Analysis and design of prestressed concrete

box girder bridge

Posted in Prestress Engineering, Project Reports, Research Papers | Email This
Post |

By
Miss.P.R. Bhivgade
Abstract:- Bridge construction today has achieved a worldwide level of importance. Bridges
are the key elements in any road network Use of box girder is gaining popularity in bridge
engineering fraternity because of its better stability, serviceability, economy, aesthetic
appearance and structural efficiency. The structural behavior of box girder is complicated,
which is difficult to analyze in its actual conditions by conventional methods. In present
study a two lane simply supported Box Girder Bridge made up of prestressed concrete which
is analysis for moving loads as per Indian Road Congress (IRC:6) recommendations,
Prestressed Code (IS: 1343) and also as per IRC: 18 specifications. The analyzed of box
girder using SAP 2000 14 Bridge Wizard and prestressed with parabolic tendons in which
utilize full section. The various span/ depth ratio considered to get the proportioning depth
at which stresses criteria and deflection criteria get satisfied.
Keywords: Concrete Box Girder Bridge, Prestress Force, Eccentricity, Prestress Losses,
Reinforcement, Flexure strength, shear strength, SAP Model.
I. INTRODUCTION
Prestress concrete is ideally suited for the construction of medium and long span bridges.
Ever since the development of prestressed concrete by Freyssinet in the early 1930s, the
material has found extensive application in the construction of long-span bridges, gradually
replacing steel which needs costly maintenance due to the inherent disadvantage of
corrosion under aggressive environment conditions. One of the most commonly used forms
of superstructure in concrete bridges is precast girders with cast-in-situ slab. This type of
superstructure is generally used for spans between 20 to 40 m. T or I-girder bridges are the
most common example under this category and are very popular because of their simple
geometry, low fabrication cost, easy erection or casting and smaller dead loads. In this
paper study the India Road Loading considered for design of bridges, also factor which are
important to decide the preliminary sizes of concrete box girders. Also considered the
IRC:18-2000 for Prestressed Concrete Road Bridges and Code of Practice for Prestressed
Concrete Indian Standard. Analyze the Concrete Box Girder Road Bridges for various
spans, various depth and check the proportioning depth.
II. FORMULATION
A. Loading on Box Girder Bridge
The various type of loads, forces and stresses to be considered in the analysis and design of
the various components of the bridge are given in IRC 6:2000(Section II. But the common
forces are considered to design the model are as follows:
Dead Load(DL): The dead load carried by the girder or the member consists of its own
weight and the portions of the weight of the superstructure and any fixed loads supported
by the member. The dead load can be estimated fairly accurately during design and can be
controlled during construction and service.
Superimposed Dead Load (SIDL): The weight of superimposed dead load includes footpaths,
earth-fills, wearing course, stay-in -place forms, ballast, water-proofing, signs, architectural
ornamentation, pipes, conduits, cables and any other immovable appurtenances installed on
the structure.
Live Load(LL): Live loads are those caused by vehicles which pass over the bridge and are
transient in nature. These loads cannot be estimated precisely, and the designer has very
little control over them once the bridge is opened to traffic. However, hypothetical loadings
which are reasonably realistic need to be evolved and specified to serve as design criteria.
There are four types of standard loadings for which road bridges are designed.
i. IRC Class 70R loading
ii. IRC Class AA loading
iii. IRC Class A loading
iv. IRC Class B loading
The model is design by considering IRC Class A loading, which is normally adopted on all
roads on which permanent bridges and culverts are constructed. Total load is 554, the Fig.1
show the complete details of Class A.

Other information regarding Live load combination as per IRC:6 2000 Clause No.207.1 Note
No.4
B. Thickness of Web
The thickness of the web shall not be less than d/36 plus twice the clear cover to the
reinforcement plus diameter of the duct hole whered is the overall depth of the box girder
measured from the top of the deck slab to the bottom of the soffit or 200 mm plus the
diameter of duct holes, whichever is greater.
C. Thickness of Bottom Flange
The thickness of the bottom flange of box girder shall be not less than 1/20th of the clear
web spacing at the junction with bottom flange or 200 mm whichever is more.
D. Thickness of Top Flange
The minimum thickness of the deck slab including that at cantilever tips be 200 mm. For top
and bottom flange having prestressing cables, the thickness of such flange shall not be less
than 150 mm plus diameter of duct hole.
E. Losses in Prestress
While assessing the stresses in concrete and steel during tensioning operations and later in
service, due regard shall be paid to all losses and variations in stress resulting from creep of
concrete, shrinkage of concrete, relaxation of steel, the shortening (elastic deformation) of
concrete at transfer, and friction and slip of anchorage.
In computing the losses in prestress when untensioned reinforcement is present, the effect
of the tensile stresses developed by the untensioned reinforcement due to shrinkage and
creep shall be considered.
F. Calculation of Ultimate Strength
Ultimate moment resistance of sections, under these two alternative conditions of failure
shall be calculated by the following formulae and the smaller of the two values shall be
taken as the ultimate moment of resistance for design:
i. Failure by yield of steel (under-reinforced section)
M
ult
= 0.9d
b
A
s
F
p

Where,
A
s
= the area of high tensile steel
F
p
= the ultimate tensile strength for steel without definite yield point or yield stress or
stress at 4 per centelongation whichever is higher for steel with a definite yield point.
d
b
= the depth of the beam from the maximum compression edge to the centre of gravity of
the steel tendons.
ii. Failure by crushing concrete
M
ult
= 0.176 bd
b
2
f
ck

Where,
b = the width of rectangular section or web of beam
f
ck
= characteristics strength of concrete
G. Calculation of Section un- cracked in flexure

b = width in the case of rectangular member and width of the rib in the case of T, I and L
beams
d = overall depth of the member
fcp = compressive stress at centroidal axis due to prestress taken as positive.
III. ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF POST-TENSIONED DECK TYPE BOX-GIRDER
BRIDGE
A post- tensioned deck type Box Girder
Bridges of clear span 30m and width of roadway is 7.5m. Assume Live Load as per IRC: 6-
2000 vehicle is passing over deck given in chapter 4 and table no. 4.2. The Bridge analysis
for different L/d ratio starting from 15 to 20 and different L/d ratio considered are as
follows:
Case 1 L/d= 19, d = 1.6
Case 2 L/d =18, d = 1.7
Case3 L/d = 17, d = 1.8
Case4 L/d= 16, d= 1.9
Case5 L/d= 15, d=2.0
Preliminary data
Clear span = 30m
Width of roadway = 7.5 m
Overhang from face of girder = 1.2m
Deck thickness = 0.2 m
Bottom slab thickness = 0.2 m
Girder thickness = 0.3 m
The tendon profile is considered as parabolic in nature.
As per IRC:18-2000
fck= 50 Mpa, fci = 0.8f
ck
= 40 Mpa,
fct = 0.5fci = 20 Mpa, fcw = 0.33fck = 16.5 Mpa ft = 1/10fct = 2.0 Mpa, ftw = 0
As per IS:1343-1980
Ec = 5700fck
1/2
= 40.30 kN/m
2

fp = 1862 Mpa, n = 0.85, E = 210
5
Mpa



Validation of Resuts
The bending moment, shear force and deflection result obtained by SAP 2000. The bending
moment and shear force are calculated by considering different loading condition such as
dead load, live load and superimposed load. Same as deflection calculated. This results are
the Case:1.
Table.1 Deflection
Load Case DL +
SIDL
Live
Load
Prestressing
Force
Deflection (at
midspan)
30.8 mm 25.2 -14.36 mm
mm
Table.2 Bending Moment(t.m)
Span
(m)
0.0L 0.1L 0.2L 0.3L 0.4L 0.5L
DL 0.00 353.56 628.56 824.98 942.84 982.12
LL 0.00 218.76 381.63 494.10 564.85 587.82
SIDL 0.00 53.46 95.04 124.74 142.56 148.50
Total 0.00 625.78 1105.23 1443.82 1650.26 1718.45
Table.3 Shear Force (t)
Span
(m)
0.0L 0.1L 0.2L 0.3L 0.4L 0.5L
DL 130.9 104.7 78.57 52.4 26.3 0.0
LL 32.92 23.29 14.27 7.42 2.62 0.0
SIDL 19.80 15.84 11.88 7.92 3.90 0.0
Total 183.6 143.9 104.7 67.7 32.8 0.0
Table.4 Calculation of Prestress Force

Table.5 Calculation of Eccentricity
Eccentricity
(mm)
Prestressing
Force (kN)
The eccentricity
which give
minimum
prestressing force
(e) = 731mm
440 21617.96
548 19380.69
650 17655.06
731 16489.15
Table.6 Calculation of Prestress Losses
(As per IS:1343-1980)
Span
(m)
^S ^C ^E ^A ^F ^R Total n
0.0L
8E-
05
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 90 90 0.95
0.1L 2.6 2.3 78 9.7 90 182.6 0.9
0.2L 2.6 2.4 39 22 90 155.8 0.91
0.3L 2.6 2.4 26 36.7 90 157.7 0.91
0.4L 2.7 2.5 20 54.3 90 169.0 0.9
0.5L 9.1 8.3 16 171 90 294.0 0.85
Where,
^S = Shrinkage
^C= Creep
^E = Shortening of concrete
^A = Slip in anchorage
^F = Friction
^R = Relaxation
n= Efficiency
After Losses, effective Prestressing Force
(P) = P (1-Losses) = 14011.51 kN
Table.7 Calculation of Stresses at top and bottom fibre
Span
(m)
At Transfer At Service Load
Top
Fibre
Bottom
fibre
Top
fibre
Bottom
Fibre
0.0L 4.16 4.16 4.16 4.16
0.1L 2.98 5.48 6.35 0.00
0.2L 1.91 6.67 8.37 0.00
0.3L 2.112 6.44 7.46 0.00
0.4L 2.24 6.29 6.88 0.00
0.5L 3.00 6.24 6.42 0.00
Compressive Stress at
Transfer = 6.66 < 0.5 fcj = 20 mpa
Service = 8.367 < 0.33 fck = 16.5 mpa
Tensile stress at
Initial Stage = 2.979 < 3mpa
(As per IS:1343 1980)
Working Stage = No tensile stress
Table.8 Calculation of Ultimate Flexure Strength
Span
(m)
Ultimate Moment
Mu = (1.5DL +2.5
LL) (kN.m)
Failure by
yielding of
steel
(kN.m)
Failure by
crushing
of
concrete
(kN.m)
0.0L 0.00
340578.53 5970560
0.1L 11574.43
0.2L 20394.85
0.3L 26598.28
0.4L 30402.45
0.5L 31654.88
Table.9 Calculation of Ultimate Shear strength
Span
(m)
Ultimate
Moment
Vu =
(1.5DL
+2.5
Shear
capacity
Vcw
(kN)
Balance
Shear
(kN)
Spacing
(mm)
LL)
(kN.m)
0.0L 3084.27 363.85 2720.43 55
0.1L 2391.35 419.97 1971.38 75
0.2L 1713.50 432.54 1280.96 100
0.3L 1089.90 470.56 619.34 200
0.4L 517.85 492.95 24.90 300
0.5L 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
Design of Reinforcement in Box Girder Bridge
P =14011.51 kN, d = 1350 mm, bw = 200 mm
Assume 150 mm wide and 150 mm deep distribution plate, located concentrically at centre.
ypo /y0 = 75/150 = 0.5 ,
As per IRC:18-2000, From table value of Fbst/ Pk = 0.17 and Fbst = 452.753 kN
Using 12 mm diameter links, area of steel links are,
Ast = 1254 mm
/2

Providing 24 bars of 12 mm dia, 750mm also bar of 12 mm dia @ 110 mm c/c horizontally
to form mesh.
Side Face Reinforcement
As per clause 18.6.3.3 of IS:1343-1980
Ast = 0.05 x 1350 x 300/100 = 202.5 mm
/2

Provide 6 12 mm dia on each face of web
Design of Deck Slab
Using M30 grade concrete and Fe415
Total moment due to DL+SIDL+LL = 1427.0 kN.m
Depth required = 150.4 < 250 mm
Main Reinforcement
Ast = 3192.6824 mm
/2

Providing 16mm bars dia 100 mm c/c
Design of Transverse Reinforcement
M = 0.3ML + 0.2(MDL + MSIDL)
M = 324 kN.m
Ast = 724.74 mm
/2

Providing 12 mm dia bars @ 160 mm c/c


IV. COMPARSION OF RESULT FOR VARIOUS SPAN/ DEPTH RATIO
The comparison of prestress force, deflection and stresses values are obtained for various
span/depth ratio ( table no. 10 & 11) for box girder bridge. The values are calculated as per
IS:1343-1980.
Table.10 Comparison of Deflection for various span/depth ratio.
Span/Depth
Prestress
Force
(kN)
Eccentricity
(mm)
Deflection
DL-
Prestress
Force
DL +LL

Prestress
Force
1.6 16.48 731 11.2 36.4
1.7 15.66 777 11.4 33.6
1.8 14.83 829 9 30
1.9 14.02 886 6.6 26.6
2.0 13.20 950 5.6 25.3
Note: All dimension in tonnes and mm.
Permissible (DL-Prestress Force) = 12 mm
Permissible (DL-LL-Prestress Force)= 85.7 mm
Table.11 Comparison of stress for various span/depth ratio
Span/
Depth
Prestress
Force
(tonne)
Eccen
Tricity
(mm)

Stress at mid span
(N/mm
2
)
At Transfer
At
Working
Top Bottom Top
1.6 16.48 731 3.0 4.1 6.74
1.7 15.66 777 2.8 3.8 6.33
1.8 14.83 829 2.6 3.6 5.91
1.9 14.02 886 2.4 3.4 5.48
2.0 13.20 950 2.2 3.2 5.08
Note: Stress at mid span at working bottom = 0
V. CONCLUSION
This paper gives basic principles for portioning of concrete box girder to help designer to
start with project. Box girder shows better resistance to the torsion of superstructure. The
various trail of L/d ratio are carried out for Box Girder Bridges, deflection and stress criteria
satisfied the well within permissible limits. As the depth increases, the prestressing force
decreases and the no. of cables decrease. Because of prestressing the more strength of
concrete is utilized and also well governs serviceability.
VI. REFERENCES
1. IRC: 18 2000 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR PRESTRESSED CONCRETE ROAD BRIDGES
(POST TENSIONED CONCRETE) THE INDIAN ROADS CONGRESS.
2. IRC: 6- 2000 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND CODE OF PRACTICE FOR ROAD
BRIDGESTHE ROAD CONGRESS.
3. IS: 1343 1980 CODE OF PRACTICE FOR PRESTRESSED CONCRETE INDIAN
STANDARD.
4. Andre Picard and Bruno Massicotte, Member SERVICEABILITY DESIGN OF PRESTRESSED
CONCRETE BRIDGES JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 1999
5. Ferhat Akgul and Dan M. Frangopol Lifetime Performance Analysis of Existing
Prestressed Concrete Bridge Superstructures JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
ASCE / DECEMBER 2004
6. James H. Loper,1 Eugene L. Marquis,2 Members and Edward J. Rhomberg Fellow.
PRECAST PRESTRESSED LONG-SPAN BRIDGES JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
ASCE
7. John R. Fowler, P.Eng, Bob Stofko, P.Eng. Precast Options for Bridge Superstructure
Design Economical and Social Linkages Session of the 2007 Annual Conference of the
Transportation Association of Canada Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
8. Krishna Raju DESIGN OF BRIDGES OXFORD & IBH PUBLISHING CO. PVT. LTD.
9. Prof. Dr.-Ing. G. Rombach Concepts for prestressed concrete bridges Segmental box
girder bridges with external prestressing Technical University, Hamburg-Harburg,
Germany.
10. Tushar V. Ugale, Bhavesh A. Patel and H. V. Mojidra (2006)















How do engineer determine the number of
cells for concrete box girder bridges?
Posted in Bridge Engineering | Email This Post |

If the depth of a box girder bridge exceeds 1/6 or 1/5 of the bridge width, then it is
recommended to be designed as a single cell box girder bridge. However, if the bridge
depth is smaller than 1/6 of the bridge width, then a twin-cell or multiple cell is a better
choice as suggested by Jorg Schlaich & Hartmut Scheef (1982). However, one should note
that even for wider bridges with small depths, the number of cells should be minimized
because there is not much improvement in transverse load distribution when the number of
cells of box girder is increased to three or more.
This question is taken from book named A Self Learning Manual Mastering Different
Fields of Civil Engineering Works (VC-Q-A-Method) by Vincent T. H. CHU.
Are diaphragms necessary in the design of
concrete box girder bridges?
Posted in Bridge Engineering | Email This Post |

Diaphragms are adopted in concrete box girder bridges to transfer oads from bridge decks
to bearings. Since the depth of diaphragms normally exceeds the width by two times, they
are usually designed as deep beams. However, diaphragms may not be necessary in case
bridge bearings are placed directly under the webs because loads in bridge decks can be
directly transferred to the bearings based on Jorg Schlaich & Hartmut Scheef (1982). This
arrangement suffers from the drawback that changing of bearings during future
maintenance operation is more difficult.
In fact, diaphragms also contribute to the provision of torsional restraint to the bridge deck.
This question is taken from book named A Self Learning Manual Mastering Different
Fields of Civil Engineering Works (VC-Q-A-Method) by Vincent T. H. CHU.
What are the functions of diaphragms in
bridges?
Posted in Bridge Engineering | Email This Post |

Diaphragm is a member that resists lateral forces and transfers loads to support. Some of
the diaphragms are post-tensioned and some contain normal reinforcement. It is needed for
lateral stability during erection and for resisting and transferring earthquake loads. Based
on past research, diaphragms are ineffective in controlling deflections and reducing member
stresses. Moreover, it is commonly accepted that diaphragms aided in the overall
distribution of live loads in bridges.
The main function of diaphragms is to provide stiffening effect to deck slab in case bridge
webs are not situated directly on top of bearings. Therefore, diaphragms may not be
necessary in case bridge bearings are placed directly under the webs because loads in
bridge decks can be directly transferred to the bearings. On the other hand, diaphragms
also help to improve the load-sharing characteristics of bridges. In fact, diaphragms also
contribute to the provision of torsional restraint to the bridge deck.