IJSTE - International Journal of Science Technology & Engineering | Volume 1 | Issue 11 | May 2015

ISSN (online): 2349-784X

Comparative Study of Bearing and Integral Type

Bridges as Per Indian Standards
Tejas N Rathi
PG Student
Department of Applied Mechanics
L. D. College of Engineering

Prof. (Dr.) B. J. Shah

Professor
Department of Applied Mechanics
L. D. College of Engineering

Abstract
Integral Bridges are the joint less continuous bridges without any expansion joint and bearings. The monolithic construction
eliminates the weak links like expansion joints and bearings. However due to continuity, additional stresses and moments due to
temperature, braking forces and earth pressure are observed in superstructure. These effects adds up to the complexity in design.
In this paper, the design moments for the different components of superstructure are compared for both types of bridges.
However design has been carried out for superstructure according to working stress design philosophy, and the reinforcement
area is also compared for both type of bridges. Analysis and design has been carried out for one span, two span and three span
bridges of both type.
Keywords: Integral Bridge, Bearing Bridge, Working Stress Design Philosophy, Comparative Study, Bridge
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I. INTRODUCTION
Highway bridges traditionally have a system of expansion joint, abutment bearing and other structural releases to negotiate cyclic
thermal expansion and contraction, creep and shrinkage, and are known as Bearing Bridges. While integral type bridge
structures, on the other hand, are single or multiple span bridges that have their superstructure cast integral with their
substructure. Integral bridges accommodate superstructure movements without conventional expansion joints. Due to the
elimination of the bridge deck expansion joints, construction and maintenance costs are reduced, but additional stresses due to
temperature and braking forces are observed to be significant. The earliest examples of integral bridges (IB) are masonry arch
bridges. The construction of IB has been pursued in various countries like U.S.A, Canada, U.K, Sweden, Poland, Germany and
Japan.
Due to the rigid connection between superstructure and piers/abutments, the effect of temperature change causes moments to
generate and transfers it from superstructure to abutment/piers and from abutment/piers to foundation. This moments and
displacements can be negotiated by combined action of superstructure and substructure.
The rigid connection, as shown in figure 1, allows the abutment and the superstructure to act as a single structural unit.

Fig. 1: Simplified Geometry of an Integral Abutment Bridge

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

98

Comparative Study of Bearing and Integral Type Bridges as Per Indian Standards
(IJSTE/ Volume 1 / Issue 11 / 018)

II. GEOMETRY OF THE STRUCTURE AND MODELLING

Fig. 2: Geometry of Superstructure

Fig. 3: Geometry of substructure Pier/Abutment Foundation

Span length 25 m
No of lanes 2
A. STAAD Model:

Fig. 4: Grillage Model for Bearing Bridge Superstructure

Fig. 5: Grillage Model for Integral Bridge Superstructure

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

99

Comparative Study of Bearing and Integral Type Bridges as Per Indian Standards
(IJSTE/ Volume 1 / Issue 11 / 018)

III. LOADS DESCRIPTION

Loads considered and calculated in accordance with the IRC: 6-2014 for analysis purpose are briefed as below:
A. Dead Load:
Dead load comprises of the self-weight of the components of the bridge superstructure and substructure. However, load are not assigned as
self-weight for all members, except pier and abutment, instead it is applied as floor load for weight of deck, wearing coat and crash barrier on
the floor occupied by the same, while self-weight of girders and diaphragms are assigned as uniform load throughout the length of member.

B. Live Load:
Live load are considered as per IRC: 6-2014, for two lane bridges, i.e. two lanes of class A and one lane of class 70R (W).
EARTHQUAKE (EQ) FORCE
EQ forces are calculated based on the dead load and live load on pier/abutment. These forces are applied at the pier/abutmentdeck junction of bridge, in longitudinal as well as transverse direction.
C. Wind Force:
Wind forces are calculated for the basic data of site located in the Ahmedabad city of Gujarat, India. Which are applied at the
pier/abutment-deck junction of bridge, in longitudinal as well as transverse direction.
D. Temperature Force:
Forces due to temperature loading are calculated for, expansion as well as contraction conditions. These forces are applied at the
abutment-deck junction of bridge, in longitudinal direction only at both the ends of bridge.
E. Braking Force:
Live load braking force is applied similarly as temperature forces but at only one end of the bridge in traffic direction.
F. Earth Pressure:
Earth pressure are calculated based on the coefficient of earth pressure, which in case of integral bridge is dependent on net
displacement due to temperature and braking forces, while for bearing bridges the coefficient of earth pressure is considered as
active earth pressure coefficient.
G. Load Cases Considered:

Load cases are considered on the working stress design philosophy. In case of bearing bridges, the load cases
considered are DL + LL. While for integral bridges, due to continuity in construction, the load cases considered are as
follows:
Table 1
Load Cases Considered for Integral Bridges
DL

SIDL

LL

TL

BL

Load Case 1

Load Case 2

Load Case 3

Load Case 4

SP

WL

Eqx

Eqz

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

100

Comparative Study of Bearing and Integral Type Bridges as Per Indian Standards
(IJSTE/ Volume 1 / Issue 11 / 018)

Load Case 5

0.2

0.2

0.3

Load Case 6

0.2

0.2

0.3

Load Case 7

0.2

0.2

0.3

Load Case 8

0.2

0.2

0.3

IV. RESULTS
Results are compared for the design moments in deck slab, girder, and diaphragms of superstructure, for one span, two span and
three span integral and bearing type bridges.
A. Design Moments in Deck Slab:
Design of deck slab for one span, two span and three span bridges of both the types is going to remain same, hence calculation is
done for one span of bearing bridge and integral bridge.
Table - 2
Comparison of Moments in Deck Slab (Hogging (+ve), Sagging (ve))
Bearing
Integral
% Decrease
Max Span
Max Support
Max Span
Max Support
Max Span
Max Support
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)
Design
Moments

28.124

-51.585

16.801

-38.086

40.26

26.16

B. Reinforcement Comparison:
Table 3
Reinforcement Comparison

Bearing Bridge
Integral Bridge
Max Span Max Support Max Span Max Support
Main
Main
Main
Main
Ast (mm2)
804.6
1408
603.43
1005.714
Above reinforcement is calculated for per meter length, and the area of steel is in mm2. Bar charts are prepared for the
comparison purpose:

Fig. 6: Comparison of Moments in Deck Slab

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

101

Comparative Study of Bearing and Integral Type Bridges as Per Indian Standards
(IJSTE/ Volume 1 / Issue 11 / 018)

Fig. 7: Comparison of Reinforcement in Deck Slab

C. Design Moments in Girder:
For comparison purpose of moments and reinforcements of both type bridge, the load cases for integral bridges are taken similar
as bearing bridges, i.e. DL + LL. Moments and reinforcement are considered for only sagging case.
Table 4
Design Moments in Girder

1 Span
2 Span
3 Span

Integral
3252.90
2852.16
2661.90

Bearing
4342.41
4342.41
4342.41

% decrease
25.0900829
31.0640367
31.6441424

D. Reinforcement Comparison:
Table 5
Reinforcement Comparison

1 Span
2 Span
3 Span

Integral
13677.71
12068.57
11264

Bearing
16091.43
16091.43
16091.43

% decrease
15
25
30

Fig. 8: Comparison of Bearing and Integral Bridge Sagging Moment

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

102

Comparative Study of Bearing and Integral Type Bridges as Per Indian Standards
(IJSTE/ Volume 1 / Issue 11 / 018)

Fig. 9: Comparison of Reinforcement in Bearing and Integral Bridge

E. Design Moments for Internal Diaphragm:

Table 6
Design Moments for Internal Diaphragm
Integral
Bearing
% decrease
Sagging

Hogging

Sagging

Hogging

Sagging

Hogging

1 Span

303.6

348.33

340.372

350.135

10.8

0.5

2 Span

303.7

340.19

340.372

350.135

10.8

2..8

3 Span

304.4

314.07

340.372

350.135

10.8

10.3

F. Reinforcement Comparison for Internal Diaphragm:

Table 7
Reinforcement Comparison for Internal Diaphragm

1 Span
2 Span
3 Span

Integral
4676.57
4376.43
4376.43

Bearing
4755.14
4755.14
4755.14

% Decrease
1.6
7.96
7.96

Fig. 10: Comparison of Sagging Moment

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

103

Comparative Study of Bearing and Integral Type Bridges as Per Indian Standards
(IJSTE/ Volume 1 / Issue 11 / 018)

Fig. 11: Comparison of Hogging Moment

Fig. 12: Comparison of Reinforcement in Diaphragm

V. CONCLUSION
1) Comparing moments in deck slab, it can be observed in this case that the span moment (Sagging) is 40.6%, while
support moment (Hogging) is 26.16% lesser in integral bridges compared to bearing bridges.
2) Corresponding to these moments the calculated reinforcements are also lesser compared to bearing bridges.
3) Comparison in girders are made only for sagging moments and it can be seen that there is 25.09%, 31.06% and 31.66%
decrease in moments value, for one span two span and three span integral bridge compared to one span, two span and
three span bearing bridges, respectively.
4) However, it can be concluded that as the number of span increases the rate of reduction in sagging moments also
reduces in integral bridges compared to bearing bridges.
5) In case of internal diaphragm, it can be said that, for this case the sagging moment is found to be almost similar in one
span, two span and three span integral bridges. However, hogging moment is found to be decreasing compared to
bearing bridge diaphragm, with the increase in number of span.

REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]

IRC:6-2014, Standard specifications and code of practice for road bridges, section-II loads and stresses (revised edition)
IRC:21-2000, Standard specifications and code of practice for road bridges, section-III Cement Concrete (Plain and Reinforced) (third edition)
IRC:78-2014, Standard specifications and code of practice for road bridges, section-VII- Foundations and Substructures (Revised Edition)
BA: 42/96, Amendment No 1 Design of Integral Bridges
Semih Erhan, Murat Dicleli (2014), Comparative assessment of the seismic performance of integral and conventional bridges with respect to the
differences at the abutments, Bull Earthquake Eng,

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

104

Comparative Study of Bearing and Integral Type Bridges as Per Indian Standards
(IJSTE/ Volume 1 / Issue 11 / 018)
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]

Shaikh Tausif, L. G. Kalurkar (2014), Behaviour of Integral Abutment Bridge with spring Analysis, Proceedings of 07th IRF International Conference,
Bengaluru.
Zhihui Zhu, Michael T. Davidson, Issam E. Harik, Liecheng Sun, Kevin Sandefur (2014), Effect of Superstructure Temperature Changes on Intermediate
Pier Foundation Stresses in Integral Abutment Bridges, ASCE.
WooSeok Kim, Jeffrey A. Laman (2010), Integral abutment bridge response under thermal loading, Engineering Structures.
Leo E. Rodriguez, Paul J. Barr, Marv W. Halling (2014), Temperature effects on a box girder integral abutment bridge, ASCE.
Surana C. S., Grillage Analogy, Narosa publishing house, New Delhi.
Hambly E. C., Bridge Deck Behaviour, Second Edition, E & FN Spon.
B. A. Nicholson, Integral Abutment for Pre-stressed Beam Bridges, Uniskull Ltd., Leicester.
H. J. Shah, Reinforced Concrete Vol-1, tenth edition, charotar publication house, Anand.

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

105