Prologue To Presentation: Code of Practice For Concrete Road Bridges IRC:112

01-12-2016
WORKSHOP ON
CODE OF PRACTICE FOR CONCRETE ROAD BRIDGES Prologue to presentation
IRC:112
WORKSHOP ON CODE OF PRACTICE FOR CONCRETE ROAD BRIDGES IRC:112 – 2011, ORGANISED BY ING-IABSE, 18-19 NOV 2016, MUMBAI WORKSHOP ON CODE OF PRACTICE FOR CONCRETE ROAD BRIDGES IRC:112 – 2011, ORGANISED BY ING-IABSE, 18-19 NOV 2016, MUMBAI
ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE OF INDUCED DEFORMATION • This presentation is based on following publications:
Section 11 of IRC:112 Ø ‘A vision of modern structural code of practice: Bridge
V N Heggade between code making & practice’ The bridge & structural
Sr Vice president (Special bridges), Head of EDMS & Member- Board engineer, Volume 44/No2/June 2014.pp 20-35.
of Management Gammon India Ltd
Ø ‘Synthesis for ultimate limit state of induced deformations’
The bridge & structural engineer, Volume 45/No3/September
V.N. Heggade, presently is a Member, Board of Management of Gammon
India Limited. In total experience of 32 years, he has more than 22 years of 2015.pp 77-89.
experience of furthering the cause of standardization in the country by being
an active member of various code making committees of IRC and BIS, Ø ‘Explanatory Handbook to IRC:112-2011 code of practice for
relating to Bridges, Marine structures and Special structures like Cooling concrete road bridges’ IRC: SP:105-2015, Indian Roads
towers and Chimneys. He is also a member of FIB commissions relating to
Pre-cast segmental construction and Sustainability. By being one of the Congress,2015.
authors of the currently published explanatory handbook on IRC:112, he was
also a speaker in 6 of the workshops conducted across India on new IRC:112
Ø ‘Ultimate limit state of induced deformations : Section 11 of
by ICI, IABSE & IAHE. His contribution in earlier foundation committee of IRC IRC:112 synthesised’ Journal of Indian Roads Congress,
and present special structures committee of BIS has been officially
recognized.
October-December 2015, Paper no. 643, pp 187-204.
What is covered in (Ultimate limit state if General (Cl.11.1)

induced deformations ) Section 11 ?
Ø Concrete was considered in the beginning as material

A separate section is dedicated to ultimate limit for massive structures.
state of induced deformation in IRC code which Ø With the advancement of Concrete technology and
is unique distinction from other codes : also very high increase in strength, structural members
are becoming leaner, slimmer and slender.
11.1. General. Ø Unfortunately with the increase in strength of the
11.2. Simplified Slenderness Criteria. concrete, proportionately modulus of elasticity is not
11.3. Non-Linear analysis of structure and elements. increasing there by stiffness.
11.4. Lateral instability of slender beam. Ø As such axially loaded slender structural members are
vulnerable to sudden failure due to instability which
is generally termed as buckling failure.
Buckling Geometric imperfections

Ø The word buckling has been reserved for the “pure”, hypothetical buckling of
an initial straight member or structure, without load eccentricities or
transverse loading.
Ø Pure buckling is not a relevant limit state in real structures, due to the
presence of imperfections, eccentricities and/or transverse loads.
Ø This is also a reason why the word “buckling” is avoided in IRC : 112 as a title of
this section, buckling is mentioned only to differentiate the Second order
effects from classical buckling in cl.11.1 (2)
Ø First order effects (cl.11.1 (3))are defined to include the effect of
geometric imperfections, interpreted as physical deviations in the form of
inclinations or eccentricities.
Ø Guidelines for the above geometric imperfections are added recently as such
the same is not found in explanatory hand book..
1
01-12-2016
Second order effects with axial load Second order effects with axial load
Compression resultants with eccentricities and

curvature variations (Source : FIB Model code 2010) Interaction Chart showing Second Order effect
Second order effects with axial load Second order effects with axial load
Ø Load deformation behaviour and ultimate capacity Ø Majority of commercially available structural soft wares has
of structural members and structures is significantly the capability to carry out second order analysis.
affected by Second order effects . Ø In the second order analysis:
Ø Second order effects are additional action effects ü The principle of superposition is not valid
caused by the interaction of axial forces and ü The flexural rigidity of reinforced concrete structures EI is not
deflections under load (cl. 11.1(1)). constant.
Ø First order deflections cause additional moments Ø As the moment increases for the same load, EI reduces due to
which in turns lead to further deflections. cracking of concrete and inherent non-linearity in the
Ø Sometimes these effects are also called P-D effects concrete stress-strain response also increases.
as they are the products of axial forces and Ø Thus it involves both geometry and material non-linearity for
deflections of the elements or system. RC elements and has to be taken in to account while choosing
Ø Normally second order effects are calculated by the method for 2nd order analysis.
second order analysis.
Basic criteria for neglecting second order effects Basic criteria for neglecting second
(Cl.11.1(4&5)) order effects (Cl.11.1(4&5))
Ø A significant disadvantage of second order analysis Ø Two basic criteria for ignoring second order effects have been
are: discussed during the conversion process:
ü < 10 % increase of the corresponding first order effect,
üThe principle of superposition is not valid in second
ü < 10 % reduction of the load capacity, assuming a constant
order analysis as such all actions must be applied to the
bridge together with all their respective load and eccentricity of the axial force.
combination factors.
The interaction diagram was
üThe flexural rigidity (EI) of the reinforced concrete calculated for rectangular
structure is not constant. EI reduces with increasing cross section 400 x 600 mm,
moment due to cracking concrete C35, w = 0,1 (total
Ø The code has given relaxation : mechanical reinforcement
ratio), edge distance of
üIf second order effects are less than 10% of the first reinforcement 60 mm.)
order effects.
üIf the slenderness λ is below a certain value λlim
2
01-12-2016
Basic criteria for neglecting second Simplified criteria (λ limitation method )

order effects (Cl.11.1(4&5)) for ignoring 2nd order effects (Cl .11.2)
Ø The first criterion is the one stated in IRC:112, The second one has been Ø In simplified methods instead of non-linear second
claimed by some to be the “true”. order analysis, the effective length concept can be
Ø Consequences of these two criteria in an interaction diagram for axial used to determine slenderness.
force and bending moment has been presented in the previous slide. Ø On determination of slenderness, the requirement of
Ø After much deliberations and calculations which are not presented here, second order analysis itself may be deduced.
the first criteria was adopted because of the following : Ø According to clause 11.2.1 (1), the slenderness ratio is
ü In a column or a structure it is the bending moment that is defined as l= le/i, where ‘le’ is effective length and ‘i’ is
influenced by second order effects. the radius of gyration of the uncracked concrete
ü The axial force is governed by vertical loads, and is not significantly section.
affected by second order effects. Ø Effective length for members in regular frame may be
ü Most design methods are based on calculating a bending moment, found out from cl.11.2.2(1) and for isolated members
including a second order moment if it is significant. from cl.11.2.2 (2), which is explained later.
Simplified criteria (λ limitation method ) for Simplified criteria for ignoring 2nd
ignoring 2nd order effects (Cl ).11.2) order effects (Cl.11.2)
Ø As the axial force ‘n’ becomes greater, the section

ØThis criterion states that second order effects becomes more susceptible to development of second
may be ignored if the slenderness λ is below a order effects and, consequently limiting slenderness
value become lower.
certain value λlim, ie, λ < λlim.
Ø Higher limiting slenderness can be achieved where:
ü there is low creep ( because the stiffness of the concrete
llim = 20.A.B.C / n part of the member in compression is then higher)
ü there is a high percentage of reinforcement ( because total
Where, n= is the relative normal force member stiffness is then less affected by the cracking of the
concrete)
/ ( A c f cd ) ü the location of the peak first order is not the same as the
n = N Ed location of peak second order moment.
Ø These effects are accounted for by the terms A, B and C
respectively.
Simplified criteria for ignoring 2nd order Simplified criteria for ignoring 2nd
effects (Cl.11.2) order effects (Cl.11.2)
Ø The term “A” accounts for creep as below :

ØWhere jef defined above is not known, ‘A’ may
1 / (1 + 0 . 2 f ef )
A= be taken as 0.7.
jef = is effective creep ratio. ØThe above corresponds to jef = 2.0 that
would be typical of concrete loaded at relatively
jef = M
f (¥ , t o ). oEqp young age, such that j = 2.0 with a loading
M oEd
being entirely quasi permanent.
M0Eqp = First order B.M. in quasi-permanent load
combination in SLS.
ØUsing the default value of A = 0.7 is reasonably
conservative as the same is in any case not
M0Ed = First order B.M. in design load combination in sensitive to realistic variation of jef.
U.L.S.
3
01-12-2016
Simplified criteria for ignoring 2nd Simplified criteria for ignoring 2nd
order effects (Cl.11.2) order effects (Cl.11.2)
Ø The term “C” accounts for bending

ØThe term “B” accounts for reinforcement ratio : curvature:
ü B = 1 + 2w ü C = 1.7-rm, where moment ratio rm = M01/M02.
ü w = A s f yd / ( A c f cd )
ü M01 & M02 are the first order end moments at two
ends of member as calculated from the analysis of
structure.
ü w is the mechanical reinforcement ratio. If the ü If the end moments give tension on the same side,
same is not known, ‘B’ may be taken as 1.1. rm should be taken as positive (i.e. C £1.7),
otherwise negative (i.e. C >1.7).
ü The above is equivalent to, w = 0.1. ü If ‘rm’ is not known, C may be taken as 0.7 which
ü This value would usually be achieved in a slender corresponds to uniform moment throughout the
member.
column, however this is generous in comparison to ü ‘C’ also should be taken as 0.7 where there is Column bent in double curvature
minimum reinforcement clause 16.2.2 of IRC 112 transverse loading, where first order moments are
predominantly due to imperfections and where
the members are not braced
Cl.11.2.2 :Effective Length and Slenderness Cl.11.2.2 :Effective Length and Slenderness Ratio for
Ratio for isolated members : isolated members
Ø The effective length le in a given

plane of buckling may be
obtained from Table-11.1 where
lo is the clear height between end
restraints.
Ø Rotational restraint is at least
4EI/ lo for cases 2 to 6 and 8EI/ lo
for case 7 where EI is the flexural
rigidity of the column section.
Ø For the reduced restraint of 8EI/ Ø For the cases from (b) to (e) above in Euro & FIB model codes
lo in case 7 the effective length assume that the rotational stiffnesses at the bottom is infinitely stiff.
will be 2.3 lo.
Ø In reality, the same is not the case as such the effective lengths will
Ø The effective length le for
cantilever piers with elastomeric always be somewhat greater than for rigid restraints.
bearings is 1.3 l0 Ø For cases 4 to 6 in Table 11.1 of IRC : 112 seem to be highly on
conservative side compared to Euro and FIB model codes.
Various bearing layout with in bridge system Translational & Rotational functions of
for cantilever piers bearings
Ø Under the case (a), there could be fixed bearing at P1

which could be either Pot, Disc and Spherical bearing
which allows only rotation but not the translation,
holding the deck in position. Other piers and
abutments may have either Pot-Ptfe, Disc, Spherical
or elastomeric bearings which allow both translation
and rotation.
Ø Only the difference in case (b) is that fixed bearing is
at abutment A1 instead of pier P1 in case (a).
Ø For these bridge system when there is an external
actions due to Temp/Shrinkage/Creep, the deck
expansion or contraction is assumed to be originated
at fixed location and by virtue of friction at sliding
surfaces, the piers which are not fixed deflect.
Ø Even under the external actions of
earthquake/braking, the fixed pier deflects in the
direction of force
Ø on other than fixed piers sliding is enabled and by
virtue of friction to the extent of resistance provided
by friction, piers deflect.
4
01-12-2016
Buckling mode with or with out friction at Alternative buckling modes for
top cantilever piers
Behaviour of roller and elastomeric Buckling mode for cantilever piers with
bearings & pier mode shapes sliding/elastomeric bearings
ü when pier top moves in pure

translation for a distance of Y1, the
roller moves by a distance Yl/2
while elastomer deforms by the
same distance.
ü When the pier rotates by an angle
Y’l, the roller is not squeezed out
due to the frictional forces F1 and
F2 developed that stop squeezing
out.
ü It is mathematically derived by P A
ü The boundary conditions for rotational and translational freedom for Jackson for the above boundary
piers are represented by roller bearings in top whereas the same is conditions the effective height is
depicted at bottom for elastomeric bearings. In fact, boundary
1.0 for fully restraint base and for
conditions derived for both are same though the translation/rotation is
restraint of 4EI/ , the same is 1.3 .
achieved through different behavior.
Effective heights for cantilever piers in IRC:112 Cl.11.2.2 : Effective Lengths for braced and unbraced
on conservative side. members in regular frame
Ø Braced – bracing :
ü The distinction braced – bracing is simple: units or systems that are
assumed to contribute to the stabilization of the structure are bracing
elements, the others are braced.
ü Bracing units/systems should be designed so that they, all together, have
the necessary stiffness and resistance to develop stabilization forces.
ü The braced ones, by definition, do not need to resist such forces.
Ø Sway – non-sway terminology :
ü The terms sway – non-sway have been omitted in IRC : 112
ü In reality all structures more or less “sway”; a structure that would be
classified as “sway” could be just as stiff as one classified as “non-sway”.
ü These terms are replaced by un braced – braced in IRC:112 on similar
lines with Euro code.
5
01-12-2016
Cl.11.2.2 : Effective Lengths for braced and un Cl.11.2.2 : Effective Lengths for braced and un
braced members in regular frame braced members in regular frame
Ø For Braced Members:

k =
(q ) . EI
æ k1 ö æ k2 ö
le = 0.5lo çç1 + ÷÷ * çç1 + ÷÷
è 0.45 + k1 ø è 0.45 + k 2 ø
M lo
Ø q / M = is the rotation of restraining members
ØFor Unbraced members:
at a joint for unit bending moment M
ìï æ k .k ö æ k ö æ k öüï
le = lo * maxof í çç1+10. 1 2 ÷÷ ; çç1+ 1 ÷÷ *çç1+ 2 ÷÷ý ØEI = is the bending stiffness of compression
ïî è k1 + k2 ø è 1+ k1 ø è 1+ k2 øïþ member
ØWhere, k1, k2 are the relative flexibilities of ØIo = is the clear height of compression member
rotational restraints at ends 1 and 2 respectively. between end restraints.
Cl.11.2.2 : Effective Lengths for braced and un Cl.11.2.2 : Effective Lengths for braced and un
braced members in regular frame braced members in regular frame
Ø Note 1 : ØNote 2 :
ü Effective length is determined in relation of flexural üThe 2nd note requires that minimum value of the
stiffness of compression member with that of rigidity of
restraint. ‘k’ as 0.1, even for the condition of fully restrained
ü Using the uncracked value of stiffness for the pier will be joint.
conservative as the restraint will have to be relatively
stiffer to reduce the buckling length to a given value. üIn case of integral bridges where deck is
ü It is relevant to note here that this is in line with the connected to piers rigidly, the end stiffnesses to
definition of radius of gyration, ‘i’, given in the clause
11.2.1 (1) based on the un cracked section. be used for piers can be determined by giving a
ü Further the note (i) under the clause 11.2.2 (1) implies that corresponding deflection to pier to match the
for determination of the stiffness of restraint like pier base, relevant mode of buckling and finding out
cracked properties of the compression member or pier
should be considered if it affects overall stiffness of moment and rotation at the connection of deck
restraint to a considerable extent. and piers in a plane frame model.
Cl.11.2.2 : Effective Lengths for braced and un 11.3 Non-linear analysis of structure and
braced members in regular frame elements
Ø Cl.11.3.1 General :
Ø The most accurate of the methods described in 11.3 is the
“General method”.
Ø It is based on nonlinear analysis, including both material and
geometric non-linearity (second order effects).
Ø ”General” here refers to the fact that the method can be used
Ø The cases shown in the illustrations before do not permit any rigidity of for :
positional restraint in sway cases.
ü any type of cross section,
Ø If significant lateral restraint is available, as might be the case in an integral
bridge where one pier is very much stiffer than the other ignoring this restraint ü any variation of cross section, axial load and first order moment,
will be very conservative as the most flexible piers may actually be braced by ü any boundary conditions,
the stiffer one. ü any stress strain relations, uni-axial or biaxial bending etc.
Ø for piers in integral bridges having varying stiffness ,buckling load as well as
effective length of any of the piers depends upon the load and the geometry of Ø The limiting factor is the capability of the available computer
the other piers too. program.
Ø Thus last para of the cl.11.2.2 recommends “where more accurate evaluation
of the effective length is required the effective length should be derived from the
first principles”.
6
01-12-2016
11.3 Non-linear analysis of structure and 11.3 Non-linear analysis of structure and elements
elements
Ø Cl.11.3.1 General :
Ø The method rests on a few simple assumptions:
ü linear strain distribution
ü Equal strains in reinforcement and concrete at the same level
ü stress-strain relationships for concrete and steel
Ø Methodology :
ü Conditions of equilibrium and deformation compatibility are
satisfied in a number of cross sections,
ü The deflection is calculated by double integration of the curvature,
having an assumed variation between the selected sections.
ü On the other hand in the simplified version, only one cross section
(or certain critical sections) is studied, and the curvature is pre-
assumed to have a certain variation in other parts of the member.
Illustration of accurate (left) and simplified (right) versions of the General method
11.3 Non-linear analysis of structure and 11.3 Non-linear analysis of structure and
elements elements
§ Safety format : The safety format should satisfy two basic

Ø Any stress-strain relations can criteria :
be used.
1. It should be possible to use the same set of material
Ø Cl.11.3.1(3) recommends parameters in all parts of the member, in order to avoid
Stress-strain relationships for 0.33 fcm discontinuities and computational problems.
concrete as given in Annexure 2. Should be compatible with the general design format based
(A2.7) and for steel as given in on partial safety factors :
Section 6 (Fig.6.2 and Fig.6.4). Ø The safety format defined in cl.11.3.1(3) as below , based on using
Ø It is also convenient for design values in the analysis, satisfies both criteria.
computational reasons. Ø In equation Eq. A2-28 and in the calculation of k-value, fcm is then
substituted by the design compressive strength fcd
Ø Creep can be considered in Ø Ecm is substituted by Ecd= Ecm/gce where gce is taken as 1.2
different ways; the simplest Ø A design value of the ultimate load will be obtained as a direct
way is to multiply all concrete result of the analysis, and the problems associated with the above-
strains by (1 + Øef), where Øef is mentioned safety formats are avoided.
the effective creep ratio as per Simple way of taking into account creep Ø As such no further checks of local sections are required, as strength
cl.6.4.2.5.4(iii) in general method and stability are verified directly by the analysis
11.3.2 Simplified methods and their 11.3.2 Simplified methods and their
common basis common basis
Ø In simplified methods one can use the difference

ØFor practical design, there are two principal
between cross section resistance and first order
moment, Mu – M0, as a second order moment(M2). methods to calculate this 2nd order moment (M2)
üEstimation of the flexural stiffness EI to be used in a
Ø When this moment is added to the first order
linear second order analysis (i.e. considering
moment, a design moment is obtained for which the
geometrical non-linearity but assuming linear material
cross section can be designed with regard to its behaviour); this method is called stiffness method.
ultimate resistance.
üEstimation of the curvature 1/r corresponding to a 2nd
üMEd= MoEd+M2, where, order deflection for which the 2nd order moment is
üMed = Final design moment. calculated; this method is called curvature method,
üMoEd = First order design moment which is used in IRC :112.
üM2 = 2nd order moment.
7
01-12-2016
11.3.2 Simplified methods and their 11.3.2 Simplified methods and their
common basis common basis
Ø The total moment including second order

moment for a simple isolated member is: Ø The difference between the two methods lies in
the formulation of the curvature 1/r :
Ø In the stiffness method 1/r is expressed in terms
of an estimated nominal flexural stiffness EI as;
Ø M = total moment 1/r = M/EI
Ø M0 = first order moment Ø In the curvature method, the curvature 1/r is
Ø M2 = second order moment
Ø N = axial force
estimated directly, on the basis of assuming yield
Ø y = deflection corresponding to 1/r Illustration of deformations and moments
strain in tensile and compressive reinforcement:
Ø 1/r = curvature corresponding to y in a pin-ended column. (In the figure, first
order moment is exemplified as the effect
Ø l = length
of a transverse load. First order moment
Ø c = factor for curvature distribution could also be given by eccentricity of the
axial load.)
11.3.2 Simplified methods and 11.3.2 Method Based on Nominal Curvature as per
their common basis IRC:112 notations.
1 le 2
Ø Moment distribution for differing end moments
ü Differing first order end moments M 01 and M02 may be replaced by an equivalent 1st
order end moment Moe: M0e=0.6 M02 +0.4M01 ³0.4 M02
ü M01 and M 02 should have the same sign if they give tension on the same side, M 2 = NEd ´ e 2 = NEd ´ .
otherwise opposite signs.
ü Furthermore, | M02 | ³ | M01 |. r c
Ø Ned is the design value of axial force
Ø e2 is the deflection
Ø 1/r is the curvature.
Ø le is the effective length.
Ø c is a factor depending on the curvature distribution.
For constant cross section, c=10 =(p2) is normally used. If
the first order moment is constant, a lower value should
be considered (8 is a lower limit, corresponding to constant
Illustration of equivalent moments in case of differing end moments total moment).
11.3.2.3 Calculation of ‘d’ effective depth for curvature

11.3.2.3 Curvature (1/r)
1/r
K r = hu - h( ( h u - h bal )) £ 1
Ø Kr is a correction factor depending on axial
load
Ø In order to reduce the curvature in cases
where yielding is not reached in the tensile
reinforcement, a factor Kr is introduced.
Ø h = relative axial force = NEd/Acfcd
Ø NEd = is the design value of axial force.
Ø hu = 1 + w
Ø h bal = is the value of n at maximum moment
resistance; the value 0.4 may be used
Ø w = Asfyd/Acfcd
Ø As=is the total area of reinforcement.
Ø Ac =is the area of concrete cross section
8
01-12-2016
11.4: Lateral instability of slender

11.3.2.3 Curvature (1/r)
beam
Ø Kj is a factor for taking account of

creep
Ø Comparisons with the general method A lateral deflection of l/300 to be assumed
indicate that in certain cases the
Kj = 1 + bj ef ³ 1
as a geometric imperfection in the
method can give unsafe results if verification of un braced beams , where l is
the total length of the beam.
allowance for creep is not considered,
and the factor Kj has been introduced
for this purpose.
Ø It has been calibrated against fck l
calculations with the general method. b = 0.35+ -
Ø jef =is the effective creep ratio (defined 200 150
in 11.2.1)
Ø l = is the slenderness ratio.
11.4.2 Slenderness Limits for Lateral stability of PSC beams

Beams
Ø To ensure lateral stability, a simply supported or

continuous beam should be so proportioned that the
clear distance between lateral restraints does not
exceed 60 b or , 250 b2/h whichever is the lesser,
where :
ü h is the effective depth to tension reinforcement.
ü b is the breadth of the compression face of the beam
midway between restraints.
Ø For cantilevers with lateral restraint provided only at
the support, the clear distance from the free end of
the cantilever to face of the support should not
exceed 25b or 100b2/h , whichever is the lesser.
Additional checks for PSC beams

Source : Robert.F.Mait,PCI journal Jan-Feb 1989

Prologue To Presentation: Code of Practice For Concrete Road Bridges IRC:112

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

Prologue To Presentation: Code of Practice For Concrete Road Bridges IRC:112

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

01-12-2016

What is covered in (Ultimate limit state if General (Cl.11.1)

Ø Concrete was considered in the beginning as material

Buckling Geometric imperfections

Compression resultants with eccentricities and

Basic criteria for neglecting second Simplified criteria (λ limitation method )

Ø As the axial force ‘n’ becomes greater, the section

Ø The term “A” accounts for creep as below :

Ø The term “C” accounts for bending

Ø The effective length le in a given

Ø Under the case (a), there could be fixed bearing at P1

ü when pier top moves in pure

Ø For Braced Members:

§ Safety format : The safety format should satisfy two basic

Ø In simplified methods one can use the difference

Ø The total moment including second order

11.3.2.3 Calculation of ‘d’ effective depth for curvature

11.4: Lateral instability of slender

Ø Kj is a factor for taking account of

11.4.2 Slenderness Limits for Lateral stability of PSC beams

Ø To ensure lateral stability, a simply supported or

Additional checks for PSC beams

Source : Robert.F.Mait,PCI journal Jan-Feb 1989

You might also like