PROJECT PROGRESS SEMINAR

TOPIC:-Design And Analysis Of RCC T-beam Bridge For

Different Load Combinations.
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
PRESENTED BY :- SHUBHAM SIRSE GUIDED BY :- PROF. KULDEEP
DABHEKAR

BRANCH:- STRUCTURAL ENGG. ROLL NO. :- 16

 ABSTRACT :-
Bridges are the structures which are constructed to connect the way separated by
river or valley. In India, there are different codes which are used to design bridges.

In this study, two IRC codes and AASHTO code are used to design and analyse the
girder of RCC T-beam bridge.

The study includes two IRC codes which are used to design bridges using methods
those are IRC:21-2000 which is based on working stress method and IRC:112-2011
based on limit state method.

 In this study, a single span of bridge of 25m length is designed as per both IRC
codes and AASHTO design guidelines analysed with the help of Staad pro softwere.

Two comparisons will be made. first comparison is between design and analysis
result by (IRC:21-2000) working stress method with the results of AASHTO .

Another comparison is between (IRC 112-2011) limit state method with the results
of AASHTO and it will be concluded that which comparision have more or less
similarities.
 
 INTRODUCTION :-
KEYWORDS :- RCC T-beam Bridge, Load Combinations

 RCC T-BEAM BRIDGE

 The structure is so named because longitudinal
girders are casted monolithically with the girders.

 T-beam bridge is by far the most commonly adopted

type in the span range of 10 to 25m.

 Components of a T-beam bridge –

1.Deck slab. 3.Longitudinal girders.
2.Cantilever Portion. 4.Cross girders
3.Kerbs 5.wearing course.

Fig1. Components Of T-beam Girder Bridge

 LOAD COMBINATION :-

 A load combination sums or envelopes the analysis results of certain load cases.

 There are different types of loads which will be coming on the bridge structure.

 i.e. dead load, live load, SIDL, so they are combined to compute response envelope.

 With the help of load combinations, structure is checked for any future loading scenario in order to ensure
its safety.

 Ex. 1.2DL+1.6L.L .
 METHODOLOGY :-

A. Working Stress method (IRC:21-2000)-

 Depth of deck slab-
 Effective span of bridge-
 Bending Moment calculation for dead load per meter width of slab
 Bending moment calculation-
 Effective width dispersion.
 Area of reinforcement is calculated and checked for shear stresseS

B. Limit State Method (IRC 112-2011)-

 In order to determine the design bending moments and design shear forces, the
B.M. and S.F. is multiplied with the factor of safety 1.5.
 Again area of reinforcement is calculated for design bending moment and checked
for shear.
C. IRC Load Considerations –
a) Dead load –
b) Live load –
1. IRC Class A Wheeled Loading-
2. IRC Class 70R Wheeled Loading-

c) Live load combination  

Some of the live load combinations given in IRC: 6-2017 are as follow:
1. For carriage way width (5.3 >CW) - Class A (1lane) to occupy 2.3 m.

2. For carriage way width (5.3 < CW > 9.6) - Class 70R (1lane) or Class A
(2lane).

3. For carriage way width (9.6 < CW > 13.1) - Class 70R (1lane) or Class A
(2lane).
D. AASHTO Load Considerations –
a) Dead Load  
b) Live load
HL-93 is the current vehicular loading used by AASHTO. There are different types of
vehicular loads under live load. 
1. Design truck 2. Design tandem
3. Design lane load

 
E. LOAD COMBINATIONS
 
Load combinations include dead load and all the loads under live load such as vehicular
live load, backfill pressure, centrifugal force, braking force etc.

As per clause 202.3 of IRC: 6-2017, the governing load combination equations for both
working stress method and limit state method are as follow.
 
1.For IRC - 1.35 (DC+EL) + 1.75 DW + 1.50 (LL+IM+BR+CE) + 1.2LS
 
The governing load combination equations As per AASHTO -Table 3.4.1-1 and 3.4.1.1-2

2.For AASHTO - 1.25 DC + 1.50 DW + 1.75 (LL + IM)

 
III. DESIGN AND ANALYSIS RESULTS
Analysis of main longitudinal girders of span length 25m is carried out as per IRC and AASHTO code.

IRC: 6-2017 is used for load considerations. Bending moment and shear force at different length of span is calculated and compared as
follow.

Fig.4 Dead load bending moment comparison chart for IRC (LSM) and AASHTO (LRFD) Fig.5 Dead load bending moment comparison chart for IRC (WSM) and AASHTO (LRFD)
Fig.6 Live load bending moment comparison chart for IRC (LSM) and AASHTO (LRFD) Fig.7 Live load bending moment comparison chart for IRC (WSM) and AASHTO (LRFD)
Fig.9 Dead load shear force comparison chart for IRC (WSM) and AASHTO (LRFD ) Fig.10 Dead load shear force comparison chart for IRC (WSM) and AASHTO (LRFD)
Fig.11 Live load shear force comparison chart for IRC (LSM) and AASHTO (LRFD) Fig.12 Live load shear force comparison chart for IRC (WSM) and AASHTO (LRFD)
G. CONCLUSION

After designing and analyzing the 25m single span of RCC T- beam bridge using IRC 21:2000 (WSM), IRC
112-2011 (LSM) and AASHTO (LRFD), the results are compared. In other words, working stress method and
limit state method of design are compared with AASHTO (LRFD). All codes have varying design philosophy.
The conclusions which are made from the above comparisons are as follow:

•It can be seen from the fig 4,5,6,7 that DL Bending Moment and Live Load Bending Moment for AASHTO is
higher than for both IRC (WSM) and IRC (LSM). But the difference between B.M. values for IRC (LSM) and
AASHTO is very less because of the use of safety factor and load factor in both design procedures. While
difference between the B.M. values for IRC (WSM) and AASHTO is more.

•In limit state method, there is inherent unpredictability of loads and live loads are increased by much higher
safety factor. It can be seen in fig.6 and 7 that live load B.M. values for IRC (LSM) are higher than IRC (WSM)
to some extent.

•From fig.9 and 10, it can be seen that dead load shear force for AASHTO is higher than IRC (LSM & WSM).
Shear force for both IRC and AASHTO are descending uniformly.
 •While in fig.11, there is much difference between live load shear force for both AASHTO and IRC (LSM) on
first two pts i.e. 1 & 2 then shear force on further three pts. i.e. 3, 4, 5 is same then again shows the difference
at pt. 6. This is because of the different loading pattern and the way of application for both the methods.

•In fig.12, live load shear force for IRC (WSM) is lesser than AASHTO by much difference except at third pt.
where values are almost similar
REFERENCES

IRC: 112 – 2011, “Code of Practice for Concrete Road Bridges”, Indian Roads Congress ; New Delhi ;
India 2011.
 
IRC 6 – 2017, “Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges”, Section II, Loads and
Stresses; Indian Roads Congress; New Delhi; India; 2017.
 
IRC: 21 – 2000, “Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges”, Section III;
Cement Concrete (Plain And Reinforced); Indian Roads Congress; New Delhi; India 2014.
 
AASHTO-LRFD, “American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials – Load and
Resistance Factor Design”, Sixth Edition; 2012.

R.Shreedhar, Spurti Mamadapur, “Analysis of T-beam Bridge Using Finite Element Method”,
International Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology (IJEIT) Volume 2; Issue 3;
THANK
YOU