Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Week Two
Week Two
Week Two
T
BRIDGE ENGINEERING
P
N
Prof. Piyali Sengupta
Department of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad
Ø Flexural Strength
E L
P T
N
Ø Shear Strength
Ø Control of Cracking
Ø Control of Deflection
Ø Design Example
Topic of Discussion
Ø General Features
Ø Flexural Strength
Ø Shear Strength
Ø Control of Cracking
E L
Ø Control of Deflection
P T
Ø Effective Width Method N
Ø Design Example
Bridge Engineering
Basic Features
•
E L
The deck slab is designed to be a one-way slab to support the
P T
dead loads and live loads inclusive of impact factors.
• N
The span of reinforced concrete slab bridges should not exceed
8 m in order to make the superstructure economical.
Bridge Engineering
Basic Features
N
fabrication of formwork, reinforcement detailing and placement
of concrete.
Bridge Engineering
Topic of Discussion
Ø General Features
Ø Flexural Strength
Ø Shear Strength
Ø Control of Cracking
E L
Ø Control of Deflection
P T
Ø Effective Width Method N
Ø Design Example
Bridge Engineering
Flexural Strength
E L
structural elements subjected to flexure are well established.
P T
N
Most of the codes have specified idealized stress block
parameters for concrete in the compression zone.
Bridge Engineering
Flexural Strength: Basic Assumptions
a) Plane sections normal to the axis remain plane after bending.
E L
c) The relation between the compressive stress distribution and
P T
strain in concrete is assumed to be a rectangular parabola
N
which is in close agreement with the experimental results.
Bridge Engineering
Flexural Strength: Basic Assumptions
Bridge Engineering
Flexural Strength: Basic Assumptions
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Flexural Strength: Basic Assumptions
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Flexural Strength: Stress Blocks
0.002
E L
P T
N
Stress Block Parameters
Bridge Engineering
Flexural Strength: Stress Blocks
Bridge Engineering
Flexural Strength: Stress Blocks
𝒃 = Width of section
E L
T
Position of centre of compression from neutral axis = [0.17𝒇𝒄𝒌 × 𝒙𝒖
0.36𝒇𝒄𝒌 × 𝒙𝒖 × b = 0.58 𝒙𝒖 N P
× (3/5 × 0.57) × 𝒙𝒖 × b + 0.19𝒇𝒄𝒌 × 𝒙𝒖 × (0.43/2 + 0.57) × 𝒙𝒖 × b]/
Bridge Engineering
Balanced, Under Reinforced and Over Reinforced Sections
• When the sections are reinforced in such a way that the tension
steel reaches the yield strain εy = [(0.87fy)/Es+0.002] and
E L
simultaneously the concrete strain is εc = 0.0035, then the
section is termed as Balanced section.
P T
• N
In Under reinforced sections, the tension steel reaches yield
strain at loads lower than the load at which concrete reaches the
failure strain. There will be excessive deflections and cracking
with a clear indication of impending failure, when the steel yields
earlier than concrete.
Bridge Engineering
Balanced, Under Reinforced and Over Reinforced Sections
Bridge Engineering
Depth of Neutral Axis
E L
reinforcement Ast and neutral axis depth xu, for equilibrium of
forces at the limit state of collapse,
P T
Total tension T = Total compression C N
𝑨𝒔𝒕 . 𝟎. 𝟖𝟕𝒇𝒚 = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟔𝒇𝒄𝒌 . 𝒃. 𝒙𝒖
𝒙𝒖 𝟎.𝟖𝟕𝒇𝒚 𝑨𝒔𝒕
Or, =
𝒅 𝟎.𝟑𝟔𝒇𝒄𝒌 𝒃 𝒅
Bridge Engineering
Maximum Depth of Neutral Axis
L
𝑬𝒔
𝒙𝒖,𝒎𝒂𝒙
Here, is the limiting values of 𝒙𝒖/𝒅 to avoid compression
𝒅
failure i.e. brittle failure.
Bridge Engineering
Maximum Depth of Neutral Axis
𝒙𝒖,𝒎𝒂𝒙 𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟑𝟓
= 𝟎.𝟖𝟕 𝒇𝒚
𝒅 𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟓𝟓$ 𝑬
𝒔
E L
𝒇𝒚 (in MPa) Yield Strain ∈𝒔𝒖
P T𝒙𝒖,𝒎𝒂𝒙
N
𝒅
250 0.0031 0.53
415 0.0038 0.48
500 0.0042 0.46
Bridge Engineering
Moment of Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Sections
• Substituting 𝒙𝒖 =
𝟎.𝟖𝟕𝒇𝒚 𝑨𝒔𝒕
and 𝑻 = 𝟎. 𝟖𝟕𝒇𝒚 𝑨𝒔𝒕
E L
T
𝟎.𝟑𝟔𝒇𝒄𝒌 𝒃
𝒇𝒚 𝑨𝒔𝒕
• Simplifying and rearranging, 𝑴𝒖 = 𝟎. 𝟖𝟕 𝒇𝒚 𝑨𝒔𝒕 . 𝒅 ×[𝟏 − ]
𝒇𝒄𝒌 𝒃𝒅
𝟏𝟎𝟎𝑨𝒔𝒕 𝑴𝒖 𝒑 𝒇𝒚 𝒑
• Percentage of steel 𝒑 = ,
𝒃 𝒅 𝒃𝒅𝟐
= 𝟎. 𝟖𝟕𝒇𝒚 . 𝟏𝟎𝟎 ×[𝟏 − 𝒇𝒄𝒌
× 𝟏𝟎𝟎 ]
Bridge Engineering
Moment of Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Sections
𝑴𝒖 = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟔𝒇𝒄𝒌𝒃 𝒙𝒖 𝒅 − 𝟎. 𝟒𝟐𝒙𝒖
N
𝟏 − 𝟎. 𝟒𝟐
𝒅 𝒅
• Limiting values of Moment of resistance can be obtained by
𝒙𝒖 𝒙𝒖,𝒎𝒂𝒙
replacing with
𝒅 𝒅
𝒙𝒖,𝒎𝒂𝒙 𝒙𝒖,𝒎𝒂𝒙
𝑴𝒖,𝒎𝒂𝒙 = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟔𝒇𝒄𝒌 𝒃𝒅𝟐 𝟏 − 𝟎. 𝟒𝟐
𝒅 𝒅
Bridge Engineering
Moment of Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Sections
𝒙𝒖,𝒎𝒂𝒙
• Limiting Moment of Resistance for Limiting for Different
𝒅
Grades of Steel are shown below.
𝒙𝒖,𝒎𝒂𝒙
𝒇𝒚 (in MPa) 𝑴𝒖,𝒎𝒂𝒙
L
𝒅
250 0.53
T E
𝟎. 𝟏𝟒𝟗𝒇𝒄𝒌𝒃𝒅𝟐
415 0.48
NP 𝟎. 𝟏𝟑𝟖𝒇𝒄𝒌𝒃𝒅𝟐
500 0.46 𝟎. 𝟏𝟑𝟑𝒇𝒄𝒌𝒃𝒅𝟐
Bridge Engineering
Topic of Discussion
Ø General Features
Ø Flexural Strength
Ø Shear Strength
Ø Control of Cracking
E L
Ø Control of Deflection
P T
Ø Effective Width Method N
Ø Design Example
Bridge Engineering
Shear Failures in Bridge Deck Slabs
Bridge Engineering
Shear Failures in Bridge Deck Slabs
E L
corresponding to a nominal shear stress that is higher than that
P T
applicable for beams of usual proportions.
• N
In the case of reinforced concrete slab decks, shear resistance
being high, failure due to shear is a rare phenomenon and shear
reinforcements are not generally provided in slabs.
Bridge Engineering
Shear Strength in Bridge Deck Slabs
E L
T
𝑨
𝝆𝟏 = 𝒔𝟏 ≤ 𝟎. 𝟎𝟐
𝒃𝒘 .𝒅
N P
Where 𝑨𝒔𝟏 = area of longitudinal reinforcement in the member
Bridge Engineering
Shear Strength in Bridge Deck Slabs
Bridge Engineering
Minimum and Maximum Reinforcements in Bridge Deck Slabs
𝒇𝒄𝒕𝒎
L
𝑨𝒔,𝒎𝒊𝒏 = 0.26 𝒃𝒕 𝐝 but not less than 0.0013𝒃𝒕 d
𝒇𝒚𝒌
Bridge Engineering
Topic of Discussion
Ø General Features
Ø Flexural Strength
Ø Shear Strength
Ø Control of Cracking
E L
Ø Control of Deflection
P T
Ø Effective Width Method N
Ø Design Example
Bridge Engineering
Permissible Crack Widths
Bridge Engineering
Permissible Crack Widths
E L
(3) For these conditions of exposure, in addition, decompression
P T
should be checked under the quasi-permanent combination of
N
loads that include DL + SIDL + Prestress including secondary
effect + settlement + temperature effects.
(4) 0.2 applies to the parts of the member that do not have to be
checked for decompression.
Bridge Engineering
Control of Cracking
E L
cracking is restricted to specified values for different bar
P T
diameters and bar spacings corresponding to the width of
•
cracks.
N
The maximum bar diameters and spacings for control of crack
widths of 0.3 mm and 0.2 mm for different stress levels in steel
are presented in tabular forms.
Bridge Engineering
Control of Cracking
L
160 32 25
200 25
T 16E
240 16
N P 12
280 12 ─
320 10 ─
Bridge Engineering
Control of Cracking
L
160 300 200
200 250
T E
150
240 200
N P 100
280 150 50
320 100 ─
Bridge Engineering
Topic of Discussion
Ø General Features
Ø Flexural Strength
Ø Shear Strength
Ø Control of Cracking
E L
Ø Control of Deflection
P T
Ø Effective Width Method N
Ø Design Example
Bridge Engineering
Control of Deflections in Bridge Decks
alone
N
Vehicular and Pedestrian or Pedestrian
Span/1000
Bridge Engineering
Control of Deflections in Bridge Decks
•
E L
The deflection limit of span/800 according to the IRC: 112-2011
P T
seems to be very conservative resulting in larger sizes of deck
N
elements with more reinforcements affecting the overall cost of
the deck structure.
• That is why the final deflection limit due to all loads including the
effects of temperature, creep and shrinkage is taken as span/250.
Bridge Engineering
Calculation of Deflections in Bridge Decks
L
• Long term deflections resulting from differential shrinkage and
creep due to sustained loading
T E
N P
In case of cracked members, appropriate value of cracked moment
of inertia should be used in the computations. If actual value of
cracked moment of inertia cannot be determined, the code permits
the use of 70 percent of the gross moment of inertia for
computations.
Bridge Engineering
Deflection due to Shrinkage in Bridge Decks
𝟏
Deflection due to Shrinkage acs = k L2
rcs
Where k is a constant dependent on the support conditions.
k = 0.5 for cantilever ends, 0.125 for simply supported ends,
0.086 for continuous at one end, 0.063 for fully continuous ends.
𝟏
= Shrinkage curvature = [εcsαe(S/I)]
E L
T
rcs
αe = Modular Ratio =
𝑬𝒔
𝑬𝒄
N P
𝑬𝒔 = Young’s Modulus of Steel
𝑬𝒄 = Young’s Modulus of Concrete
S = First Moment of Area of Reinforcement about Centroid of
Section
I = Second Moment of Area of the section
Bridge Engineering
Deflection due to Shrinkage in Bridge Decks
E L
Development of drying shrinkage strain with time εcd(t) = βds(t, ts) ×
kh εcd, unrestrained
P T
N
Where βds(t, ts) = [(t ‒ ts)/{(t ‒ ts) + 0.04√h03}]
h0 = Notional size of cross-section = 2Ac/u
Ac = Cross-sectional area of concrete
u = Perimeter of the cross-section exposed to drying shrinkage
t = Age of concrete in days at the time considered
Bridge Engineering
Deflection due to Shrinkage in Bridge Decks
E L
T
Table 6.7 of IRC: 112-2011 Table 6.8 of IRC: 112-2011
h0 (mm)
100
kh
1.0
fck
(MPa) N P
εcd, unrestrained (× 106)
Relative Humidity (%)
200 0.85 20 50 80
300 0.75 25 620 535 300
Bridge Engineering
Deflection due to Shrinkage in Bridge Decks
Bridge Engineering
Deflection due to Creep in Bridge Decks
Ec,eff = Ecm/(1 + ø)
where
E L
P T
N
Ecm = Secant Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete
Bridge Engineering
Deflection due to Creep in Bridge Decks
Table 6.9 of IRC: 112-2011
Creep Coefficient ø
Age at Notional Size 2Ac/u (mm)
Loading 50 150 600 50 150 600
t0 (days)
Dry atmospheric conditions (RH Humid atmospheric conditions (RH
L
50%) 80%)
1 5.50 4.60 3.70 3.60
T E
3.20 2.90
7
28
5.50
3.90
4.60
3.10
3.70
2.60
N
2.60
1.90 P 2.30
1.70
2.00
1.50
90 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.40 1.20
365 1.80 1.50 1.20 1.10 1.00 1.00
Bridge Engineering
Topic of Discussion
Ø General Features
Ø Flexural Strength
Ø Shear Strength
Ø Control of Cracking
E L
Ø Control of Deflection
P T
Ø Effective Width Method N
Ø Design Example
Bridge Engineering
Wheel Loads on Concrete Slabs
L
and shear forces in steel plates subjected to concentrated
E
T
loads. However, this method is not applicable to concrete slabs.
P
•
N
Semi-empirical methods are applied for analysis of slabs
subjected to concentrated loads.
Bridge Engineering
Wheel Loads on Concrete Slabs
Bridge Engineering
Effective Width Method
• However, for very long slabs, they are supported on all four
edges.
•
E L
This method is based on the assumption that along with the
P T
strip of the slab, immediately below the load, a certain width of
N
the slab also participate in load sharing.
• The width of the slab over which the load transfer prevails is
termed as the effective width of dispersion of slab.
Bridge Engineering
Effective Width Method: Single Concentrated Load
in Direction of Span
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Effective Width Method: Single Concentrated Load
in Direction of Span
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Effective Width Method: Single Concentrated Load
in Direction of Span
E L
T
Where 𝒃𝒆 = Effective width of slab on which the load acts
𝑳 = Effective span
N P
𝒙 = Distance of centre of gravity of load from nearer support
𝒃𝒘 = breadth of concentration area of load, i.e. the dimension of the
tyre or track contact area over the road surface of the slab in a
direction at right angles to the span plus twice the thickness of the
wearing coat or surface finish above the structural slab.
Bridge Engineering
Effective Width Method: Single Concentrated Load
in Direction of Span
𝑩
𝑲 = A constant depending on the ratio 𝑳
where 𝑩 is width of the slab
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Effective Width Method: Single Concentrated Load
in Direction of Span
• The effective width shall not exceed the actual width of the slab.
L
above value plus the distance of the load from the unsupported
E
edge.
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Effective Width Method: Two or More
Concentrated Loads in Direction of Span
• When two or more concentrated loads are positioned in a line in
the direction of span, the bending moment per unit width of slab
will be calculated separately for each load according to its
appropriate effective width of slab as specified under the single
concentrated load.
E L
P T
N
• When two or more concentrated loads are positioned not in line
in the direction of span and the effective width of slab for one
load overlaps the effective width of slab for an adjacent load, the
resultant effective width for two loads equals to the sum of the
effective widths for each load minus width of overlap, provided
that the slab design is checked for two loads acting separately.
Bridge Engineering
Effective Width Method: Solid Cantilever Slab
L
Where 𝒃𝒆 = Effective width of slab on which the load acts
E
P T
𝒙 = Distance of centre of gravity of load from the face of the
cantilever support
N
𝒃𝒘 = breadth of concentration area of load, i.e. the dimension of the
tyre or track contact area over the road surface of the slab in a
direction parallel to the supporting edge of the cantilever plus twice
the thickness of the wearing coat or surface finish above the
structural slab.
Bridge Engineering
Effective Width Method: Solid Cantilever Slab
E L
parallel to the support, the effective width should not exceed the
T
prescribed value, nor should it exceed half the above value plus
P
N
the distance of the concentrated load from the nearer extreme
end, measured in the direction parallel to the fixed edge.
Bridge Engineering
Effective Width Method: Solid Cantilever Slab
• When two or more loads act on the cantilever slab and the
effective width of slab for one load overlaps the effective width of
the adjacent load, the resultant effective width for two loads
should be taken as the sum of the respective effective widths for
each load minus the width of the overlap.
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Effective Width Method: Dispersion along Span
𝒗 = 𝒙 + 𝟐× 𝑫 + 𝑯
E L
P T
Where 𝒗 = Effective length of dispersion along the slab
N
𝒙 = Wheel load contact area along the span
𝑫 = Depth of the wearing coat
Bridge Engineering
Topic of Discussion
Ø General Features
Ø Flexural Strength
Ø Shear Strength
Ø Control of Cracking
E L
Ø Control of Deflection
P T
Ø Effective Width Method N
Ø Design Example
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Problem Statement
Design a Simply Supported RC Slab Culvert for a National Highway
crossing for IRC Class AA Tracked Vehicle Loading.
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Problem Statement
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
1. Given Data:
Clear Span = 6 m; Width of Bearing = 400 mm
IRC Class AA Tracked Vehicle Loading
M25 Grade Concrete and Fe 415 Grade HYSD Bars
E L
T
2. Material Properties:
Concrete: fck = 25 N/mm2, Ec = 25 GPa
NP
Steel: fyk = 415 N/mm2, Es = 200 GPa
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
For L/d = 15, d = (span/15) = (6000/15) = 400 mm
For L/d = 12, d = (span/12) = (6000/12) = 500 mm
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
Effective Span is least of
(a) Clear Span + Effective Depth = (6 + 0.45) = 6.45 m
(b) Centre to Centre Distance of Bearings = (6 + 0.4) = 6.4 m
Hence, Effective Span = 6.4 m
E L
mm mm
P T mm
N
mm
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
4. Dead Load Bending Moments:
Self-Weight of RC Slab = (24 × 0.5) = 12 kN/m2
Self-Weight of Wearing Coat = (22 × 0.08) = 1.76 kN/m2
Total Dead Load = (12 + 1.76) = 13.76 kN/m2
E L
Bending Moment due to Dead Load = 13.76 × 6.42/8 = 70.45 kN-m
P T
5. Live Load Bending Moments:
N
For IRC Class AA Tracked Vehicles, Impact Factor is 25% of the
span for up to 5 m span decreasing linearly to 10% for span of 9 m.
Therefore, for 6.4 m span, Impact Factor = [25 ‒ (15/4) × (6.4 ‒ 5)] =
19.75%
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
Tracked Vehicle is placed symmetrically on the span.
Effective Length of Load = 3.6 + 2 × (0.08 + 0.5) = 4.76 m
mm
E L
T
mm
mm
N P
Position of Load for Maximum Bending Moment
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
mm mm mm
mm
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
E L
Maximum Bending Moment due to Live Load is given by Mmax =
P T
(23.622 × 4.76 × 6.4/4) ‒ (23.622 × 4.762/ 8) = 113 kN-m
N
Total Bending Moment M = (MDead + MLive) = (70.45 + 113) = 183.45
kN-m
Total Design Ultimate Bending Moment Mu = (1.35 × MDead + 1.5 ×
MLive) = (1.35 × 70.45 + 1.5 × 113) = 264.61 kN-m
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
E L
P T mm
mm mm N (5256/2) mm
7303 mm
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
L
The area of reinforcement required to resist the ultimate bending
E
T
moment can be computed using the following relation.
P
Mu = 0.87fy Ast [d ‒ (fy Ast / fckb)]
N
where area of tension steel is given by Ast
264.61 × 106 = 0.87 × 415 × Ast × [450 ‒ 415 × Ast / (25 × 1000)]
5.99 × Ast2 ‒ 162472.5 × Ast + 264.61 × 106 = 0
Ast = 1740.3 mm2
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
L
Area of steel provided = (1000 × 314/ 150) = 2093.33 mm2
E
P T
The distribution reinforcement should be designed to resist the
transverse moment.
N
Transverse Moment = (0.2 × Multimate Dead + 0.3 × Multimate Live) = (0.2 ×
1.35 × MDead + 0.3 × 1.5 × MLive) = (0.2 × 1.35 × 70.45 + 0.3 × 1.5 × 113)
= 69.87 kN-m
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
N
spacing S = (1000 ast/ Ast) = (1000 × 113/ 437.08) = 258.53 mm
12 mm diameter HYSD bars can be provided as distribution
reinforcement at a spacing of 200 mm.
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
Service
Stress (MPa)
Maximum Bar Size (mm)
Wk = 0.3 mm Wk = 0.2 mm
N
Service
Stress (MPa)
Maximum Bar Spacing (mm)
Wk = 0.3 mm Wk = 0.2 mm
160 32 25 160 300 200
200 25 16 200 250 150
240 16 12 240 200 100
280 12 ─ 280 150 50
320 10 ─ 320 100 ─
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
For stress in steel 211.54 MPa and permissible crack width of 0.3
mm, maximum bar diameter and maximum bar spacing given by
IRC:112-2011 are 22 mm and 235 mm.
The slab is reinforced with 20 mm diameter bars at 150 mm spacing.
L
Hence, the bar size and the spacing are within the safe limits for
E
control of cracking.
P T
11. Limit State of Deflection:
N
𝟏
a) Deflection due to Shrinkage acs = k L2
rcs
Where k is a constant dependent on the support conditions.
k = 0.125 for simply supported ends,
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
𝟏
= Shrinkage curvature = [εcsαe(S/I)]
rcs
𝑬𝒔
αe = Modular Ratio =
𝑬𝒄
𝑬𝒔 = Young’s Modulus of Steel
L
𝑬𝒄 = Young’s Modulus of Concrete
αe =
𝑬𝒔
= 200/25 = 8
T E
P
𝑬𝒄
N
S = First Moment of Area of Reinforcement about Centroid of
Section = 2093.33 × (250 – 40 – 20/2) = 418666 mm3
I = Second Moment of Area of the section = (1000 × 5003/12) = 10.42
× 109 mm4
S/I = 40.18 × 10‒6 /mm
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
εcd(t) = βds(t, ts) kh εcd, unrestrained = 0.43 × 0.70 × 535 × 10‒6 = 161.03 ×
10‒6
εca = 25 × 10‒6 for M25 Concrete
Table 6.6 of IRC: 112-2011
E L
M50 M60 M65
Autogenous Shrinkage Strain εca (× 106) 35 45
P T65 75 95 105
N
Total shrinkage strain εcs = εcd + εca = 161.03 × 10‒6 + 25 × 10‒6 =
186.03 × 10‒6
𝟏
Shrinkage curvature = [εcsαe(S/I)] = 186.03 × 10‒6 × 8 × 40.18 × 10‒6
rcs
= 59797.48 × 10‒12
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
𝟏
Deflection due to shrinkage acs = k L2 = 0.125 × 59797.48 × 10‒12 ×
rcs
64002 = 0.306 mm
L
5wdL4/384Ec,eff Ieff
Total Dead Load wd = 13.76 kN/m = 13.76 N/mm
T E
Effective Span L = 6.4 m = 6400 mm
N P
Effective Moment of Inertia Ieff = 0.7 I = 7.28 × 109 mm4
Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete Ec = 25 kN/mm2 = 25000 N/mm2
Effective Modulus of Elasticity for Concrete Ec,eff = Ec/(1 + ø)
Where ø is Creep Coefficient
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
Table 6.9 of IRC: 112-2011
Creep Coefficient ø
Age at
Loading Notional Size 2Ac/u (mm)
t0 50 150 600 50 150 600
(days)
Dry atmospheric conditions (RH 50%) Humid atmospheric conditions (RH 80%)
1 5.50 4.60 3.70 3.60 3.20 2.90
7 5.50 4.60 3.70 2.60
E L
2.30 2.00
28 3.90 3.10 2.60 1.90
P T 1.70 1.50
N
90 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.40 1.20
365 1.80 1.50 1.20 1.10 1.00 1.00
For relative humidity 50%, Notional Size 2Ac/u = 500 mm and Age at
loading = 28 days, Creep Coefficient ø = 2.71 by linear interpolation.
Ec,eff = Ec/(1 + ø) = (25000/3.71) = 6738.54 N/mm2
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Reinforcement Detailing
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Reinforcement Detailing
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
v N. Krishna Raju, Design of Bridges, Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.
L
v D.J. Victor, Essentials of Bridge Engineering, Oxford & IBH Publishing
E
T
Co. Pvt. Ltd.
N P
v S. Ponnuswamy, Bridge Engineering, McGraw Hill Education.
v T.R. Jagadeesh and M.A. Jayaram, Design of Bridge Structures, PHI
Learning Pvt. Ltd.
v W.F. Chen, and L. Duan, Bridge Engineering Handbook, CRC Press, Taylor
& Francis Group.
v G. Parke and N. Hewson, ICE manual of Bridge Engineering, Thomas
Telford Publishing.
E L
T
BRIDGE ENGINEERING
P
N
Prof. Piyali Sengupta
Department of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad
Ø Courbon’s Method
Ø Guyon-Massonnet Method
Ø Hendry-Jaegar Method
Ø Design Example
Topic of Discussion
Ø General Features
Ø Load Distribution
Ø Courbon’s Method
E L
Ø Guyon-Massonnet Method
P T
Ø Hendry-Jaegar Method N
Ø Design Example
Bridge Engineering
General Features
•
E L
Longitudinal girders are generally spaced at 2-3 m intervals
T
while cross girders are placed at 4-5 m intervals.
P
• N
Reinforced concrete T-beam and slab bridges are ideally suited
for spans in the range of 10-25 m.
Bridge Engineering
General Features
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
General Features: Classifications
• Girder and Slab Type: Beams and slabs are cast monolithically
without any cross girders. Deck slab is designed as a one way
slab spanning between the girders. Decks do not possess
torsional rigidity. This configuration is no longer in use.
•
E L
Girder, Slab and Diaphragm Type: Beams and slabs are cast
P T
monolithically and diaphragms connecting the girders are
N
provided at supports and at few intermediate locations without
extending up to the deck slab. This configuration is marginally
better in load resistance due to its improved torsional rigidity in
comparison with the first one.
Bridge Engineering
General Features: Classifications
• Girder, Slab and Cross Beam Type: Girders, slab and cross
beams are cast monolithically to form an integrated bridge
deck possessing superior flexural and torsional rigidity. This
configuration is the most commonly used system in highway
L
bridge decks.
T E
N P
Bridge Engineering
General Features: Classifications
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
General Features: Classifications
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Topic of Discussion
Ø General Features
Ø Load Distribution
Ø Courbon’s Method
E L
Ø Guyon-Massonnet Method
P T
Ø Hendry-Jaegar Method N
Ø Design Example
Bridge Engineering
Pigeaud’s Coefficient Method
a) Deck Slab
b) Longitudinal Girders
E L
c) Cross Girders
P T
•
N
The deck slab supported on all the sides by longitudinal and
cross girders is designed by the moment coefficients proposed
by Pigeaud’s Coefficient Method.
Bridge Engineering
Pigeaud’s Coefficient Method
E L
P T
N
Load Dispersion
Bridge Engineering
Pigeaud’s Coefficient Method
Bridge Engineering
Pigeaud’s Coefficient Method
E L
The load dispersion may be assumed at 45° through the wearing
coat and the structural slab.
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Pigeaud’s Coefficient Method
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Pigeaud’s Coefficient Method
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Pigeaud’s Coefficient Method
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Pigeaud’s Coefficient Method
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Pigeaud’s Coefficient Method
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Pigeaud’s Coefficient Method
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Pigeaud’s Coefficient Method
E L
P T
N
Coefficients m1 and m2 (× 100)
Bridge Engineering
Topic of Discussion
Ø General Features
Ø Load Distribution
Ø Courbon’s Method
E L
Ø Guyon-Massonnet Method
P T
Ø Hendry-Jaegar Method N
Ø Design Example
Bridge Engineering
Load Distribution in Slab Girder Bridge
a) Courbon’s Method
E L
P T
b)
c)
Guyon-Massonnet Method
Hendry-Jaegar Method
N
Bridge Engineering
Load Distribution in Slab Girder Bridge
•
E L
The cross beams continuous over supports are designed to
P T
resist the maximum dead load and live load moments resulting
N
from the critical positioning of live loads.
Bridge Engineering
Topic of Discussion
Ø General Features
Ø Load Distribution
Ø Courbon’s Method
E L
Ø Guyon-Massonnet Method
P T
Ø Hendry-Jaegar Method N
Ø Design Example
Bridge Engineering
Courbon’s Method
• When live loads are positioned near the kerb, centre of gravity
of live loads acts eccentrically with centre of gravity of the
girder system.
E L
increased or decreased depending on the position of girders.
P T
This is calculated by Courbon’s Theory by a reaction factor
given by
N
𝑹𝒙 = ∑ 𝑾⁄𝒏 × 𝟏 + ∑ 𝑰⁄∑ 𝒅𝟐𝒙 ×𝑰 ×𝒅𝒙 ×𝒆
Bridge Engineering
Courbon’s Method
Where
E L
𝒅𝒙 = Distance of the girder under consideration from the central
axis of the bridge
P T
∑ 𝑾 = Total concentrated load N
𝒏 = Number of longitudinal girders
Bridge Engineering
Courbon’s Method
E L
Clearance
b
P Tb
N
Bridge Engineering
Courbon’s Method: Assumptions
E L
a) Ratio of span to width of deck is greater than 2 but less than
4.
P T
N
b) Longitudinal girders are interconnected by at least 5
symmetrically spaced cross girders.
Bridge Engineering
Courbon’s Method: Numerical Example
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Courbon’s Method: Numerical Example
Where
Bridge Engineering
Courbon’s Method: Numerical Example
∑W = 2W1, n = 3 and ∑I = 3I
L
Distance between inner edge of the two wheels = 1.2 m
E
P T
Distance between central axis of the two wheels = (1.2 + 2 × 0.85/
2) m = 2.05 m
N
Distance between central axis of the left wheel and left edge of
deck = (1.2 + 0.85/ 2) m = 1.625 m
Distance between central axis of the left wheel and central axis
of Girder A = (1.625 − 1.25) m = 0.375 m
Bridge Engineering
Courbon’s Method: Numerical Example
Distance between central axis of the right wheel and central axis
of bridge = (2.5 − 0.375 − 2.05) m = 0.075 m
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Courbon’s Method: Numerical Example
= 1.107 W1
dx = 0 m ∑dx 2.I = 2I × 02 m2 =0
N
e = (2.05/2 + 0.075) m = (1.025 + 0.075) m = 1.1 m
Bridge Engineering
Courbon’s Method: Numerical Example
RA or RC = 1.107 W1 = 387.45 kN
RB = 0.667 W1 = 233.45 kN
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Topic of Discussion
Ø General Features
Ø Load Distribution
Ø Courbon’s Method
E L
Ø Guyon-Massonnet Method
P T
Ø Hendry-Jaegar Method N
Ø Design Example
Bridge Engineering
Guyon-Massonnet Method
𝑴𝒎𝒆𝒂𝒏 = 𝑴⁄𝒏 N
Where 𝑴 = Total mean longitudinal bending moment
𝒏 = Number of girders
Bridge Engineering
Guyon-Massonnet Method
L
dependent on flexural and torsional parameters.
T E
The factor 1.10 is used to compensate for the error involved in
N P
using only the first term of the Fourier series in finding the
distribution coefficients as suggested by Rowe based on his
experiments.
Bridge Engineering
Guyon-Massonnet Method
Torsional Parameter 𝜶 = 𝑮 𝒊𝟎 + 𝒋𝟎 ⁄ 𝟐𝑬 𝒊𝒋
E L
Where 𝟐𝒂 = Span of the bridge
P T
N
𝟐𝒃 = Effective width of the bridge
𝒊 = Second moment of area per unit transverse width
𝒋 = Second moment of area per unit longitudinal width
𝑮 7 𝒊𝟎 = Torsional stiffness per unit width
𝑮 7 𝒋𝟎 = Torsional stiffness per unit length
Bridge Engineering
Guyon-Massonnet Method
Bridge Engineering
Guyon-Massonnet Method
Ref pt -b -3b/4 -b/2 -b/4 0 b/4 b/2 3b/4 b
Load at
𝑲𝟎
0 0.86 0.95 0.97 1.05 1.10 1.05 0.97 0.95 0.86
b/4 0.20 0.40 0.63 0.87 1.05 1.22 1.36 1.53 1.68
b/2 -0.54 -0.16 0.24 0.63 0.97 1.36 1.73 2.10 2.46
𝛉 = 0.30 3b/4 -1.15 -0.63 -0.16 0.40 0.95 1.53 2.10 2.73 3.31
b -1.79 -1.15 -0.54 0.20 0.86 1.68 2.46 3.31 4.10
𝑲𝟏
0 0.94 0.97 1.00 1.02 1.05 1.02 1.00 0.97 0.94
L
b/4 0.85 0.89 0.94 0.97 1.02 1.06 1.06 1.05 1.06
E
b/2 0.77 0.82 0.89 0.94 1.00 1.06 1.13 1.17 1.21
T
3b/4 0.70 0.75 0.82 0.89 0.97 1.05 1.17 1.29 1.38
P
b 0.63 0.70 0.77 0.85 0.94 1.06 1.21 1.38 1.59
N
Ref pt -b -3b/4 -b/2 -b/4 0 b/4 b/2 3b/4 b
Load at
𝑲𝟎
0 0.71 0.90 0.99 1.11 1.2 1.11 0.99 0.90 0.71
b/4 0.12 0.36 0.64 0.91 1.11 1.29 1.40 1.47 1.56
b/2 -0.55 -0.17 0.23 0.63 0.99 1.37 1.76 2.10 2.40
𝛉 = 0.40 3b/4 -1.07 -0.58 -0.17 0.36 0.90 1.47 2.10 2.77 3.38
b -1.65 -1.07 -0.55 0.12 0.71 1.56 2.40 3.38 4.30
𝑲𝟏
0 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.08 1.05 1.00 0.95 0.90
b/4 0.77 0.83 0.90 0.96 1.05 1.10 1.10 1.09 1.07
b/2 0.66 0.73 0.81 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.26 1.30
3b/4 0.58 0.65 0.73 0.83 0.95 1.09 1.26 1.41 1.55
b 0.50 0.58 0.66 0.77 0.90 1.07 1.30 1.55 1.88
Bridge Engineering
Guyon-Massonnet Method
Ref pt -b -3b/4 -b/2 -b/4 0 b/4 b/2 3b/4 b
Load at
𝑲𝟎
0 0.55 0.79 1.00 1.21 1.32 1.21 1.00 0.79 0.55
b/4 0.00 0.30 0.63 0.96 1.21 1.40 1.44 1.40 1.40
b/2 -0.54 -0.17 0.22 0.63 1.00 1.40 1.80 2.08 2.30
𝛉 = 0.50 3b/4 -1.96 -0.54 -0.17 0.30 0.79 1.40 2.08 2.84 3.50
b -1.43 -0.96 -0.54 0.0 0.55 1.40 2.30 3.50 4.80
𝑲𝟏
0 0.85 0.92 1.00 1.07 1.13 1.07 1.00 0.92 0.85
L
b/4 0.68 0.76 0.86 0.96 1.07 1.16 1.15 1.12 1.09
E
b/2 0.55 0.63 0.73 0.86 1.00 1.15 1.30 1.35 1.39
T
3b/4 0.45 0.53 0.63 0.76 0.92 1.12 1.35 1.58 1.76
b 0.38 0.45 0.55 0.68 0.85 1.09 1.39 1.76 2.15
Ref pt
Load at
0
-b
0.31
-3b/4
0.66
-b/2
1.02
-b/4
𝑲𝟎
1.35 N
0
1.50
P
b/4
1.35
b/2
1.02
3b/4
0.66
b
0.31
b/4 -0.17 0.21 0.62 1.02 1.35 1.53 1.47 1.31 1.03
b/2 -0.52 -0.18 0.20 0.62 1.02 1.47 1.87 2.06 2.19
𝛉 = 0.60 3b/4 -0.80 -0.47 -0.18 0.21 0.66 1.31 2.06 2.92 3.08
b -1.05 -0.80 -0.52 -0.20 0.31 1.10 2.19 3.08 5.45
𝑲𝟏
0 0.80 0.89 1.00 1.12 1.19 1.12 1.00 0.89 0.80
b/4 0.58 0.67 0.80 0.95 1.12 1.23 1.20 1.15 1.08
b/2 0.44 0.52 0.63 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.45 1.46
3b/4 0.34 0.41 0.52 0.67 0.89 1.15 1.45 1.75 1.96
b 0.28 0.34 0.44 0.58 0.80 1.08 1.46 1.96 2.50
Bridge Engineering
Guyon-Massonnet Method
Ref pt -b -3b/4 -b/2 -b/4 0 b/4 b/2 3b/4 b
Load at
𝑲𝟎
0 -0.04 0.53 1.03 1.52 1.68 1.51 1.03 0.53 -0.04
b/4 -0.37 0.11 0.00 1.06 1.51 1.70 1.55 1.21 0.67
b/2 -0.50 -0.19 0.18 0.60 1.03 1.55 1.96 2.05 2.03
𝛉 = 0.70 3b/4 -0.57 -0.40 -0.19 0.11 0.53 1.21 2.05 3.00 4.01
b -0.48 -0.57 -0.50 -0.37 -0.04 0.73 2.03 4.01 6.03
𝑲𝟏
0 0.71 0.83 0.98 1.17 1.28 1.17 0.98 0.83 0.71
L
b/4 0.50 0.59 0.74 0.94 1.17 1.33 1.27 1.15 1.04
E
b/2 0.33 0.43 0.55 0.74 0.98 1.27 1.51 1.55 1.52
T
3b/4 0.24 0.32 0.43 0.59 0.83 1.15 1.55 1.93 2.16
b 0.18 0.24 0.33 0.49 0.71 1.04 1.52 2.16 2.85
Ref pt
Load at
0
-b
-0.35
-3b/4
0.39
-b/2
1.02
-b/4
𝑲𝟎
N
0
1.66 1.88
P
b/4
1.66
b/2
1.02
3b/4
0.39
b
-0.35
b/4 -0.49 0.02 0.55 1.10 1.66 1.88 1.64 1.10 0.33
b/2 -0.48 -0.18 0.15 0.55 1.02 1.64 2.06 2.03 1.82
𝛉 = 0.80 3b/4 -0.34 -0.30 -0.18 0.02 0.39 1.10 2.03 3.10 4.02
b -0.16 -0.34 -0.48 -0.48 -0.35 0.39 1.82 4.02 7.02
𝑲𝟏
0 0.63 0.78 0.98 1.22 1.38 1.22 0.98 0.78 0.63
b/4 0.40 0.51 0.68 0.93 1.22 1.43 1.34 1.14 1.00
b/2 0.25 0.34 0.47 0.68 0.98 1.34 1.63 1.64 1.55
3b/4 0.16 0.23 0.34 0.51 0.78 1.14 1.64 2.10 2.33
b 0.12 0.16 0.25 0.40 0.63 0.98 1.55 2.33 3.20
Bridge Engineering
Topic of Discussion
Ø General Features
Ø Load Distribution
Ø Courbon’s Method
E L
Ø Guyon-Massonnet Method
P T
Ø Hendry-Jaegar Method N
Ø Design Example
Bridge Engineering
Hendry-Jaegar Method
𝑪 = 𝑬𝑰𝟏 ⁄𝑬𝑰𝟐
Bridge Engineering
Hendry-Jaegar Method
L
EI = Flexural rigidity of one longitudinal girder
E
P T
GJ = Torsional rigidity of one longitudinal girder
N
EI1 and EI2 = Flexural rigidities of outer and inner
longitudinal girders respectively where these parameters
are different
EIr = Flexural rigidity of one cross girder
Bridge Engineering
Hendry-Jaegar Method
E L
the span of longitudinal girders and the ratio of torsional rigidity
P T
of longitudinal girder to flexural rigidity of cross girders. This
N
parameter is difficult to be evaluated due to uncertainties in
computations of torsional rigidity values.
Bridge Engineering
Topic of Discussion
Ø General Features
Ø Load Distribution
Ø Courbon’s Method
E L
Ø Guyon-Massonnet Method
P T
Ø Hendry-Jaegar Method N
Ø Design Example
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Problem Statement
Design the T-Beam and Slab Deck of RC T-Beam Bridge for IRC
Class AA Tracked Vehicle Loading using the following data.
Clear Width of Road way = 7.5 m
Bridge span = 16 m
Average Thickness of Wearing Coat = 80 mm
E L
S/W of Wearing Coat = 22 kN/m3
P T
M 25 Concrete; Fe 415 Steel Reinforcement , μConcrete = 0.15
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Problem Statement
E L
P T
N
IRC Class AA
Tracked Vehicle
Loading
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
1. Deck Slab Panel Dimensions:
Long Span Length L = 4 m, Short Span Length B = 2.5 m
Slab Thickness H = 0.2 m.
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
For k = B/L = 2.5/4 = 0.625, m1 = 0.049 and m2 = 0.015
Moment in Short Span M1 due to Dead Load = W × (m1 + μm2)
= 65.6 × (0.049 + 0.15 × 0.015) = 3.362 kN-m
Moment in Long Span M2 due to Dead Load = W × (m2 + μm1)
= 65.6 × (0.015 + 0.15 × 0.049) = 1.466 kN-m
E L
P T
For continuous deck slab, Design Bending moment along Short
N
Span due to Dead Load = 0.8 × M1 = 2.69 kN-m
For continuous deck slab, Design Bending moment along Long
Span due to Dead Load = 0.8 × M2 = 1.173 kN-m
Shear Force due to Dead Load = 6.56 × (2.5 ‒ 0.3)/2 = 7.216 kN
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
3. Live Load Calculation:
Wheel Load Dispersion along Short Span
u = 0.85 + 2 × 0.08 = 1.01 m
Wheel Load Dispersion along Long Span
v = 3.6 + 2 × 0.08 = 3.76 m
E L
k = B/L = 2.5/4 = 0.625
P T
N
u/B = 1.01/2.5 = 0.404; v/L = 3.76/4 = 0.94
Therefore, m1 = 0.085 and m2 = 0.024
Maximum Live Load due to IRC Class AA
Tracked Vehicle Loading = 350 kN
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
Moment in Short Span M1 due to Live Load = W × (m1 + μm2)
= 350 × (0.085 + 0.15 × 0.024) = 31.01 kN-m
Moment in Long Span M2 due to Live Load = W × (m2 + μm1)
= 350 × (0.024 + 0.15 × 0.085) = 12.862 kN-m
E L
For continuous deck slab, Design Bending moment due to Live
P T
Load along Short Span (including Impact Factor) = 0.8 × M1 × 1.25 =
31.01 kN-m
N
For continuous deck slab, Design Bending moment due to Live
Load along Long Span (including Impact Factor) = 0.8 × M2 × 1.25 =
12.862 kN-m
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
Using Effective Width Method, Dispersion of Live Load in Direction
of Short Span = x + 2 × (D + H) = 0.85 + 2 × (0.08 + 0.2) = 1.41 m
For Maximum Shear in Deck Slab, the wheel load is placed such
that the centre of wheel is at 1.41/2 = 0.705 m distance from the
edge of the panel.
E L
Effective Span L = 2.5 ‒ 0.3 = 2.2 m
P T
Effective Breadth B = 4 ‒ 0.3 = 3.7 m N
For Span Ratio of Slab = 3.7/2.2 = 1.682, K = 2.55 for Continuous
Deck Slab.
Effective Width of Slab = Kx (1 ‒ x/L) + bw
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
bw = Wheel Contact Dimension in a direction perpendicular to Span
of Slab plus 2 times of the thickness of the wearing coat
= 3.6 + 2 × 0.08 = 3.76 m
x = 0.705 m
Effective Width of Slab = Kx (1 ‒ x/L) + bw
E L
P T
= 2.55 × 0.705 × (1 ‒ 0.705/ 2.2) + 3.76 = 4.982 m
N
Effective Length of Load = 3.6 + 2 × (0.08 + 0.2) = 4.16 m
Live Load/ metre width due to 350 kN Wheel Load = 350/ 4.982 =
70.253 kN
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
4. Design Moment and Shear Force:
Service Load Bending Moment in Slab from Dead Load and Live
Load in Short Span MB = 2.69 + 31.01 = 33.7 kN-m
Service Load Bending Moment in Slab from Dead Load and Live
E L
Load in Long Span ML = 1.173 + 12.862 = 14.035 kN-m
P T
Service Load Design Shear Force in Slab from Dead Load and Live
Load V = 7.216 + 59.675 = 66.891 kN N
Ultimate Design Bending Moment in Slab from Dead Load and Live
Load in Short Span Mult,B = 1.35 × 2.69 + 1.5 × 31.01 = 50.146 kN-m
Ultimate Design Bending Moment in Slab from Dead Load and Live
Load in Long Span Mult,L = 1.35 × 1.173 + 1.5 × 12.862 = 20.876 kN-m
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
Ultimate Design Shear Force in Slab from Dead Load and Live Load
Vult = 1.35 × 7.216 + 1.5 × 59.675 = 99.254 kN
5. Design of Slab:
Overall depth of slab = 200 mm.
E L
Assuming 40 mm clear cover and 16 mm diameter bars, effective
depth of slab = (200 ‒ 40 ‒ 8) = 152 mm
P T
N
Using M25 grade concrete and Fe 415 HYSD bars, Limiting moment
of resistance along short span for singly reinforced sections can be
expressed as: Mu,lim = 0.138 × fckbd2
Effective Depth of Slab required, dreqd = √(M/0.138 fckb) = √(50.146 ×
106)/(0.138 × 25 × 1000) = 120.561 mm ≈ 121 mm
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
Since Effective Depth of Slab provided d = 152 mm > 121 mm, the
section is under-reinforced.
The area of reinforcement required to resist the ultimate bending
moment can be computed using the following relation.
Mu = 0.87fy Ast [d ‒ (fy Ast / fckb)]
E L
where area of tension steel is given by Ast
P T
N
50.146 × 106 = 0.87 × 415 × Ast × [152 ‒ 415 × Ast / (25 × 1000)]
5.99 × Ast2 ‒ 54879.6 × Ast + 50.146 × 106 = 0
Ast = 1029.408 mm2
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
Using 16 mm diameter bars as main reinforcement, the spacing is
given by: S = (1000 ast/ Ast) = (1000 × 201/ 1029.408) = 195.258 mm
Therefore, 16 mm diameter HYSD bars can be provided along short
span at a spacing of 150 mm.
L
Area of steel provided = (1000 × 201/ 150) = 1340 mm2
E
P T
Similarly, using M25 grade concrete and Fe 415 HYSD bars, Limiting
N
moment of resistance along longer span for singly reinforced
sections is 20.876 kN-m
Mu = 0.87fy Ast [d ‒ (fy Ast / fckb)]
where area of tension steel is given by Ast
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
20.876 × 106 = 0.87 × 415 × Ast × [152 ‒ 415 × Ast / (25 × 1000)]
5.99 × Ast2 ‒ 54879.6 × Ast + 20.876 × 106 = 0
Ast = 397.656 mm2
Using 10 mm diameter bars as main reinforcement, the spacing is
E L
given by: S = (1000 ast/ Ast) = (1000 × 78.54/ 397.656) = 197.507 mm
P T
Therefore, 10 mm diameter HYSD bars can be provided along longer
span at a spacing of 150 mm.
N
Area of steel provided = (1000 × 78.54/ 150) = 523.6 mm2
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
6. Check for Ultimate Flexural Strength:
Ultimate Bending Moment of Deck Slab Mu = 0.87fy Ast [d ‒ (fy Ast /
fckb)] = 0.87 × 415 × 1340 × [152 ‒ 415 × 1340/(25 × 1000)]
= 62776861.09 N-mm = 62.777 kN-m > 50.146 kN-m (Hence, safe)
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
Using 16 mm diameter HYSD at a spacing of 120 mm, area of steel
provided = (1000 × 201/ 120) = 1675 mm2
ρ1 = Ast/bd = 1675/(1000 × 152) = 0.011
VRd,c = [0.12K(80 ρ1fck)0.33] bd = [0.12 × 2 × (80 × 0.011 × 25)0.33] × 1000
× 152 = 101170.597 N = 101.171 kN > 99.254 kN (safe)
E L
8. Limit State of Cracking:
P T
N
IRC 112: 2011 prescribes a permissible crack width of 0.3 mm in
reinforced concrete members under moderate exposure condition.
Tables 12.2 and 12.3 of IRC: 112-2011 outlines the maximum bar size
and maximum spacing for permissible crack width and service
stress in steel.
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
Table 12.2 of IRC: 112-2011 Table 12.3 of IRC: 112-2011
Service Maximum Bar Size (mm) Service Maximum Bar Spacing (mm)
Stress (MPa) Wk = 0.3 mm Wk = 0.2 mm Stress (MPa) Wk = 0.3 mm Wk = 0.2 mm
160 32 25 160 300 200
200 25 16 200 250 150
L
240 16 12 240 200 100
280 12 ─ 280
T E150 50
P
320 10 ─ 320 100 ─
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
bx2/2 = (Es/Ec) × Ast × (d ‒ x)
500x2 = (200/25) × 1675 × (152 ‒ x)
500x2 + 13400x ‒ 2036800 = 0
x = 51.816 mm
E L
σs = M/[(d ‒ x/3)Ast] = 33700000/[(152 ‒ 51.816/3) × 1675] = 149.333
MPa
P T
N
For stress in steel 149.333 MPa and permissible crack width of 0.3
mm, maximum bar diameter and maximum bar spacing given by
IRC:112-2011 are 32 mm and 300 mm.
The slab is reinforced with 16 mm diameter bars at 120 mm spacing.
Hence, the bar size and the spacing are within the safe limits for
control of cracking.
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
L
k = 0.063 for continuous ends,
𝟏
= Shrinkage curvature = [εcsαe(S/I)]
T E
P
rcs
αe = Modular Ratio = 𝑬𝒔
𝑬
𝒄 N
𝑬𝒔 = Young’s Modulus of Steel
𝑬𝒄 = Young’s Modulus of Concrete
𝑬𝒔
αe = = 200/25 = 8
𝑬𝒄
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
εcd, unrestrained = 535 × 10‒6 for fck = 25 MPa and Relative Humidity 50%
Table 6.8 of IRC: 112-2011
kh = 0.85 for h0 = 200 mm
εcd, unrestrained (× 106)
fck
Table 6.7 of IRC: 112-2011 Relative Humidity (%)
(MPa)
h0 (mm) kh 20 50 80
100 1.0 25 620
E L 535 300
T
200 0.85 50 480 420 240
300
≥ 500
0.75
0.70
75
95
N P380
300
330
260
190
150
εcd(t) = βds(t, ts) kh εcd, unrestrained = 0.749 × 0.85 × 535 × 10‒6 = 340.608 ×
10‒6
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
E
Total shrinkage strain εcs = εcd + εca = 340.608 × 10‒6 + 25 × 10‒6 = L
365.608 × 10‒6
P T
Shrinkage curvature
rcs
𝟏 N
= [εcsαe(S/I)] = 365.608 × 10‒6 × 8 × 130.585 ×
10‒6 = 381943.365 × 10‒12
𝟏
Deflection due to shrinkage acs = k L2 = 0.063 × 381943.365 × 10‒12
rcs
× 25002 = 0.15 mm
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
E L
Effective Moment of Inertia Ieff = 0.7 I = 4.67 × 108 mm4
P T
Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete Ec = 25 kN/mm2 = 25000 N/mm2
N
Effective Modulus of Elasticity for Concrete Ec,eff = Ec/(1 + ø)
Where ø is Creep Coefficient
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
Table 6.9 of IRC: 112-2011
Creep Coefficient ø
Age at
Loading Notional Size 2Ac/u (mm)
t0 50 150 600 50 150 600
(days)
Dry atmospheric conditions (RH 50%) Humid atmospheric conditions (RH 80%)
L
1 5.50 4.60 3.70 3.60 3.20 2.90
E
7 5.50 4.60 3.70 2.60 2.30 2.00
28 3.90 3.10 2.60 1.90
P T 1.70 1.50
N
90 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.40 1.20
365 1.80 1.50 1.20 1.10 1.00 1.00
For relative humidity 50%, Notional Size 2Ac/u = 200 mm and Age at
loading = 28 days, Creep Coefficient ø = 3.04 by linear interpolation.
Ec,eff = Ec/(1 + ø) = (25000/3.04) = 8223.684 N/mm2
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
E L
Total Live Load wl = (350 × 1.25)/(4.982 × 4.16) = 21.11 kN/m2
Effective Span L = 2.5 m = 2500 mm
P T
N
Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete Ec = 25 kN/mm2 = 25000 N/mm2
Effective Moment of Inertia Ieff = 4.67 × 108 mm4
Maximum deflection due to live load al = 5wlL4/384EcIeff = (5 × 21.11 ×
25004) / (384 × 25000 × 4.67 × 108) = 0.92 mm ≤ Span/800 = (2500/800)
= 3.125 mm
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
Where
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
∑W = 2W1, n = 3 and ∑I = 3I
L
Distance between inner edge of the two wheels = 1.2 m
E
P T
Distance between central axis of the two wheels = (1.2 + 2 × 0.85/ 2)
m = 2.05 m
N
Distance between central axis of the left wheel and left edge of deck
= (1.2 + 0.85/ 2) m = 1.625 m
Distance between central axis of the left wheel and central axis of
Girder A = (1.625 − 1.25) m = 0.375 m
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
Distance between central axis of the right wheel and central axis of
bridge = (2.5 − 0.375 − 2.05) m = 0.075 m
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
L
For Inner Girder B
∑W = 2W1, n = 3 and ∑I = 3I
T E
dx = 0 m ∑dx2.I = 2I × 02 m2 = 0 N P
e = (2.05/2 + 0.075) m = (1.025 + 0.075) m = 1.1 m
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
L
RB = 0.667 W1 = 0.667 × 0.5W = 0.3335 W = 233.45 kN
E
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
E L
dimensions of main girder, weight of cross girder = 10.08 kN/m
P T
Total Dead Load on girder = (21.667 + 10.08) = 31.747 kN/m
N
Reaction on Main Girder = 10.08 × (2.5/2 + 2.5/2) = 25.2 kN
Maximum Dead Load Bending Moment at centre of span = (31.747 ×
162/8) + (25.2 × 2 × 16)/4 = 1217.504 kN-m
Maximum Dead Load Shear at support = (31.747 × 16/2) + (25.2 × 3/2)
= 291.776 kN
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
31.747
E L
T
Live Load in Girder
Span of Girder = 16 m
N P
Impact Factor on girder = 1.10
IRC Class AA Tracked Vehicle Load is placed centrally on span.
Maximum Bending Moment for Live Load = 350 × (8 ‒ 1.8) + (700/
3.6) × 3.62/8 = 2485 kN-m.
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
700 kN/ 3.6 m
16 m
8m 8m
1.8 m 1.8 m
E L
T
+ +
P
‒
N
‒
‒ 350 kN
Shear Force Diagram
+ 2485 kN-m
+ 2170 kN-m + 2170 kN-m
+
+ +
Bending Moment Diagram
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
L
Maximum Reaction in Girder B = (413 × 14.2)/16 = 366.537 kN
E
P T
Maximum Reaction in Girder A = (287 × 14.2)/16 = 254.712 kN
N
Maximum Live Load Shear with Impact Factor in Inner Girder =
(366.537 × 1.1) = 403.191 kN
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
E L
150 mm on tension side, effective depth = (1600 ‒ 150) = 1450 mm.
Parameters of the T-beam:
P T
N
bf = 2500 mm, fck = 25 MPa, fy = 415 MPa, d = 1450 mm, Df = 200 mm,
Mu = 3913.118 kN-m
xu = depth of Neutral Axis.
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
If the neutral axis lies within the flange depth (xu < Df), value of xu
can be determined by using the following equation.
E L
Or, 9450 xu2 ‒ 32625000 xu + 3913118000 = 0
P T
Or, xu = 124.427 mm < 200 mm
N
Hence, the neutral axis lies within the flange.
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
E L
T
Here, K = 1 + √(200/d) = 1 + √(200/1450) = 1.371 < 2
P
N
ρ1 = Ast/bwd = 7853.982 /(300 × 1450) = 0.018
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
18.28
N
Assuming the cross girders share the loading uniformly, reaction in
each cross girder = (18.28 × 5/3) = 30.467 kN
Maximum Dead Load Shear Force = 30.467 kN
Maximum Dead Load Bending Moment = 25.394 kN-m.
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
E L
Maximum Shear Force in Cross Girder due to Live Load including
P T
Impact Factor = 1.1 × 271.25 = 298.375 kN
N
Maximum Service Load Bending Moment in Cross Girder = (25.394
+ 293.402) = 318.796 kN-m.
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
If the neutral axis lies within the flange depth (xu < Df), value of xu
can be determined by using the following equation.
E L
T
Or, 474385000 = 0.36 × 25 × 2500 × xu × (1450 ‒ 0.42xu)
P
Or, 9450 xu2 ‒ 32625000 xu + 474385000 = 0
N
Or, xu = 14.6 mm < 200 mm
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
E L
Or, 474385000 = 523522.5 × Ast ‒ 2.397 Ast2
P T
N
Or, 2.397 Ast2 ‒ 523522.5 × Ast + 474385000 = 0
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
E L
T
Here, K = 1 + √(200/d) = 1 + √(200/1450) = 1.371 < 2
P
N
ρ1 = Ast/bwd = 981.748/(300 × 1450) = 0.0023
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Solution
Bridge Engineering
Numerical Example: Reinforcement Detailing
120
E L
120
P T
150
N
Bridge Engineering
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
v N. Krishna Raju, Design of Bridges, Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.
L
v D.J. Victor, Essentials of Bridge Engineering, Oxford & IBH Publishing
E
T
Co. Pvt. Ltd.
N P
v S. Ponnuswamy, Bridge Engineering, McGraw Hill Education.
v T.R. Jagadeesh and M.A. Jayaram, Design of Bridge Structures, PHI
Learning Pvt. Ltd.
v W.F. Chen, and L. Duan, Bridge Engineering Handbook, CRC Press, Taylor
& Francis Group.
v G. Parke and N. Hewson, ICE manual of Bridge Engineering, Thomas
Telford Publishing.
E L
T
BRIDGE ENGINEERING
P
N
Prof. Piyali Sengupta
Department of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad
Bridge Engineering
Voided Slab Bridges
• Voided slab bridge has a typical span of 8-15 m for single span
as well as continuous bridges.
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Voided Slab Bridges
• In voided slab bridges, void ratio i.e. area of voids to the area of
L
solid slabs should not exceed 40% of the superstructure.
E
•
P T
Voided slab bridges are required to be analyzed for longitudinal
N
as well as transverse structural actions.
Bridge Engineering
Voided Slab Bridges
•
E L
Position of voids should be such that the void center lies in the
P
Neutral Axis where the stresses are zero.T
• N
Position of void centre can be eccentric with the neutral axis
only if the reinforcement present above and below the void can
bear the loads acting on the structure.
Bridge Engineering
Topic of Discussion
Bridge Engineering
Skew Bridges: Overview
L
the difference between the alignment of an intermediate or end
E
T
support and a line perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the
P
bridge.
N
Bridge Engineering
Skew Bridges: Overview
Bridge Engineering
Skew Bridges: Overview
L
the centre line of the road way and the slab exhibits warped or
E
T
twisted deformational characteristics due to the passage of
P
•
wheel loads on the deck.
N
With increase in skew angle, the stress distribution in the skew
slab differs significantly in comparison with the straight slab.
Bridge Engineering
Skew Bridges: Overview
L
centre line of bridge and the deflection of such slab produces a
E
T
warped surface.
N P
Bridge Engineering
Skew Bridges: Observations
• The reactions at the obtuse angled end of the skew slab support
L
are 0-50% larger than the other end for skew angles 20°-50°.
E
•
P T
For skew bridges of short spans ranging between 4-6 m, when
N
the skew angle increases from 15° to 45°, the increase in shear
force is around 20%.
Bridge Engineering
Skew Bridges: Observations
L
the skew angle increases from 15° to 45°, the bending moment
E
increases by 10%.
P T
• N
The increase of torsional moment was similar to that of bending
moments. For skew angles exceeding 30 degrees, the torsional
moments are higher for short span bridges requiring larger
magnitude of reinforcements.
Bridge Engineering
Skew Bridges: Design
L
distance of the supports and parallel to the centre line of the
E
road way.
P T
• N
Distribution reinforcement of 0.2% of the effective cross-section
of the slab is placed parallel to the supports.
Bridge Engineering
Skew Bridges: Design
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Skew Bridges: Design
L
critical points of skew slabs under concentrated load placed
E
T
anywhere on the slabs for various span/width ratios and skew
P
•
angles in the range of 15-60°.
N
The Ministry of Surface Transport (Roads Wing) has prepared
standard designs (in tabular form) for skew bridge decks of clear
spans 5, 6 and 8 m and skew angles of 15°, 30°, 45° and 60° for
IRC loadings suitable for two lane traffic without footpaths on
national highways.
Bridge Engineering
Skew Bridges: Design
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Skew Bridges: Design
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Skew Bridges: Design
L
resisting the bending moment at the centre of the free edge due
E
T
to lack of anchorage. Therefore, extra steel reinforcement is
P
N
provided near the free edge parallel to the edges at a width
sufficient to provide anchorage for the main bars.
Bridge Engineering
Skew Bridges: Design
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Topic of Discussion
Bridge Engineering
Curved Bridges: Overview
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Curved Bridges: Overview
Bridge Engineering
Curved Bridges: Methods of Analysis
Bridge Engineering
Curved Bridges: Simple Beam Theory
E L
applied torque along the span and the radius of curvature of the
bridge deck.
P T
N
Warping and distortion are ignored in this method. Local bending
moments in the deck slab are determined from the influence
surfaces and the transverse moments around the girders by
moment distribution for the element.
Bridge Engineering
Curved Bridges: Analysis of Curved Girders
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Curved Bridges: Warping and Distortion
E L
P T
N
Warping Distortion
Bridge Engineering
Curved Bridges: Moment Distribution of Elements
Local bending moments in the deck slab are determined from the
influence surfaces and the transverse moments around the girders
by moment distribution for the element.
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Curved Bridges: Folded Plate Analysis
E L
edges are derived from classical plate theory and the overall
P T
stiffness matrix for edge loading of the structure assembled.
N
All points of the longitudinal edges have four degrees of freedom.
Based on the load position, the fixed end moments and forces are
determined and applied to the structure.
Bridge Engineering
Curved Bridges: Folded Plate Analysis
The solutions are obtained using Fourier series and the final
results are obtained by superposition of the results of each
harmonic loading. This method is ideally suited for curved simply
supported structures of constant cross-sections.
E L
Continuous structures are analyzed by considering the structure
P T
as simply supported in the first stage and then eliminating the
N
displacements at the interior supports as a second stage in the
analysis.
Bridge Engineering
Curved Bridges: Finite Strip Method
E L
as that for the folded plate method and the solution is based on the
superposition of loading harmonics.
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Curved Bridges: Finite Element Method
E L
structures with its accuracy dependent on the nature and number
of elements.
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Topic of Discussion
Bridge Engineering
Design of RC Skew Slab Culvert: Problem Statement
Design a Simply Supported RC Slab Culvert for a National Highway
crossing for IRC Class AA Tracked Vehicle Loading.
Bridge Engineering
Design of RC Skew Slab Culvert: Problem Statement
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Design of RC Skew Slab Culvert: Solution
1. Given Data:
Clear Skew Span = 6 m
Width of Bearing = 370 mm
IRC Class AA Tracked Vehicle Loading
L
M20 Grade Concrete and Fe 415 Grade HYSD Bars
2. Material Properties:
T E
Concrete: fck = 20 N/mm2, Ec = 23 GPa
NP
Steel: fyk = 415 N/mm2, Es = 200 GPa
Bridge Engineering
Design of RC Skew Slab Culvert: Solution
For L/d = 15, d = (span/15) = (6000/15) = 400 mm
For higher skew angled (>15°) deck slabs, the table prepared by
The Ministry of Surface Transport (Roads Wing) can be used.
E L
depth of slab can be adopted as 540 mm.
P T
Based on the Table, for clear span 6 m, skew angle 30°, overall
N
Using 20 mm diameter HYSD bars with clear cover of 40 mm,
Effective Depth of slab d = 540 ‒ (40 + 10) = 490 mm
Bridge Engineering
Design of RC Skew Slab Culvert: Solution
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Design of RC Skew Slab Culvert: Solution
Effective Depth of slab d = 490 mm
Width of bearing = 370 mm
Effective Span is least of
• Clear Span + Effective Depth = (6 + 0.49) = 6.49 m
•
E L
Centre to Centre Distance of Bearings = (6 + 0.37) = 6.37 m
Hence, Effective Span = 6.37 m
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
Design of RC Skew Slab Culvert: Solution
4. Dead Load Bending Moments:
Self-Weight of RC Slab = (24 × 0.54) = 12.96 kN/m2
Self-Weight of Wearing Coat = (22 × 0.08) = 1.76 kN/m2
Total Dead Load = (12.96 + 1.76) = 14.72 kN/m2
E L
Bending Moment due to Dead Load = 14.72 × 6.372/8 = 74.661 kN-m
P T
5. Live Load Bending Moments:
N
For IRC Class AA Tracked Vehicles, Impact Factor is 25% of the
span for up to 5 m span decreasing linearly to 10% for span of 9 m.
Therefore, for 6.37 m span, Impact Factor = [25 ‒ (15/4) × (6.37 ‒ 5)]
= 19.86%
Bridge Engineering
Design of RC Skew Slab Culvert: Solution
Tracked Vehicle is placed symmetrically on the span.
Effective Length of Load = 3.6 + 2 × (0.08 + 0.54) = 4.84 m
4840 mm
3185 mm
E L
6370 mm
P T
N
Position of Load for Maximum Bending Moment
Bridge Engineering
Design of RC Skew Slab Culvert: Solution
x = 3.185 m, L = 6.37 m, B = 7.5 m and B/L = 1.18
For B/L = 1.18, K = 2.63
be = 2.63 × 3.185 × (1 ‒ 3.185/6.37) + 1.01 = 5.198 m
The tracked vehicle is placed close to the kerb with the required
minimum clearance of 1200 mm.
E L
mm mm mm mm
P T
N 540
mmmm
1625 mm mm (5198/2) mm
6274 mm
mm
Bridge Engineering
Design of RC Skew Slab Culvert: Solution
Net Effective Width of Dispersion = (1.625 + 2.05 + 5.198/2) = 6.274 m
E L
T
Maximum Bending Moment due to Live Load is given by Mmax =
P
(27.63 × 4.84 × 6.37/4) ‒ (27.63 × 4.842/ 8) = 132.057 kN-m
N
Total Service Load Bending Moment M = (MDead + MLive) = (74.661 +
132.057) = 206.718 kN-m
Bridge Engineering
Design of RC Skew Slab Culvert: Solution
6. Shear Forces due to Dead Load and Live Load
Shear Force from Dead Load = 14.72 × 6.37/2 = 46.883 kN
For Maximum Shear Force at Support, IRC Class AA Tracked
Vehicle is arranged as follows.
4840 mm
mm
E L
mm
P T
N
x = 2420 mm
6370 mm
mm
Bridge Engineering
Design of RC Skew Slab Culvert: Solution
x = 2.42 m, L = 6.37 m, B = 9.5 m and B/L = 1.18
For B/L = 1.18, K = 2.63
be = 2.63 × 2.42 × (1 ‒ 2.42/6.37) + 1.01 = 4.956 m
mm mm mm mm
E L
P T 540
mm
N
mm
1625 mm mm (4956/2) mm
6153 mm
mm
Bridge Engineering
Design of RC Skew Slab Culvert: Solution
Average Intensity of Load = 839.02/ (4.84 × 6.153) = 28.713 kN/m2
Maximum Shear Force = 28.713 × 4.84 × (6.37 ‒ 2.42)/ 6.37 = 86.175
kN
Total Service Load Shear Force V = (VDead + VLive) = (46.883 + 86.175)
= 133.058 kN
E L
T
Total Design Ultimate Shear Force = (1.35 × VDead + 1.5 × VLive) =
P
N
(1.35 × 46.883 + 1.5 × 86.175) = 192.554 kN
7. Design of Slab:
Using M20 grade concrete and Fe 415 HYSD bars, Limiting moment
of resistance for singly reinforced sections can be expressed as:
Mu,lim = 0.138 × fckbd2
Bridge Engineering
Design of RC Skew Slab Culvert: Solution
Effective Depth of Slab required, dreqd = √(M/0.138 fckb) = √(298.878 ×
106)/(0.138 × 20 × 1000) = 329.073 mm ≈ 330 mm
Since Effective Depth of Slab provided d = 490 mm > 330 mm, the
section is under-reinforced. The area of reinforcement required to
L
resist the ultimate bending moment can be computed using the
E
T
following relation.
Mu = 0.87fy Ast [d ‒ (fy Ast / fckb)]
N P
where area of tension steel is given by Ast
298.878 × 106 = 0.87 × 415 × Ast × [490 ‒ 415 × Ast / (20 × 1000)]
7.49 × Ast2 ‒ 176914.5 × Ast + 298.878 × 106 = 0
Ast = 1831.39 mm2
Bridge Engineering
Design of RC Skew Slab Culvert: Solution
Using 20 mm diameter bars as main reinforcement, the spacing is
given by: S = (1000 ast/ Ast) = (1000 × 314/ 1831.39) = 171.454 mm
E L
Area of steel provided = (1000 × 314/ 115) = 2730.435 mm2
P T
The distribution reinforcement should be designed to resist the
transverse moment. N
Transverse Moment = (0.2 × Multimate Dead + 0.3 × Multimate Live) = (0.2 ×
1.35 × MDead + 0.3 × 1.5 × MLive) = (0.2 × 1.35 × 74.661 + 0.3 × 1.5 ×
132.057) = 79.584 kN-m
Bridge Engineering
Design of RC Skew Slab Culvert: Solution
The area of reinforcement required to resist the transverse moment
can be computed using the following relation.
Mu = 0.87fy Ast [d ‒ (fy Ast / fckb)]
where area of tension steel is given by Ast
E L
79.584 × 106 = 0.87 × 415 × Ast × [490 ‒ 415 × Ast / (20 × 1000)]
P
7.49 × Ast2 ‒ 176914.5 × Ast + 79.584 × 106 = 0 T
Ast = 458.754 mm2 N
Using 10 mm diameter bars as distribution reinforcement, the
spacing S = (1000 ast/ Ast) = (1000 × 78.54/ 458.754) = 171.203 mm
Bridge Engineering
Design of RC Skew Slab Culvert: Solution
10 mm diameter HYSD bars can be provided as distribution
reinforcement at a spacing of 100 mm as part of the bottom
reinforcement. (Conforming to the Table)
N
reinforcement at a spacing of 260 mm as part of the top
reinforcement. (As per the Table)
Bridge Engineering
Design of RC Skew Slab Culvert: Solution
8. Check for Ultimate Flexural Strength:
Ultimate Flexural Strength of Deck Slab Mu = 0.87fyAst [d ‒
(fyAst/fckb)]
= 0.87 × 415 × 2730.435 × [490 ‒ 415 × 2730.435/ (20 × 1000)]
E L
= 427200205 N-mm = 427.2 kN-m > 298.878 kN-m (Hence, safe)
Bridge Engineering
Design of RC Skew Slab Culvert: Solution
VRd,c = [0.12K(80 ρ1fck)0.33] bd
= [0.12 × 1.639 × (80 × 0.0056 × 20)0.33] × 1000 × 490
= 198709 N = 198.709 kN > 192.554 kN (Hence, safe)
L
10. Limit State of Cracking:
T E
IRC 112: 2011 prescribes a permissible crack width of 0.3 mm in
N P
reinforced concrete members under moderate exposure condition.
Tables 12.2 and 12.3 of IRC: 112-2011 outlines the maximum bar
size and maximum spacing for permissible crack width and service
stress in steel.
Bridge Engineering
Design of RC Skew Slab Culvert: Solution
Table 12.2 of IRC: 112-2011 Table 12.3 of IRC: 112-2011
Service Maximum Bar Size (mm) Service Maximum Bar Spacing (mm)
Stress (MPa) Wk = 0.3 mm Wk = 0.2 mm Stress (MPa) Wk = 0.3 mm Wk = 0.2 mm
160 32 25 160 300 200
200 25 16 200 250 150
L
240 16 12 240 200 100
280 12 ─ 280
T E150 50
P
320 10 ─ 320 100 ─
Bridge Engineering
Design of RC Skew Slab Culvert: Solution
bx2/2 = (Es/Ec) × Ast × (d ‒ x)
500x2 = (200/23) × 2730.435 × (490 ‒ x)
500x2 + 23742.913x ‒ 11634027.39 = 0
x = 130.632 mm
E L
σs = M/ [(d ‒ x/3)Ast] = 206718000/ [(490 ‒ 130.632/3) × 2730.435]
= 169.578 MPa
P T
N
For stress in steel 169.578 MPa and permissible crack width of 0.3
mm, maximum bar diameter and maximum bar spacing given by
IRC:112-2011 are 30 mm and 288 mm.
The slab is reinforced with 20 mm diameter bars at 115 mm spacing.
Hence, the bar size and the spacing are within the safe limits for
control of cracking.
Bridge Engineering
Design of RC Skew Slab Culvert: Solution
11. Limit State of Deflection:
𝟏
a) Deflection due to Shrinkage acs = k r L2
cs
L
k = 0.125 for simply supported ends
𝟏
= Shrinkage curvature = [εcsαe(S/I)]
T E
P
rcs
αe = Modular Ratio =
𝑬𝒔
𝑬𝒄
𝑬𝒔 = Young’s Modulus of Steel
N
𝑬𝒄 = Young’s Modulus of Concrete
𝑬𝒔
αe = = 200/23 = 8.696
𝑬𝒄
Bridge Engineering
Design of RC Skew Slab Culvert: Solution
S = First Moment of Area of Reinforcement about Centroid of
Section = 2730.435 × (270 – 40 – 20/2) = 602895.7 mm3
I = Second Moment of Area of the section = (1000 × 5403/12) =
13.122 × 109 mm4
S/I = 45.952 × 10‒6 /mm
E L
εcs = Total shrinkage strain = (εcd + εca) where
P T
εcd = Drying shrinkage strain
εca = Autogenous shrinkage strain
N
Development of drying shrinkage strain with time εcd(t) = βds(t, ts) kh
εcd, unrestrained
Where βds(t, ts) = [(t ‒ ts)/{(t ‒ ts) + 0.04√h03}]
Bridge Engineering
Design of RC Skew Slab Culvert: Solution
h0 = Notional size of cross-section = 2Ac/u
Ac = Cross-sectional area of concrete = 1000 × 540 = 540000 mm2
u = Perimeter of the cross-section exposed to drying shrinkage =
2000 mm
h0 = 2Ac/u = 2 × 540000/ 2000 = 540 mm
E L
P T
t = Age of concrete in days at the time considered = 365 days
N
ts = Age of concrete in days at the beginning of drying shrinkage,
normally at the end of curing i.e. 28 days
βds(t, ts) = [(t ‒ ts)/{(t ‒ ts) + 0.04√h03}]
= [(365 ‒ 28)/{(365 ‒ 28) + 0.04√5403}] = 0.402
Bridge Engineering
Design of RC Skew Slab Culvert: Solution
εcd, unrestrained = 558 × 10‒6 for fck = 20 MPa and Relative Humidity 50%
Table 6.8 of IRC: 112-2011
kh = 0.70 for h0 = 540 mm εcd, unrestrained (× 106)
Table 6.7 of IRC: 112-2011 fck
Relative Humidity (%)
(MPa)
h0 (mm) kh
20 50 80
100 1.0
L
25 620 535 300
200 0.85
E
50 480 420 240
T
300 0.75
75 380 330 190
≥ 500 0.70
95
N P 300
εcd(t) = βds(t, ts) khεcd, unrestrained = 0.402 × 0.70 × 558 × 10‒6 = 157.021 ×
260 150
10‒6
εca = 15 × 10‒6 for M20 Concrete
Table 6.6 of IRC: 112-2011
Grade of Concrete M30 M35 M45 M50 M60 M65
Autogenous Shrinkage Strain εca (× 106) 35 45 65 75 95 105
Bridge Engineering
Design of RC Skew Slab Culvert: Solution
Total shrinkage strain εcs = εcd + εca = 157.021 × 10‒6 + 15 × 10‒6 =
172.021 × 10‒6
𝟏
Shrinkage curvature r = [εcsαe(S/I)] = 172.021 × 10‒6 × 8.696 × 45.952
cs
× 10‒6 = 68739.349 × 10‒12
Deflection due to shrinkage acs = k
𝟏
rcs
E L
L2 = 0.125 × 68739.349 × 10‒12
× 63702 = 0.349 mm
P T
N
b) Long term Deflection due to Sustained (Dead) Loads ad =
5wdL4/384Ec,eff Ieff
Total Dead Load wd = 14.72 kN/m = 14.72 N/mm
Effective Span L = 6.37 m = 6370 mm
Bridge Engineering
Design of RC Skew Slab Culvert: Solution
Effective Moment of Inertia Ieff = 0.7 I = 9.185 × 109 mm4
Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete Ec = 23 kN/mm2 = 23000 N/mm2
Effective Modulus of Elasticity for Concrete Ec,eff = Ec/(1 + ø)
Where ø is Creep Coefficient
Table 6.9 of IRC: 112-2011
E L
T
Creep Coefficient ø
P
Age at
Loading Notional Size 2Ac/u (mm)
t0
(days)
50 150 600
Dry atmospheric conditions (RH 50%)
N50 150 600
Humid atmospheric conditions (RH 80%)
1 5.50 4.60 3.70 3.60 3.20 2.90
7 5.50 4.60 3.70 2.60 2.30 2.00
28 3.90 3.10 2.60 1.90 1.70 1.50
90 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.40 1.20
365 1.80 1.50 1.20 1.10 1.00 1.00
Bridge Engineering
Design of RC Skew Slab Culvert: Solution
For relative humidity 50%, Notional Size 2Ac/u = 540 mm and Age
at loading = 28 days, Creep Coefficient ø = 2.667 by linear
interpolation.
Ec,eff = Ec/(1 + ø) = (23000/3.667) = 6272.157 N/mm2
Maximum long term deflection due to dead load ad =
E L
T
5wdL4/384Ec,effIeff = (5 × 14.72 × 63704) / (384 × 6272.157 × 9.185 ×
P
109) = 5.478 mm
N
c) Deflection due to Live Loads al = 5wlL4/384EcIeff
Total Live Load wl = 27.63 kN/m2
Effective Span L = 6.37 m = 6370 mm
Bridge Engineering
Design of RC Skew Slab Culvert: Solution
Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete Ec = 23 kN/mm2 = 23000 N/mm2
Effective Moment of Inertia Ieff = 9.185 × 109 mm4
Maximum deflection due to live load al = 5wlL4/384EcIeff
= (5 × 27.63 × 63704) / (384 × 23000 × 9.185 × 109) = 2.804 mm <
Span/800 = (6370/800) = 7.962 mm
E L
P T
Total deflection = acs + ad + al = 0.349 + 5.478 + 2.804 = 8.631 mm <
Span/250 = (6370/250) = 25.48 mm
N
Hence the serviceability limit state of deflection is found within the
limits specified by IRC: 112 – 2011.
Bridge Engineering
Design of RC Skew Slab Culvert: Reinforcement Detailing
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
E L
P T
N
Bridge Engineering
v N. Krishna Raju, Design of Bridges, Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.
L
v D.J. Victor, Essentials of Bridge Engineering, Oxford & IBH Publishing
E
T
Co. Pvt. Ltd.
N P
v S. Ponnuswamy, Bridge Engineering, McGraw Hill Education.
v T.R. Jagadeesh and M.A. Jayaram, Design of Bridge Structures, PHI
Learning Pvt. Ltd.
v W.F. Chen, and L. Duan, Bridge Engineering Handbook, CRC Press, Taylor
& Francis Group.
v G. Parke and N. Hewson, ICE manual of Bridge Engineering, Thomas
Telford Publishing.