
STEPS ARE USED TO MODELLED AND ANALYSED CASE STRUCTURE:
1. BRIDGE MODELLING –( ALL DIMENSION ACCORDING TO DRAWING)
SPACE – ADD BEAM- CREATE GRID – TRANSLATION REPEAT –
PROPERTIES AND DIMENSION FILLING – SUPPORTS ASSIGNING- SELF
WEIGHT LOADING
2. ANALYSIS AND RUN ( IF THE REPORT SHOW ZERO ERROR AND ZERO
WARNING )
3. GO FORWARD FOR DECK LOADING
4. BRIDGE DECK – DECK – CREATE DECK –GIVE NAME DECK- SELECT DECK-
5. DECK- DEFINE ROADWAY –GO TO NEW –CUSTOM-ADD LANE
6. VEHICAL LOAD APPLICATION – DATABASE(70R )
7. LOADING – INFLUENCE GENERATOR –GENERAL IRC3
8. POST PROCESSING
9. RESULTS WITH VARIOUS PARAMETERS

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
1. Ankur, S. K. Jain, “ An Effect of Soil Structure Interaction in Reinforced Concrete

Bridge : A Review” International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR),
E-ISSN 2348-1269,Volume 06 Issue1, January 2019.
TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN
This is to certify that I, Arun Pandey, had applied plagiarism tool " Turnitin " on my M.E.
Dissertation entitled " Performance of Self Compacting Concrete With Partial Replacement of
Coarse Aggregate By Coconut Shell " as per the software , the plagiarism content in the
dissertation report is of total matter 1%.
Date:
Name of Candidate: Arun Pandey

(0901CE15MT34)
M.E. (Structural Engineering)
Dept. of Civil Engineering,
MITS, Gwalior, M.P.
Name of the Supervisor: Dr. S. K. Jain

Professor
Dept. of Civil Engineering
MITS, Gwalior, M.P.

Final Thesis,,,,,, PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Final Thesis,,,,,, PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Final Thesis,,,,,, PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EFFECT OF SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION ON REINFORCED CONCRETE

RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIKI VISHWAVIDYALAYA, BHOPAL (M.P)

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Award of Degree of

Under the guidance of

CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

Dr. M. K. Trivedi Dr. R. K. Pandit

CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION…… ………………………………….................................. i

3.3 Calculation For Bridge structure……………………………………………………….....11

3.4 Classical Winkler Solution………………………………………………………………..13

3.5 Determination of Modulus of Subgrade Reaction………………………….......................14

End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam without Consideration of 35

End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam without

End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam with Consideration

4.58 End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam without 47

4.61 End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam without 48

4.64 End Moment and End forces Diagram of Beam without 50

Table No. CAPTION Page no.

3.3 Modulus of subgrade reaction [kg/cm3] for cohesion less soil 15

3.4 Modulus of subgrade reaction [kg/cm3] for cohesive soil 15

1.2 LOADING TO BE CONSIDERED

1.3 IRC CLASS 70R LOADING

1.4 SUBGRADE MODULUS

Where q= intensity of soil pressure

Most important difference in structural arrangement between integral and traditional

1.5.1 HISTORY OF INTEGRAL BRIDGE

1.5.2 ADVANTAGES OF INTEGRAL BRIDGE OVER TRADITIONAL BRIDGE

a. Faster progress and simplified construction progress.

1.8 ORGANISATION OF DISSERTATION

2.2 EFFECT OF SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION ON THE BRIDGE

2.3 CONCEPT OF MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION

CASE BRIDGE STRUCTURE AND SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION

Fig.3.1 GENERAL VIEW OF CASE BRIDGE

3.2 ABOUT THE BRIDGE:

Fig. 3.2 Dimensional Details of Bridge

Fig. 3.3 Cross-section of Substructure and superstructure

Totalarea of deck slab= 27.5m * 56m = 1540m2

Total thickness of slab = 200mm[slab ] + 65mm[wearing coat]=265mm

[ (27.5m* 0.2m*1m )* 25] +[(27.5m* 0..065m*1m)*22.4] =137.5 + 40.04 = 177.54 KN/m

Total Weight of slab = RC slab + wearing coat = [(1540m2*0.2)*25KN/m3]+[

[According to Indian standards, it is assumed that load of wearing course as 2KN/m2]

Weight of longitudinal girder:

There are 12longitudinal girders in each span.

Cross-sectional area of girder=540000mm2

Volume of girder per unit length= .54*1=.54m3

Weight of cross end girder:

There are four cross girders in each span.

Cross-sectional area of cross end girder= (1.3m*0.8m) =1.04m2

Load per unit length= 1.04*25=26KN/m

Weight of parapet wall:

Cross- sectional area of parapet wall =.39m2

Weight of parapet wall per unit length= 9.75 KN/m

Total weight of parapet wall=1092 KN

There are four pier in bridge structure:

Area of one Pier cap= 12.48m2

Volume of one pier cap=12.48*2.4=29.952m3

Load of one pier cap= 29.952*25=748.8KN

Load of one pier without cap=2997.75KN

[ (27.5m* 0.2m1m ) 25] +[(27.5m* 0..065m1m)22.4] =137.5 + 40.04 = 177.54 KN/m

Total Weight of slab = RC slab + wearing coat = [(1540m20.2)25KN/m3]+[