A SEMINAR TOPIC ON

1
 CONTENTS
• INTRODUCTION
• OVERVIEW
• REVIEW OF LITERATURE
• MOTIVATION
• ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
• CONNECTION DESIGN
• RELIABILITY vs DESIGN PARAMETERS
• COMPARISION STUDY FOR IRC:112 & IRC:21
• CONCLUSION
• REFERENCES

2
 INTRODUCTION
• Definition of bridges : A bridge is a structure providing
passage over an obstacle without closing the way beneath.
• Importance of bridges : Plays a vital role in establishment of
cities along river side, economical development, transport of
goods and services, also adds to the aesthetics of the cities
• Components of bridges:
Super structure
Sub structure
Foundation
• Classification of bridges
According to function
 According to material used in construction
According to inter span relations
According to span length 3
 OVERVIEW
• Location : Kapila Prasad, Jatni-Bhubaneswar Road, Odisha
• Chainage – CH. 4/860 to 4/915
• Road type : Major District Road
• River : Rangiya Channel, supplementary channel to Daya River
• Length of Bridge : 56 meters
• Span length : 18.33 meters
• Number of Longitudinal Girders : 3
• Number of Cross Girders : 5
• Type : R.C.C T-beam Minor Bridge
• Traffic : Two lane two way
• Seismic zone : III
• Basic Wind speed : 50 m/s
• Approach of River and Road : Straight 4
 RIVIEW OF LITERATURE
• Guidelines : Indian Road Congress, Indian standards,
Limit state Method of Design
• Width of Carriage way :
Depends on the volume of traffic, expected emergency
vehicle width
Minimum width is 4.25 m, for two lane 7.50m and for n-
lanes n x 3.50 m
Footpath width : 0.60m as minimum
Divider provision is mandatory for 4-lane bridge
• Considering economy, R.C.C T-beam bridges are
economical for spans up to 25m. Also lesser the
number of piers, more economic the structure is and
less obstruction to water way
• Cross girders are provided for better transverse load
distribution to all the longitudinal girders present 5
 Contd.
• Loads Considered in Design:
Dead load and Super Imposed Dead weight
Live load from Vehicles with impact (IRC 6 : 2014)
Wind load
• Seismic load is ignored as the bridge length is lesser
than 60 m and the seismic zone is moderate
• Live load includes:
IRC class AA vehicle / Combat tank
IRC class A loading
IRC class B loading
IRC class 70R (ignored due to similarity with IRC class AA)
• Wind load was considered from IS 875 (part-iii) and IRC
6 : 2014
6
 7
MOTIVATION
• The road connecting to Bhubaneswar to Jatni has its
importance for business as well as social development
• Mushrooming high rise buildings as well as educational
institutes
• Bypass road running side of the National Highway
• Traffic jam and increasing transportation problem on
existing bridge
• Some demerits found in existing bridge are:
i. Deteriorated condition of existing bridge
ii. More numbers of piers obstructing the optimum flow
iii. Fractured stirrups and spalling off of the concrete
• Development of local area
• Getting the exposure to various aspects of design of bridges
CATCHMENT AREA (212 sqKm) [20]

8
 9
TRAFFIC SURVEY REPORT
 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
• Our design is divided in to the following parts
– Design of Deck slab
– Design of Longitudinal Girder
– Design of Cross Girder
• Methods used for Deck slab analysis: Pigeaud’s method[18][22][23][24]
• Method used for Longitudinal Girder analysis:
 Courbon’s method[22][23][24]
 Hendry-Jaegar Method [22][23][24]
 Modified Courbon’s method [10]
• The span has been derived from alignment survey of the bridge
and it was ascertained to be 18.33 meters
• Designed for two way traffic having width 3.75 meters each [19]
• Footpath of 750mm each are provided on each side with barrier
type Kerbs [19]
10
Cont.
• Pigeaud’s Method [18][22][23][24]:
i. This method is used to analyze the deck slab of the T-
beam bridge deck as recommended by IRC:112
ii. Elastic analysis is preferred over plastic analysis as
suggested by different codes including IRC:112
iii. Provides elastic analysis for symmetrical loading
M1  (m1   m2 )W

Where,
M 2  (m2   m1 )W
M1 = Short span moment
M2 = Long span moment
μ = Poisson’s ratio = 0.20 (as per IRC:112)
m1 , m2 = moment coefficient from Pigeaud’s curve 11
Cont.
• Courbon’s method [22][23][24]:
i. Ratio of span to length should be with in 2 to 4
ii. Cross girders should be given and its depth should be at least 0.7
times that of longitudinal girders
iii. The factor value in Courbon’s method is given by,

Rx 
W [1   I  d e ] x

n d I x
2

Where,
Rx = Reaction factor for girder under consideration
I = Moment of Inertia of each longitudinal girder
dx = Distance of girder under consideration from central axis of
bridge
W = total concentrated live load
n = number of longitudinal girders
e = eccentricity of live load with respect to axis of bridge 12
 Cont.
• Hendry-Jaegar method [22][23][24]:
i. Rational method of analysis of longitudinal girders
ii. This method replaces the transverse girders to equivalently stiff transverse medium
iii. The method is based on ratio of span to spacing and flexural rigidities of longitudinal and transverse
girders as well as its torsional rigidities
A  (12 /  4
)( L / h) 3 ( nEI r / EI )
F  ( 2
/ 2n)( h / L)(GJ / EI r )
C  EI1 / EI 2
mF  m0  ( m  m0 ) F A /(3  F A)
Where,
A = ratio of span to spacing of longitudinal girders
F = ratio of torsional to flexural rigidity of longitudinal and cross girders
L = span of bridge deck
h = spacing of longitudinal girders
n = no. of cross girders
EI = flexural rigidity of one longitudinal girder
GJ = Torsional rigidity of one longitudinal girder
EI1 & EI2 = Flexural rigidity of outer and inner longitudinal girders
Eir = Flexural rigidity of cross girder
mF = required distribution coefficient
m0 = coefficient for F = 0, obtained from the chart 13
m = coefficient for F = infinity , obtained from chart
 Cont.
• Modified Courbon’s Method [10]:

i. Ratio of span to length should be with in 2 to 4

ii. Cross girders should be given and its depth should be at least 0.7 times
that of longitudinal girders
iii. Combined Method of Grillage Method with Courbon’s Method
iv. The factor value in Courbon’s method is given by,

Rx 
W [1 
 I d e
]  CF x

n d I x
2

Where,
Rx = Reaction factor for girder under consideration
I = Moment of Inertia of each longitudinal girder
dx = Distance of girder under consideration from central axis of bridge
W = total concentrated live load
n = number of longitudinal girders
e = eccentricity of live load with respect to axis of bridge
CF = correction factor = CF  0.000134 x 2  0.0098 x  1.056
x = Span of each girder 14
COMPARISION OF RESULTS OF COURBON’S THEORY, GUYON MASSONET
METHOD AND STAAD Pro. (FEM) [12][13]

15
DECK SLAB ANALYSIS & DESIGN
• In deck slab analysis PIEGAUD’s curve was used as specified by IRC
112 : 2011 which gives elastic analysis
• The slab is 250mm thick supporting 80 mm thick wearing coat
through out
• Each slab panel has a dimension of 2.5m x 4.51m
• Analysis was carried out for both IRC class AA and IRC class A
vehicles keeping them in appropriate positions for worst case
scenario [22][23][24]
• Analysis Results:
 Maximum Short span Bending Moment : 32.40kN-m (tracked vehicle)
 Maximum Short span Bending Moment : 21.60kN-m (wheeled vehicle)
 Maximum shear force : 58.03kN (tracked vehicle)
 Point load distribution factor : 2.6 (Clause-B 3.2, IRC 112 : 2011)
 Impact factor considered : 20% (Cluase-208.4, IRC 6 : 2014)
• Area of Steel Provision:
 Reinforcement along short span : 12# 140 c/c
 Reinforcement along long span : 12# 175 c/c
 Yield strength of steel considered : 0.80fy (Clause-12.2.2, IRC 112) 16
17
EFFECT OF DECK SLAB THICKNESS [16]

18
CANTILEVER SLAB ANALYSIS & DESIGN
• In cantilever slab analysis PIEGAUD’s curve was used as specified
by IRC 112 : 2011 which gives elastic analysis
• The slab is 400mm thick at support to gradually varying to 200mm
at end supporting 80 mm thick wearing coat and footpath
• The cantilever overhang is 1.80m and the cantilever stiffening is
done as per the clause-16.6.1.4 of IRC 112:2011
• Analysis was carried out for IRC class A vehicles keeping them at
150mm closer to footpath as per IRC 6 : 2014 [19]
• Analysis Results:
 Maximum Cantilever Moment : 119kN-m (Class A vehicle)
 Maximum shear force : 97.40kN (tracked vehicle)
 Point load distribution factor : 2.6 (Clause-B 3.2, IRC 112 : 2011)
 Deflection : 4.80mm < (span/375) (Cl-12.4.1,IRC 112:2011)
• Area of Steel Provision:
 Reinforcement along cantilever span : 16# 200 c/c
 Reinforcement as distribution steel: 12# 175 c/c
 Yield strength of steel considered : 0.80fy (Clause-12.2.2, IRC 112)
19
20
SPAN LENGTH VS IRC LOADING [17]
• The design is based on latest revised code IRC 6 : 2014
• The chosen parameter is based on the Bending moment and
shear force
• Span of girder was chosen to be 8m to 28m
• Class of loading was considered as IRC class AA and IRC class
70R
• T-beam bridge deck with 3-longitudinal girders were
considered for analysis
• Severest moment and shear force was considered for plotting
the comparison graph
• Classical methods were used only for analysis
21
22
23
LONGITUDINAL GIRDER ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
• Preliminary data:
 Span of the girder : 18.33m
 Width of rib : 400mm
 Total depth of girder including deck : 1800mm
• Live load of IRC class AA tracked vehicle was positioned at the center of
the girder to obtain maximum bending moment and at the starting to
get maximum shear force using ILD [22][23][24]
• Bending moment obtained using various theories:
 Courbon’s Method : 4060kN-m (outer girder), 3360kN-m (inner girder)
 Modified Courbon’s Method : 3921kN-m (O.G), 3276kN-m (I.G)
 Hendry-Jaegar Method : 4941kN-m (O.G), 3446kN-m (I.G)
• Design Reinforcement:
 Area of steel outer girder : 20-30# bars in 5-rows
 Area of steel inner girder : 16-28# bars in 4-rows
 Area of steel at top : 8-16# bars in 2-rows
 Bursting reinforcement : 4-16# bars in 1-row (Section-10, IRC:112)
 Shear reinforcement : 4-legged 8# @ 200,160,190 &300 mm c/c as required
 Skin reinforcement : 10# 2-legged @150mm c/c & 8-12# side face reinf. 24
25
REINFORCEMENT CURTAILMENT
26
27
28
CROSS GIRDER ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
• Preliminary data:
 Spacing of the girder : 4.25m
 Width of rib : 300mm
 Total depth of girder including deck : 1800mm
• Live load of IRC class AA tracked vehicle was positioned at equal
distance from the center of the longitudinal girder to obtain
maximum bending moment and at one side to get maximum shear
force [22][23][24]
• Analysis results:
 Bending Moment : 332 kN-m
 Shear force : 222 kN
• Design Reinforcement:
 Area of steel at bottom: 4-20#
 Area of steel at top : 4-16#
 Bursting reinforcement : 4-12# bars in 1-row (Section-10, IRC:112)
 Shear reinforcement : 4-legged 8# @ 200 mm c/c
 Skin reinforcement : 8-12# side face reinforcement
29
30
CONNECTION DESGIN [3][4][7]
• T-beam girders are rested on the Neoprene pad with epoxy
coating on pedestals
• Connection is hinge type connection at ends
• No special connection design to avoid sliding for the following
reason:
 Seismic zone of the site : III
 Topography : Plain land with moderate undulations
 Bed slope : Bed slope of the Channel is lesser than 1 in 100
• The connection type is as shown in the figure below
 Connection bar from pedestal to enter into Neoprene pad
 Epoxy coating must hold the pad straight while installation
 Adequate bearing must be satisfied

31
TYPICAL CONNECTION DESGIN [4]

[3]
32
[7] 33
STRESS BLOCK PARAMETER OF CONCRETE & STRESS-STRAIN CURVE OF STEEL
[1][2][6][9][18][24]

34
RELIABILITY VS DESIGN PARAMETERS [1]
• The concept presented here with is based on Chinese code which is based on Limit State
Method of Design which is similar to Indian code IRC : 112
• The reliability is calculated on the basis of First Order Second Moment (FOSM) method and
the simulation is based on Monte Carlo Simulation for data compilation
• The performance function for Ultimate Limit State is taken as :
Z = R-S = R - MD – ML - MI where ’R’ is ultimate moment capacity for flexure, ‘S’ is Load
Effect
• In the FOSM method, The parameter ‘Z’ follows normal distribution leading to probability of
failure as: Pf  P(Z  0)   ( z   z )
where, (.) = cumulative distribution function
 z = mean of the samples
 z = standard deviation of the samples
z
 FORM 
• The reliability index is given by, z
• Design parameters used for comparison with reliability is are:
 Grade of Concrete
 Span Length
 Spacing of girders
 Number of Traffic lanes
 Grade of steel
• Relation between cost of construction and reliability was also studied which indicates that
the over all cost is lesser with increased reliability
35
36
37
38
39
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF FREQUENCY WITH SPRING STIFFNESS USING ANN [8]

40
41
COMPARISION STUDY OF REINFORCEMENT FOR IRC:112 vs IRC:21 [11][14][15]
[11]

42
[14]

43
[15]

44
 45

CONCLUSION
After designing super structure for T-beam bridge over
Rangiya channel, and considering the recommendations
from reputed international journals and national codes of
various countries, it can be concluded that:
 Economical Span of T-beam Bridge deck is : 12m to 25m
 Thickness of deck slab : 200 to 300 mm
 Depth of Cross Girder : 0.70 to 1.0 times of Main
Longitudinal Girder
 No. of Cross Girders : 3(min) to 5 (desirable)
 Optimum Girder spacing : 2.00m to 2.50m
 Optimum grade of Concrete and Steel : M25-M40/Fe415
 Method of Design : Limit State Method with Elastic Analysis
THANK YOU

46
 REFERENCES
1. Reliability analysis of RC T-beam highway bridges in China based on a virtual bridge
dataset, Huibing Xie, Yuanfeng Wang, Ruofei Zou, Elsevier, Engineering Structures 104
(2015) PP. 133–140
2. Minimum cost design of reinforced concrete T-beams at ultimate loads using
Eurocode2, Ferhat Fedghouche, Boualem Tiliouine, Elsevier, Engineering Structures 42
(2012) PP. 43–50
3. Failure of concrete T-beam and box-girder highway bridges subjected to cyclic
loading from traffic, Kent K. Sasaki, Terry Paret, Juan C. Araiza , Peder Hals, Elsevier,
Engineering Structures 32 (2010) PP. 1838–1845
4. Seismic fragility of typical bridges in moderate seismic zones, Eunsoo Choi, Reginald
DesRoches, Bryant Nielson, Elsevier, Engineering Structures 26 (2004) PP. 187–199
5. Assessment of the reliability profiles for concrete bridges, Palle Thoft-Christensen,
Elsevier, Engineering Structures Vol.20 (1998) PP. 1004–1009
6. Cost optimization of singly and doubly reinforced concrete beams with EC2-2001,
M.H.F.M. Barros · R.A.F. Martins · A.F.M. Barros, Springer-Verlag, Struct Multidisk
Optim 30 (2005) PP. 236–242
7. Analytical and experimental study on seismic performance of RC T-beams with
design deficiency in steel bar curtailment, Y.C. Wang, Elsevier, Engineering Structures
25 (2003) PP. 215–227
47
 48

REFERENCES
8. Linear and nonlinear model updating of reinforced concrete T-beam bridges using artificial
neural networks, Og˘uzhan Hasancebi, Taha Dumlupınar, Elsevier, Computers and Structures
119 (2013) PP. 1–11
9. Strain limits vs. reinforcement ratio limits – A collection of new and old formulas for the
design of reinforced concrete sections, Carlos E. Orozco, Elsevier, Case studies in Structural
Engineering 4 (2015) PP. 1–13
10. Study of Effectiveness of Courbon’s Theory in the Analysis of T-beam Bridges, M.G.
Kalyanshetti and R.P. Shriram, IJSER, Vol-4, Issue-3, 2013, PP. 1-4
11. Comparative Study of design of longitudinal girder of T- Beam Bridge Using IRC 21-2000 &
IRC 112-2011, Mahantesh.S.Kamatagi, Prof. M. Manjunath, IRJET, Vol-2, Issue-6, 2015, PP.
1306-1309
12. Comparative analysis of T-beam bridge by rational method and staad pro, Praful N K ,
Balaso Hanumant, IJESRT, Vol-4, Issue-6, 2015, PP. 72-89
13. Analysis of T-beam Bridge Using Finite Element Method, R.Shreedhar, Spurti Mamadapur,
IJEIT, Vol-2, Issue-3, 2012, PP. 340-346
14. Comparative study for flexure design using IRC 112:2011 & IRC 21:2000, B.H.Solanki &
Prof.M.D.Vakil, IJSER, Vol-4, Issue-6, 2013, PP. 1-6
15. Comparative study for SHEAR design using IRC 112:2011 & IRC 21:2000, B.H.Solanki &
Prof.M.D.Vakil, IJSER, Vol-4, Issue-6, 2013, PP. 1331-1334
16. Effect of deck thickness in RCC T-beam bridge, Manjeetkumar M Nagarmunnoli and S V Itti,
IJSCER, Vol-3, Issue-1, 2014, PP. 36-43
 REFERENCES
17. Flexural Behavior of Longitudinal Girders of RC T-Beam Deck Slab Bridge, Anilkumar H, B S
Suresh Chandra, IJ2015, PP. 639-642SRD, Vol-3, Issue-5,
18. IRC : 112 - 2011 (REV.2015) , Code of Practice for Concrete Road Bridges, Indian Road
Congress, 2011
19. IRC : 6 – 2014, Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section-II,
Loads and Stresses, Indian Road Congress, 2014
20. IRC : 78 – 2000, Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section-VII,
Foundation and Sub structure, 2nd Revision, Indian Road Congress, 2014
21. IS : 875 (Part-I,II,III) – 1987, Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than
Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures, Second Revision, Bureau of Indian Standard,
1989/1998
22. Essentials of Bridge Engineering, D J Victor, Oxford&IBH Publication, 4th Edition
23. Design of Bridges, N.Krishna Raju, Oxford&IBH Publication, 4th Edition
24. R.C.C Designs,page-805 to 913, B.C Punmia et all, Laxmi Publications, 10th Edition

49