COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-

GIRDER SYSTEM

CHAPTER: 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 General
The design of reinforced cement concrete (RCC) bridges involves selecting an optimal girder
system to balance structural efficiency, safety, and cost-effectiveness. Girders are essential
load-bearing components in bridge structures, distributing loads and minimizing deflection.
In bridge engineering, the choice between a three-girder and a four-girder system is often a
crucial decision, as it affects material usage, load distribution, and overall bridge
stability.This analysis aims to provide a comparative evaluation of three-girder and four-
girder RCC bridge systems using IRC (Indian Roads Congress) standards. The study utilizes
STAAD Pro, a comprehensive structural analysis and design software, and Microsoft Excel
for data processing and results interpretation.IRC standards will be referenced, ensuring that
the bridge design adheres to local regulatory and structural safety requirements.STAAD Pro
Software: This software will be used to model both girder systems, analyze load distribution,
and simulate the effects of various design loads on each system. STAAD Pro's finite element
analysis capabilities enable accurate stress and deflection assessments.Microsoft Excel: Excel
will serve as a tool for organizing, comparing, and visualizing the results of the STAAD Pro
analysis. It will also assist in calculating various design parameters, material quantities, and
cost implications between the two girder systems.

1.2 Software’s used:

1.2.1 STAAD.ProV8i SS6:

STAAD.Pro is a structural design and analysis software developed by Research Engineers in 1997.
STAAD.Pro is one of the most widely used structural analysis and design software products
worldwide. It supports over 90 international steel, concrete, timber &aluminium design codes.

It can make use of different forms of analysis from the conventional static analysis to more
recent analysis methods like geometric non-linear analysis and Pushover analysis (Static-Non Linear
Analysis). It can also make use of various forms of dynamic analysis methods from time history
analysis to response spectrum analysis. The response variety analysis feature is supported for both
user defined spectra.

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 1

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

1.2.2 AUTO CAD 2023:

AutoCAD can be defined as the use of computer systems to assist in the creation, modification,
optimization of a design.

 In this, we can create both 2D and 3D drawings used in construction and manufacturing.
 It was developed by John Walker in the year 1982 with the help of AUTODESK and
maintains it successfully.

1.2.3 MICROSOFT EXCEL:

Microsoft Excel can play a crucial role in bridge design by assisting engineers with
calculations, data management, and visualization. While it is not a specialized structural
design tool like STAAD.Pro or SAP2000, Excel provides a versatile platform for preliminary
analysis, documentation, and repetitive computations.

 Load Combinations: Automatically calculate combinations of dead load, live load,

wind load, and earthquake forces.
 Bridge Deck Design: Determine slab thickness and reinforcement for given loads.
 Pier and Foundation Design: Analyze soil-bearing capacity and size of footings.
 Cable-Stayed Bridge Analysis: Calculate forces in cables using iterative methods.

1.3 IRC Provision:

Codes are the guidelines that help designers in analysis and design of structures effectively and
economically. Code prepared by the Bureau of Indian Standards lay down a set of minimum
provisions of design to protect the safety of the public with regard to structure safety, fire hazards and
health aspects of the building so as long as these basic requirement are met, the choice of material and
the method design and construction is left to the ingenuity of the engineer.

1.3.1 IRC:6-2017:

IRC:006-2017 is an Indian Road Congress (IRC) standard, titled "Standard Specifications

and Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section II: Loads and Load Combinations." This
document provides guidelines for determining loads, load combinations, and associated
factors that are to be considered in the design of road bridges in India.

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 2

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

IRC Class 70R Loading: This loading is to be normally adopted on all roads on which
permanent bridges and culverts are constructed. Bridges designed for Class 70R Loading
should be checked for Class A Loading also as under certain conditions, heavier stresses may
occur under Class A Loading.

IRC ClassAA Loading: This loading is to be adopted within certain municipal limits, in
certain existing or contemplated industrial areas, in other specified areas, and along certain
specified highways. Bridges designed for Class AA Loading should be checked for Class A
Loading also, as under certain conditions, heavier stresses may occur under Class A Loading

IRC ClassA Loading: This loading is to be normally adopted on all roads on which
permanent bridges and culverts are constructed.

IRC Class B Loading: This loading is to be normally adopted for timber bridges.

1.3.2 IRC 21-2020:

IRC 21: 2000, titled "Design and Construction of Bridges in Highways," is an important
standard published by the Indian Roads Congress (IRC) that provides comprehensive
guidelines for the design and construction of bridges used in highway systems. This code
specifically plays a key role in the design of girder bridges by focusing on aspects related to
materials, structural design, loading, and construction techniques.

IRC 21: 2000 outlines the general design principles for bridges, including girder
bridges, ensuring that they are designed for structural stability, durability, and safety. It
includes guidelines for choosing the appropriate materials, designing the structural elements,
and determining safety factors.

Load Considerations:

IRC 21:2000 provides load factors and stress criteria for RCC girder bridges. This includes
the calculation of:

 Dead loads (weight of the structure)

 Live loads (vehicular loads, pedestrians, etc.)
 Impact loads (due to moving traffic)
 Seismic forces (in earthquake-prone areas)
 Wind loads (especially for tall bridges)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 3

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

1.3.3 IRC:24-2010:

IRC (Indian Roads Congress) 24:2010 is a crucial standard in the design and construction of
bridges in India, including RCC (Reinforced Cement Concrete) girder bridges. Specifically,
IRC 24:2010 is a guideline for the design of "Road Bridges – Section 2: Loads and Stresses."
It provides technical specifications and criteria for the design of bridge structures, including
various types of girder bridges. Below are the primary roles of IRC 24:2010 in the
construction of RCC girder bridges.

1.3.4 IRC 40-2002:

The IRC (Indian Roads Congress) 40: 2002 standard specifies the design criteria for highway
bridges in India. When designing bridges, the IRC 40 standard provides guidelines for
various aspects like load-bearing capacity, structural design, and safety. The specific mention
of "three girder" and "four girder" bridges pertains to the type of bridge superstructure design
in terms of how many girders are used to carry the loads.

Load Carrying Capacity: A four-girder design offers a higher load-bearing capacity, which
is essential for heavy-duty traffic or long-span bridges.

Material Efficiency: A three-girder bridge can be more cost-effective in terms of material

use, but with a potential compromise in load distribution.

Span Length: Generally, four-girder bridges are more common for longer spans, while three-
girder designs are more suitable for medium-length spans.

Structural Behaviour: Four girders reduce the chances of excessive deflection, torsion, or
failure due to uneven load distribution.

1.3.5 IRC 78-2014:

IRC 78: 2014 helps engineers and designers decide how many girders are necessary
depending on the span, load requirements, and traffic conditions. When designing a bridge
with either three or four girders, the standard provides guidelines on how to ensure that the
structure is safe, cost-effective, and durable.If you're working on a specific bridge design and
need to know more about how IRC 78 applies to your case, such as the detailed load
calculations or specific material requirements, I can help explain those further.

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 4

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

Load Analysis: Different loading conditions, such as live loads, dead loads, and impact
loads, are specified.

Material Specifications: It covers the use of concrete, steel, and composite materials for
bridge construction.

Design Methods: The standard outlines various methods of designing bridges, including for
girder systems.

Safety Factors: It prescribes safety factors to ensure the bridge structure can withstand
expected loads over its lifetime.

1.3.6 IRC 112-2011:

IRC 112: 2011 is a standard published by the Indian Roads Congress that specifically
addresses the design of concrete bridges. This code provides detailed guidelines on the design
of concrete bridges for highway and road construction in India.IRC 112: 2011 provides the
framework for designing both three-girder and four-girder bridges, with each design having
its specific applications depending on span length, traffic load, and material considerations.
The number of girders directly affects the load distribution, material selection, cost, and
deflection criteria. For larger spans and more traffic, a four-girder bridge offers better
stability and more efficient load handling, while three-girder bridges can be used in
simpler, shorter spans.

1.3.7 IS 456-2000:

The bureau of Indian Standards has published a code of practice for plain and Reinforced
Concrete. IS456:1978 has been revised by the Bureau of India Standards (BIS) and published
in July 2000 as IS 456:2000.Till the next revision is made it is mandatory that teaching and
practice of the subject in India should be based on this latest code of practice. This standard
deals with the general structural use of plain and reinforced concrete. For the purpose of this
standard, plain concrete structures are those where reinforcement, if provided is ignored for
determination of strength of the structure.

1.3.8 Objectives:
 The main objective of proposed program is to plan, analyze of RCC Bridge.
 To plan RCC Bridge for various aspects as per latest requirement.

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 5

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

 To analyze of proposed plan by using STAADPro software.

 To find out maximum shear force and bending moments for all structural elements.
 To develop the excel spread sheet for all structural elements.
 Identification of load cases and load combination cases.
 Finite element modeling of the building and input analysis using STAAD- Pro.

1.4Scope:

The scope of the study encompasses various aspects in the structural analysis and design of
RCC Bridge in STAADPro. Nowadays, most of the civil engineering projects are done using
this software. Having done this project, it enables us to gain exposure in various computer
application related to civil engineering.

1.4.1 Scope of project:

CHAPTER- 2

2.0 SUMMARY OF LITERATIVE REVIEW

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 6

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

2.1SudarshanPrabakarPatil,KameshwarRaoTallapragada: Reinforced
concrete bridges with different types of deck slab have been widely used for both road and
railway bridges. The most common type is the slab deck used for short span bridges. For
medium span in the ranges of 12 to 25 m T- Girder and slab deck is widely used. In the case
of T Girder and deck slab type, the slab span in two directions since it is cast integrally with
main girder and cross girder.

2.2 Bharat Jeswani, DilipBudhlani:In this study the T-beam bridge is to be analysis
on the staad.pro software.A T-beam bridge is compositeconcrete structure which is composed
of slab panel,longitudinal girder and cross girder. This project looks on the work of analysis
and design of bridge deck and beam on software the specific bridge model is taken of a
particular span and carriageway width the bridge is subjected to different IRC loadings like
IRC Class AA, IRC Class 70R tracked loading etc. in order to obtain maximum bending
moment and shear force. From the analysis it is observed and understand the behaviour of
bridge deck under different loading condition and comparing the result. The different codes
of design will be use in this project are IRC 5-2015, IRC6-2016, IRC 112-2011, IRC 21-
2000.
2.3SaifSaudagar:This work gives a thorough analysis and design optimization of
Reinforced Concrete (RCC) girder bridges. The goal was to assess the bridge's structural
performance under various loading circumstances, compare the findings produced from
traditional manual calculations with the STAAD PRO programme, and recommend design
optimization options to improve the bridge's performance. To examine the behaviour of RCC
girder bridges, the research used a variety of analysis approaches, including finite element
analysis, analytical methods, and numerical techniques. A comparison of the accuracy and
dependability of traditional human computations against software-based analysis utilising the
STAAD PRO programme was performed. The results revealed the benefits of adopting
software-based analytical techniques in bridge design. When compared to typical manual
calculations, the STAAD PRO programme produced more accurate findings for maximum
moments, shear forces, and deflections. This demonstrates the dependability and
effectiveness of software-based RCC girder bridge analysis methodologies. To improve the
structural performance and efficiency of RCC girder bridges, design optimization procedures
were presented. Geometry optimization, material selection, cross-sectional shape
optimization, redundancy implementation, and the deployment of new structural systems

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 7

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

were among the tactics employed. Each technique has the potential to increase cost-
effectiveness, durability, and sustainability. The findings of the study contribute to the area of
bridge engineering by offering useful insights into the behaviour and design optimization of
RCC girder bridges. The study underlines the significance of precise analysis, software-based
approaches, and design optimization tactics in assuring these bridges' structural performance and
efficiency. More study is required to improve knowledge and optimization of RCC girder bridges.
The goal is to create bridge designs that are safer, more efficient, and sustainable in order to fulfil
the changing demands of transportation infrastructure.
2.4 PrashantPundlik Swami, Prof. NandkishorSinha:A bridge is a structure
erected across a road, river, or railway to allow people and vehicles to go from one side to the
other. Comparative studies are undertaken to select the most suitable section in bridges of
various span lengths. The major goal of this work is to use software and manual approaches
to investigate the impacts of T beam and Box girder bridges of varied spans under shifting
loads. The analytical and design methods used are determined. The bridges are intended to
withstand various IRC vehicle loads, and the TBeam deck and box girder systems are
investigated. The software's results are compared to those obtained using manual techniques.
The parametric analysis is carried out on parameters like Bending Moments and Shear
Forces.
2.5Singh ShubhamYashwant, A. K. Jha, R. S. Parihar:Structural planning and
analysis is an art and science of designing with economy, elegance and sturdiness. Structural
designing requires an in-depth structural analysis on which the planning is predicted, to
compete within the ever-competitive market, the use of software can save many-man hours
and efforts in structural analysis and an effortwas made in the present study to achieve this
objective. The purpose of this study is to analyse and design the solid deck slab bridge by
STAAD-Pro and manual method under different loading conditions. And also, the analysis
results in term of shear, bending moment, axial force and deflection were checked by
STAAD-Pro which is passes through many different load combinations.The maximum design
moments resulting from the combinations of various loading cases.

CHAPTER-3

ANALYSIS

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 8

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

3.1 Method of Analysis

3.1.1 Slab Panel Analysis:

Slab panel analysis is a method used in structural engineering to analyze and design concrete
slabs. It involves breaking down the slab into smaller, manageable panels or strips to simplify
the analysis of complex load conditions. Here are some key points about slab panel analysis:

Panel Division: The slab is divided into panels or strips based on a reasonably assumed load
path and load distribution.

Load Analysis: Each panel is analyzed individually to determine the internal forces and
moments.

Design Codes: Various design codes, such as ACI-318, Eurocode 2, and IS: 456, provide
guidelines for slab panel analysis and design.

3.1.2 Analysis of Slab Decks:

The analysis of deck slabs can be done in two ways depending upon the importance and
classification of bridge. They are Solid slabs spanning in one direction Slabs spanning in Two
directions. According to our project we are using slabs spanning in two directions. The
moments develop due to wheel loads on the slab both in the longitudinal and transverse
directions.These moments are computed by using the design curves developed by
“westergard” or “Pigeaud‟s method.

• Pigeaud’s method is applicable to rectangular slabs supported freely on all the four sides.

• The bending moments Can be calculated using the following Formula‟s

M1=(m1+μm2)W

M2=(m2+μm1)W

μ=poission‟s ratio for concrete from IRC-21:2000 = 0.15

m1,m2=coefficients for moments along short span and long span (from pigeaud‟s curves)

W= wheel load under consideration

K=Ratio of short to long span direction= (B/L)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 9

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

u and v =Dimensions of the load spread after allowing for dispersion through the wearing
coat and structural slab.

L=Long span length

B=short span length.

Fig 3.1 Pigeaud’s curve

IRC ClassAA Loading:This loading is to be adopted within certain municipal limits, in

certain existing or contemplated industrial areas, in other specified areas, and along certain
specified highways. Bridges designed for Class AA Loading should be checked for Class A
Loading also, as under certain conditions, heavier stresses may occur under Class A Loading

IRC ClassA Loading: This loading is to be normally adopted on all roads on which
permanent bridges and culverts are constructed.

3.1.3 Analysis of Girders:

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 10

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

A typical Tee beam deck slab generally comprises the longitudinal girder, continuous deck
slab between the Tee beams and cross girders to provide lateral rigidity to the bridge deck.
The longitudinal girders are spaced at intervals of 2 to 2.5 m and cross girders are provided at
4 to 5 m Intervals. The distribution of live loads among the longitudinal girders can be
estimate by any of the following rational method.

• Courbon method:

courbon method is the simplest and is applicable when the following conditions are satisfied:

a) The ratio of span to width of deck is greater than 2 but less than 4

b) the longitudinal girders are interconnected by at least five symmetrically spaced cross
girders.

c) The cross girder extends to a depth of at least 0.75 times the depth of the longitudinal
girders. Courbon method is popular due to the simplicity of computations as detailed
below:Thecenter of gravity of live load acts eccentrically with the center of gravity of the
girder system. Due to this eccentricity, the loads shared by each girder is increased or
decreased depending upon the position of the girders. This is calculated by courbon theory by
a reaction factor given by,

Ri=[ P x Ii / ∑Ii] x [1+(∑Ii / ∑Ii di 2 ) x e x di ]

P= total live load (KN)

Ii=moment of inertial of longitudinal girder (i)e=eccentricity of the live load (m)

di= distance of girder (i) from the axis of the bridge

3.1.4 Finite element method:

Finite element method models a structure as an assembly of elements or components with

various forms of connection between them. Thus, a continuous system such as a plate or shell
is modeled as a discrete system with a finite number of individual elements interconnected as
finite number of nodes. The behaviour of individual elements is characterized by the element
stiffness or flexibility relation, which altogether leads to the system stiffness or flexibility
relation. To establish the element stiffness or flexibility relation, we can we use the

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 11

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

mechanics of materials approach for simple one dimensional bar elements, and the elasticity
approach for more complex two and three dimensional elements. The analytical and
computational developments are best effected throughout by means of matrix algebra.

For the analysis from this method many computer software’s are available. Some of them are
STAAD pro, ETABS,SNAP,ANSYS etc. the finite –element technology is now sophisticated
enough to handle just about any system as long as sufficient computing power is available. Its
applicability includes, but is not limited to, linear and non-linear analysis, solid and fluid
interactions, materials that are isotropic, orthotropic, or anthropic, and external effects that
are static, dynamic and environmental factors. This however, does not imply that the
computed solution will automatically be reliable because much depends on the model and the
reliability of the data input.

3.2 Introduction to Three and Four girder RCC Bridge:

Reinforced Cement Concrete (RCC) girder bridges are widely used in modern infrastructure
due to their durability, strength, and ability to carry heavy loads. The three-girder and four-
girder bridge designs are specific configurations that serve different purposes, depending on
the span length, load requirements, and design constraints.

3.3 Components of RCC Girder Bridges:

 Longitudinal Girders: The primary load-carrying elements running parallel to the

span.
 Cross Girders: Transverse beams connecting the longitudinal girders, enhancing
lateral stiffness and stability.
 Deck Slab: RCC slab resting on the girders, serving as the platform for vehicles or
pedestrians.

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 12

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

 Bearings: Devices that transfer loads from the superstructure to the substructure while
accommodating movements and rotations.
 Substructure: Includes piers and abutments that support the girders and transfer loads
to the foundation.

3.4 Assumptions for Three Girder and Four Girder:

Material Properties: Concrete and steel follow linear elastic behavior up to their respective
yield points. Concrete is assumed to have no tensile strength in areas of tension.

Load Distribution: Live and dead loads are distributed proportionally among the girders
based on stiffness and spacing.

Structural Behavior: The bridge deck acts as a rigid diaphragm, ensuring uniform load
transfer across all girders.

Support Conditions: Supports are idealized as pinned or roller supports to allow thermal and
settlement movements.

Environmental Factors: No significant impact from earthquakes, wind, or temperature

variations unless explicitly considered in design.

3.5 Advantages for Three Girder and Four Girder:

 Durability: Resistant to weathering, corrosion, and wear.

 Flexibility: Can be designed for a variety of span lengths and load conditions.
 Low Maintenance: Requires minimal upkeep compared to steel bridges.
 Aesthetics: Can be cast into various shapes for aesthetic appeal.

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 13

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

CHAPTER-4

LOADS

Structures are subjected to loads from various sources. These loads are referred was direct
actions and include gravity and environmental effects, such as wind, earthquake and snow. In
applying any quantitative approach to structural analysis, the magnitudes of the actions need
to be identified. Furthermore, if the structure is to perform satisfactorily throughout its design
life, the nature of the loads should be understood and appropriate measures should be taken to
avoid problems of, for instance, fatigue or vibration. In analyzing structures it is rare to
consider all loadings acting simultaneously. This approach may be because the most severe
condition for parts of the structure occurs when combination of load is considered.
Alternatively it may be that, the possibility of such a condition actually occurring is
externally small. For these reasons it is convenient to consider loads under various categories.
The categories can then be ascribed different safety factor and applied in various
combinations as required. Traditionally, loadings have been classified as dead, superimposed
and environmental loads such as (wind, earthquake and snow). These classes include a wide
range of gravity effects, seismic action.

4.1 Types of Loads:

The different types of load acting on the structures especially concerning to the residential
buildings is briefed and summarized below

Dead load: Dead loads are gravity loads due to the self-weight of the structure and any
fixtures or finishes attached to it. Their magnitudes can be estimated with reasonable
confidence based on prescribed dimensions and knowledge of material density. These dead
loads are estimated by considering the unit weight of building material used in construction
as per tables of IS 875 (part 1)

Imposed load: (sometimes referred to as "superimposed", "super" or "live" loads): These are
loads due to direct use of the structures. For buildings, they are concerned with the occupancy
by people, furniture, equipment, etc. Clearly these conditions will be almost constantly
changing and are rather more difficult to quantify than dead loads. In estimating such
imposed loads on the building, the tables of IS 875 (part II) give the loads per m² area for
different occupancies.

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 14

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

Earthquake load: In some parts of the world earthquakes are a very important design
consideration. Seismic actions on structures are due to strong ground motion. They are a
function of the ground motion itself and of the dynamic characteristics of the structure.
Strong ground motion can be measured by one of its parameters, the maximum ground
acceleration being the parameter most usually adopted for engineering purposes. These
parameters are expressed on a probabilistic basis, i.e. they are associated with a certain
probability of occurrence or to a return period, in conjunction with the life period of the
structure.

4.2 LOAD CALCULTION:

4.2.1 DEAD LOAD:

1. Dead load of slab panel calculation:

Length of slab panel = 4.5m

Width of slab panel = 2.5m

Depth of slab panel = 0.2m

Density of concrete = 24

Dead load of slab panel=Length of slab panel ×width of slab panel×depth of slab
panel×density of concrete

=4.5×2.5×0.2×24

=54KN/m2

4.2.2 LIVE LOAD :

1. Live load calculation:

For IRC class AA Tracked vehicle the load is given =700KN

4.3 Basic Load Cases:

1) DL
2) LL

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 15

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

CHAPTER-5

METHODOLOGY

5.1 METHODOLOGY:

 Initially manual design are done using for Excel as per IRC from manual design and
design the all components.
 Develop the program for the design of RCC GIRDER BRIDGE by Microsoft excel to
avoid the tedious calculation
 Plot the drawing by using the Auto Cadd software.
 The RCC GIRDER BRIDGE models were done in staad pro software based on the
dimension from the design.
 Analyze was carried out for various components of RCC GIRDER BRIDGE using
stadd pro.
 The analyses were doing by applying all the loads acting on RCC GIRDER
BRIDGE.after the analysis software design and detailing was done.
 Finally compare both design results and which are obtained from software.

5.2 Modeling:

5.2.1 Preparation of Realistic Analytical Method

The ability to model a structural system in 3D can provide a powerfully Andrew accurate
analysis of almost any structure. 3D models, in general, can be produced using a range of
common CAD packages. For the preparation from this method many computer software's are
available. Some of them are Staad Pro, [ETABS, SAP, ANSYS etc]. We have chosen Staad
Pro. To prepare the analytical model.

To make the basic 3D model, there are two methods by which the user can model a
building in Staad Pro.

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 16

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

5.3 Comparison between Three and Four girder RCC Bridge:

Aspect Three girder Four Girder

Number of Girder Three Four
Load Distribution Load distributed among three Load distributed among four
girders,leading to higher load per girders,reducing the load per
girder. girder.
Structural rigidity Less stable compared to four More stable and robust due to
girder designs due to fewer load additional load paths.
paths.
Cost Lower material cost due to fewer Higher material cost because of
girders. additional girders.
Deck Thickness Typically requires a thicker deck Can use a thinner deck due to
to handle higher concentrated better load distribution.
loads.
Span Length Suitable for shorter spans. Better suited for longer spans due
Feasibility to enhanced load distribution
Deflection Higher deflection due to fewer Lower deflection because the
girders sharing there load. load is distributes over more
girders
Redundancy Less redundancy:failure of one Greater redundancy:failure of one
girder has a more significant girder is less critical.
impact.
Three-girder and a four-girder RCC bridge depends on the specific requirements of the
project, including span length, load expectations, budget, and safety considerations.

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 17

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

CHAPTER-6

6.1 Panel Design :

CHAPTER-7

Project Details

7.1 RCC 3-GIRDER SYSTEM

1 DATA
Effective span of T-Beams Le = 16 m
Number of Longitudinal Girder = 3
Spacing of longitudinal girders b = 2.5 m
Depth of main girder = 1600 mm

Spacing of cross
l =
girders 4 m

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 18

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

Width of carriageway B = 7.5 m

Thickness of wearing coat tw = 80 mm

Thickness of deck slab D = 0.2 m

Wearing coat = 0.08 m
Width of main girder = 300 mm
Width of kerb = 0.6 m
Length of kerb = 1 m
Thickness of kerb = 0.5 m
Breadth of cross girder = 300 mm
2 PERMISSIBLE STRESS

σcb = 8.3 N/mm2

σst = 200 N/mm2
σsv = 150 N/mm2
m = 10
0.29
=
n 3
0.90
=
j 2
Q = 1.10

3 Cross Section of Deck

7.50

0.75 0.75
0 2.5 2.5 0

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 19

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

4 4 4
4
16

4 Design of interior slab panels

B= 2.5

L= 4
(a) Bending Moments
Dead weight of slab = 5 kN/m2
Dead weight of wearing coat = 1.76 kN/m2
Total dead load = 6.76 kN/m2
Live load is class AA tracked
=
vehicle
width of class AA vehicle = 0.85 m
length of class AA vehicle = 3.6 m
w = 350
u = 1.01 m
v = 3.76 m
0.40
u/B =
4 m
v/L = 0.94 m
k=B/ 0.62
=
L 5 m

3.6
1.0
1 0.85

Referring to pigeaud's curves

0.0
m1 = 9 m2 = 0.02

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 20

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

As the slab continous and including impact and continuity factor

31.0 kN/
MB=W(m1+0.15m2)
= 1 m
Design BM=0.8*MB
31.0 kN/
MB(short span)
= 1 m

kN/
ML=W(m2+0.15*m1)
= 12.9 m
kN/
ML(long span)
= 12.9 m

(b) Shear forces

Dispersion in the direction of span = 1.41 m
0.70
position of load from edge of beam = 5 m
Effective width of slab=kx(1-x/L)
+bw =
Breadth of cross girder = 0.3 m
Clear length of panel lo = 2.2 m
width of deck slab b = 3.7 m
b/lo = 1.68
from table 10.1, k for a continous
slab is
k = 2.52

Effective width of slab = 5.0 m

load per metre width = 70 kN
47.8
shear force = 8 kN
59.8
shear force with impact = 5 kN

c) Dead load bending moment and

shear forces
Dead load = 6.76 kN/m2
Total load on panel = 67.6 kN
k=B/ 0.62
L = 5

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 21

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

1/K= = 1.6
From pigeaurd curve fig.10.9
0.04
m1= = 9
0.01
m2= = 5

3.46
MB=W(m1+0.15m2) = 5 kNm
Taking continuity into effect
2.77
MB=0.8*MB = 2 kNm

1.51
ML=W(m2+0.15*m1) = 1 kNm
Taking continuity into effect
1.20
ML=0.8*ML = 9 kNm
7.43
Dead load shear force=wlo/2 = 6 kN

(d) Design moment and shear forces

Total MB = 33.8 kNm
Total ML = 14.1 kNm
Total shear forcce = 67.29 kN
(e)Design of sections
Effective depth=(w/Q*B)^0.5 = 175 mm
Adopt overall depth = 200 mm
Diameter of Main Bar = 12 mm
Diameter of distribution Bar 10 mm
Clear Cover = 20 mm
Effective depth = 174 mm
Ast (short span)=(MB/ σst*j*d) = 1076 mm2
1 105.
Provide 2 @ 1 mm c/c say 100 mm/c/c
Ast provided= = 1131 mm2
Effective depth for long span = 163 mm
Ast(long span)=(ML/ σst*j*d) = 478.4 mm2
1 164.
Provide 0 @ 2 mm c/c say 150 mm/c/c

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 22

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

(f) Check for shear stress

τv
Shear stress = v/bd = 0.39 N/mm2
IRC:21-1987 Clause 305.7.3.1
τc=k1k2τco
k1=(1.14-0.7d)≥0.5 = 1.018
ρ=(100*Ast/bd) = 0.65
k2=(0.5+0.25ρ) = 0.663

N/
For M 25 grade concrete, τco = 0.4 mm2
τc=k1k2τco = 0.27 N/mm2
since τv>τc Hence Design is safe

O
R
From table 12A of IRC 21-2000
N/
for M25 grade of concrete τmax= = 1.9 mm2
As per CL.304.7.1.2 of IRC 21-2000
τmax/2 = 0.95
τv<τmax/ 0.37<0.
2 = 95
hence safe
pt=(Ast/bd)*100 = 0.65 %
From table 12B of IRC 21-2000
N/
τc = 0.334 mm2
from table 12C of IRC 21-2000
for overall depth of slab 200mm K = 1.2
As per CL.304.7.1.3.2 of IRC 21-
2000
Permissible shear stress in concrete K*τc = 0.401 N/mm2
since k*τc>τ
Therefore, shear stress is within
safe permissible limit

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 23

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

5 Design of longitudinal girders

(a) Reaction factors

Using courbon's theory for the IRC class AA loads

Reaction factor for outer girder is given by,

350 350

1.63 2.05

1.25 2.5 2.5 1.25

Ra Rb Rc

RA=∑W/n(1+(∑I /∑(dx)2 *I))*dx*e

Ra = 387.3 kN
RB=∑W/n(1+(∑I /∑(dx)2 *I))*dx*e
Rb = 233.3 kN

(b) Dead load from slab per girder

Length of wearing coat from edge of girder = 1.1 m

Unit weight of wearing coat = 22 kN/m2

Unit weight of deck slab = 24 kN/m2

Unit weight of kerb = 24 kN/m2

c/c distance of edge girders = 5.3 m

The dead load of deck slab is calculated as

Weight
of

(1) Parapet railing = 0.7 kN/m

(2) Wearing coat = 1.936 kN/m

(3) Deck slab = 5.271 kN/m

(4) Kerb = 7.2 kN/m

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 24

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

Total weight = 15.11 kN/m

Total dead load of deck = 66.04 kN/m

It is assumed that the dead load is shared equally by all the
girders

dead load / no. girder = 22.01 kN/m

( c) Live load bending moments and shear forces

in main girder

Span of girder(10% impact factor) = 1.6 m

width of girder = 0.3 m

Depth of rib=total depth-depth of deck slab = 1.4 m

self weight of the rib per meter width = 9.24 kN

As cross girder is assumed to have the same cross
sectional dimensions of the main girder,
i,e self weight of the rib of the cross girder per meter
width
= 10.08 kN

Reaction from cross girder on the main girder = 25.2 kN

Reaction from deck slab on each main girder = 22 kN

Total dead load on the main girder = 32.09 kN/m

Reffering Fig.6 maximum bending moment is to be
computed

Support reaction = 257 kN

Maximum bending moment @ the cenntre of mid span

Distance of edge of girder from C.G = 8 m

Mmax = 931 kNm

Maximum shear force @ the support ,Vma=x = 257 kN

(d) Live load shear

Distance between two wheels = 2.05 m

= 0.45 m
Distance between centre of udl to edge of
longitudinal girder = 14.20 m

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 25

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

Reaction of W2 on girder B = 63 kN

Reaction of W2 on girder A = 287 kN

Total load on girder B = 413 kN

Maximum reaction in girder B = 367 kN

Maximum reaction in girder A = 255 kN

Maximum live load shears with impact factor
in

inner girder = 403 kN

outer girder = 280 kN

( e ) Live load bending moments in girders

for max.BM, LL is placed centrally on the span

Total weight of tracked vehicle = 700 kN

load acting through the length = 3.6 m

Distance of centre of load from edge of girder X = 8 m

Oridinate height at centre = 4 m

Distance of edge of load from edge of bridge = 6.2 m

Oridinate height at edge of loading = 3.1 m

Area = 12.78 m2

Maximum Bending moment=Area*udl/m = 2485 kNm

Bending moments for outer girders = 1513 kNm

Bending moments for inner girders = 910 kNm

( f) Design of sections for
longitudinal girder

Mmax = 2444 kNm

Vmax = 770 kN

The beam is designed as a T-section.Assuming an

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 26

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

effective depth d = 1450 mm

approximate lever arm = 1350 mm

Ast = 9340 mm2

providing no. of bars in three rows = 10 nos

Diameter = 36 mm

Provided Ast = 10180 mm2

Shear reinforcements are designed to resist the
maximum shear at supports

Nominal shear stress τv = 1.77 N/mm2

If 4 bars of 36 mm diameter are bend up near
supports to resist shear,

Ast for 1 bar of 36 mm diameter = 1018 mm2

100Ast/bd = 1.4

From Table 1.3(b).for M20 grade concrete

τc = 0.45 N/mm2

Shear taken by concrete

τcbd = 195.8 kN

Assuming 2 bars of 36 mm diameter to be bent-up at

any support section section,

shear resisted by bent-up bars is given by

Number of bars = 2 nos

α = 45 degree

V's=σsv*Asv*sinα = 287.9 kN

shear to be resisted by vertical stirrups

V=Vmax -V's = 481.8 kN

Percentage of tensile reinforcement

Pt =Ast/bd*100 = 2.34 %

From Table 12B of IRC 21-2000

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 27

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

for pt=2.34% and M25 gradeof concrete

τc= = 0.54 N/mm2

Vs=V-τc*b*d = 246.9 kN

Using vertical stirrups of

Number of bars = 4

bar diamter = 10 mm

S=(Asw*σs*d(sinα+cosα))/Vs = 369.1 mm

As per IRC 21-2000 the maximum spacing is 300mm

Therefore, Provide 4 legged 10 mm dia @300mm c/c vertical

stirrups

(6) Design of cross girder

(a) Bending moments and shear forces in cross girder

mid ordinate height of BMD = 1.25 m

Selfweight of cross girder = 10.08 kN/m

Dead load from the slab = 21.13 kN

Therefore in terms of udl it will be = 8.45 kN/m

Total udl acting on the cross girder = 18.53 kN/m

Assuming the cross girder to be rigid

Reaction on each cross girder is = 30.88 kN

For maximum live load BM in the cross girder

Load acting on the across girder = 271.3 kN

Assuming the cross girder to be rigid

Distance between edge of girder to load acting
on girder = 1.475 m

Reaction on each longitudinal girder is = 180.8 kN

Maximum BM in the cross girder under this = 266.7 kNm
load

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 28

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

Therefore live load BM including impact = 292.9 kNm

Dead load BM at 1.475m from support = 25.40 kN/m

Total design bending moment = 318.3 kNm

Shear force due to dead load = 30.88 kN

Shear force due to live load including impact = 198.6 kN

Total design shear force = 229.5 kN

(b) Design of sections for cross grider

Mmax= = 318.3 kNm

Vmax= = 229.5 kN
The cross girder will be designed assuming an
effective depth , d = 1520 mm

Area of reinforcement required, Ast=Mmax/σstjd = 1160.5 mm2

Using 20mm dia Number of bars required for
the section = 3.69 ≈4
Therefore provided 4-20 dia HYSD
bars(Ast=1256.64 mm2)
Nominal shear stress,
τ=V/bd= = 0.503 N/mm2

= 1.9 N/mm2
From Table 12A of IRC 21-2000, for M25 grade of concrete,
τmax=

As per Cl.304.7.1.2 of IRC 21-2000, τ<τmax

Hence safe

Using 2 legged-10 dia bars as vertical stirrup, required

spacing is calculated as follows

Diameter of bars= = 10 mm

Asw=Vs.S/σs.d.(sinα+cosα)

S=(Asw*σs*d(sinα+cosα))/Vs = 208.1 mm

Therefore provided 2 legged-10 dia @150 mm C/C as vertical

stirrup throughout the length of the cross girder

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 29

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

CHAPTER:8

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 30

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 31

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 32

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 33

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 34

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 35

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

RCC 4-GIRDER SYSTEM

1 DATA
Effective span of T-Beams Le = 16 m
Number of Longitudinal Girder = 4
Spacing of longitudinal girders b = 2 m
Depth of main girder = 1200 mm

Spacing of cross girders l = 4 m

Width of carriageway B = 7.5 m

Thickness of wearing coat tw = 80 mm

Thickness of deck slab D = 0.2 m

Wearing coat = 0.08 m
Width of main girder = 300 mm
Width of kerb = 0.6 m
Length of kerb = 1 m
Thickness of kerb = 0.5 m
Breadth of cross girder = 300 mm
2 PERMISSIBLE STRESS

σcb = 8.3 N/mm2

σst = 200 N/mm2
σsv = 150 N/mm2
m = 10
n = 0.293
j = 0.902
Q = 1.10

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 36

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

3 Cross Section of Deck

7.5
0

0.75
0.750 2 2 2 0

4 4 4
4

16

4 Design of interior slab panels

B= 2

L= 4
(a) Bending Moments
Dead weight of slab = 5 kN/m2
Dead weight of wearing coat = 1.76 kN/m2
Total dead load = 6.76 kN/m2
Live load is class AA tracked vehicle
width of class AA vehicle = 0.85 m
length of class AA vehicle = 3.6 m
w = 350
u = 1.01 m

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 37

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

v = 3.76 m
0.50
u/B =
5 m
v/L = 0.94 m
k=B/
=
L 0.5 m
3.7
6
3.6
1.0
1 0.85

Referring to pigeaud's curves

0.0 m
m1 = 9 2 = 0.02
As the slab continous and including impact and continuity factor
31.0 kN/
MB=W(m1+0.15m2)
= 1 m
Design BM=0.8*MB
31.0 kN/
MB(short span)
= 1 m

kN/
ML=W(m2+0.15*m1)
= 12.9 m
kN/
ML(long span)
= 12.9 m

(b) Shear forces

Dispersion in the direction of span = 1.41 m
0.70
position of load from edge of beam = 5 m
Effective width of slab=kx(1-x/L)+bw =
Breadth of cross girder = 0.3 m
Clear length of panel lo = 2.2 m
width of deck slab b = 3.7 m
b/
lo = 1.68
from table 10.1, k for a continous slab
is
k = 2.52

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 38

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

Effective width of slab = 5.0 m

load per metre width = 70 kN
47.8
shear force = 8 kN
59.8
shear force with impact = 5 kN

(c) Dead load bending moment and shear

forces
Dead load = 6.76 kN/m2
Total load on panel = 54.08 kN
k=B/L = 0.5
1/K= = 2
From pigeaurd curve fig.10.9
m1= = 0.049
m2= = 0.015

MB=W(m1+0.15m2) = 2.772 kNm

Taking continuity into effect
MB=0.8*MB = 2.217 kNm

ML=W(m2+0.15*m1) = 1.209 kNm

Taking continuity into effect
ML=0.8*ML = 0.967 kNm
Dead load shear force=wlo/2 = 7.436 kN

(d) Design moment and shear forces

Total MB = 33.2 kNm
Total ML = 13.8 kNm
Total shear forcce = 67.29 kN
(e)Design of sections
Effective depth=(w/Q*B)^0.5 = 174 mm
Adopt overall depth = 200 mm

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 39

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

Diameter of Main Bar = 12 mm

Diameter of distribution Bar 10 mm
Clear Cover = 20 mm
Effective depth = 174 mm
Ast (short span)=(MB/ σst*j*d) = 1058 mm2
Provide 12 @ 106.9 mm c/c say 100 mm/c/c
Ast provided= = 1131 mm2
Effective depth for long span = 163 mm
Ast(long span)=(ML/ σst*j*d) = 470.2 mm2
Provide 10 @ 167 mm c/c say 150 mm/c/c
(f) Check for shear stress
Shear stress τv= v/bd = 0.39 N/mm2
IRC:21-1987 Clause 305.7.3.1
τc=k1k2τco
k1=(1.14-0.7d)≥0.5 = 1.018
ρ=(100*Ast/bd) = 0.65
k2=(0.5+0.25ρ) = 0.663

For M 25 grade concrete, τco = 0.4 N/mm2

τc=k1k2τco = 0.27 N/mm2
since τv>τc Hence Design is safe

OR
From table 12A of IRC 21-2000
for M25 grade of concrete τmax= = 1.9 N/mm2
As per CL.304.7.1.2 of IRC 21-2000
τmax/2 = 0.95
τv<τmax/2 = 0.37<0.95
hence safe
pt=(Ast/bd)*100 = 0.65 %
From table 12B of IRC 21-2000
τc = 0.334 N/mm2
from table 12C of IRC 21-2000
for overall depth of slab 200mm K = 1.2

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 40

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

As per CL.304.7.1.3.2 of IRC 21-2000

Permissible shear stress in concrete K*τc = 0.401 N/mm2
since k*τc>τ
Therefore, shear stress is within safe
permissible limit

5 Design of longitudinal girders

(a) Reaction factors

Using courbon's theory for the IRC class AA loads

Reaction factor for outer girder is given by,

RA=∑W/n(1+(∑I /∑(dx)2 *I))*dx*e

Ra = 290.5 kN
RB=∑W/n(1+(∑I /∑(dx)2 *I))*dx*e
Rb = 213.5 kN

(b) Dead load from slab per girder

Length of wearing coat from edge of
girder = 1.1 m

Unit weight of wearing coat = 22 kN/m2

Unit weight of deck slab = 24 kN/m2

Unit weight of kerb = 24 kN/m2

c/c distance of edge girders = 5.3 m

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 41

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

The dead load of deck slab is calculated

as
Weight
of
(1) Parapet
railing = 0.7 kN/m

(2) Wearing coat = 1.936 kN/m

(3) Deck slab = 5.271 kN/m

(4) Kerb = 7.2 kN/m

Total weight = 15.11 kN/m

Total dead load of deck = 66.04 kN/m

It is assumed that the dead load is shared equally by
all the girders
dead load / no.
girder = 22.01 kN/m

( c) Live load bending moments and shear

forces in main girder

Span of girder(10% impact factor) = 1.6 m

width of girder = 0.3 m

Depth of rib=total depth-depth of deck
slab = 1.4 m

self weight of the rib per meter width = 9.24 kN

As cross girder is assumed to have the same
cross sectional dimensions of the main girder,
i,e self weight of the rib of the cross girder per
meter width
= 10.08 kN

Reaction from cross girder on the main girder = 25.2 kN

Reaction from deck slab on each main girder = 22 kN

Total dead load on the main girder = 32.09 kN/m

Reffering Fig.6 maximum bending moment is to
be computed

Support reaction = 257 kN

Maximum bending moment @ the cenntre of
mid span

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 42

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

Distance of edge of girder from C.G = 8 m

Mmax = 931 kNm

Maximum shear force @ the support ,Vma=x = 257 kN

(d) Live load
shear

Distance between two wheels = 2.05 m

= 1.95 m
Distance between centre of udl to edge of
longitudinal girder = 14.20 m

Reaction of W2 on girder C = 359 kN

Reaction of W2 on girder B = 341 kN

Total load on girder C = 709 kN

Maximum reaction in girder C = 629 kN

Maximum reaction in girder B = 303 kN

Maximum live load shears with impact
factor in

middle girder = 692 kN

outer girder = 333 kN

( e ) Live load bending moments in

girders
for max.BM, LL is placed centrally on
the span

Total weight of tracked vehicle = 700 kN

load acting through the length = 3.6 m

Distance of centre of load from edge of
girder X = 8 m

Oridinate height at centre = 4 m

Distance of edge of load from edge of
bridge = 6.2 m

Oridinate height at edge of loading = 3.1 m

Area = 12.78 m2

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 43

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

Maximum Bending moment=Area*udl/m = 2485 kNm

Bending moments for outer girders = 1134 kNm

Bending moments for inner girders = 682 kNm

( f) Design of sections for
longitudinal girder
Mma
x = 2066 kNm

Vmax = 1321 kN
The beam is designed as a T-section.Assuming
an

effective depth d = 1450 mm

approximate lever arm = 1350 mm

Ast = 7894 mm2

providing no. of bars in three rows = 10 nos

Diameter = 36 mm
1018
Provided Ast = 0 mm2
Shear reinforcements are designed to
resist the maximum shear at supports

Nominal shear stress τv = 3.04 N/mm2

If 4 bars of 36 mm diameter are bend up
near supports to resist shear,

Ast for 1 bar of 36 mm diameter = 1018 mm2

100Ast/bd = 1.4

From Table 1.3(b).for M20 grade concrete

N/
τc = 0.45 mm2

Shear taken by concrete

τcb
d = 195.8 kN

Assuming 2 bars of 36 mm diameter to be

bent-up at any support section section,

shear resisted by bent-up bars is given by

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 44

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

Number of bars = 2 nos

α = 45 degree

V's=σsv*Asv*sinα = 287.9 kN

shear to be resisted by vertical stirrups

1033.
V=Vmax -V's = 0 kN

Percentage of tensile reinforcement

Pt =Ast/bd*100 = 2.34 %

From Table 12B of IRC 21-2000

for pt=2.34% and M25 gradeof concrete

τc= = 0.54 N/mm2

Vs=V-τc*b*d = 798.1 kN

Using vertical stirrups of

Number of bars = 4

bar diamter = 10 mm

S=(Asw*σs*d(sinα+cosα))/Vs = 114.2 mm
As per IRC 21-2000 the maximum spacing is
300mm

Therefore, Provide 4 legged 10 mm dia @300mm c/c

vertical stirrups

(6) Design of cross girder

(a) Bending moments and shear forces in cross girder

mid ordinate height of BMD = 1.25 m

Selfweight of cross girder = 10.08 kN/m

Dead load from the slab = 16.9 kN

Therefore in terms of udl it will be = 8.45 kN/m

Total udl acting on the cross girder = 18.53 kN/m

Assuming the cross girder to be rigid

Reaction on each cross girder is = 18.53 kN

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 45

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

For maximum live load BM in the cross girder,

load should be placed

Load acting on the across girder = 271.3 kN

Assuming the cross girder to be rigid

Distance between edge of girder to load
acting on girder = 1.475 m

Reaction on each longitudinal girder is = 135.6 kN

Maximum BM in the cross girder under
this load = 200.0 kNm
Therefore live load BM including
impact= = 219.7 kNm

Dead load BM at 1.475m from support = 7.17 kN/m

Total design bending moment = 226.9 kNm

Shear force due to dead load = 18.53 kN

Shear force due to live load including
impact = 148.9 kN

Total design shear force = 167.5 kN

(b) Design of sections for cross grider

Mma
x = 226.9 kNm

Vmax = 167.5 kN
The cross girder will be designed
assuming an effective depth , d = 1520 mm

= 827.1 mm2
Area of reinforcement required,
Ast=Mmax/σstjd
Using 20mm dia Number of bars required
for the section = 2.63 ≈3
Therefore provided 4-20 dia HYSD
bars(Ast=1256.64 mm2)
Nominal shear stress,
τ=V/bd = 0.367 N/mm2

1.9 N/mm2
From Table 12A of IRC 21-2000, for M25 grade of
concrete, τmax=

As per Cl.304.7.1.2 of IRC 21-2000, τ<τmax

Hence safe

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 46

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

Using 2 legged-10 dia bars as vertical stirrup, required

spacing is calculated as follows
Diameter of
bars = 10 mm

Asw=Vs.S/σs.d.(sinα+cosα)

S=(Asw*σs*d(sinα+cosα))/Vs = 285.2 mm

Therefore provided 2 legged-10 dia @150 mm C/C

as vertical stirrup throughout the length of the cross
girder

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 47

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 48

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 49

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 50

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 51

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 52

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 53

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RCC BRIDGE AS PER IRC FOR 3-GIRDER AND 4-
GIRDER SYSTEM

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Page 54