INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING

Volume1,No 3,2010
Copyright2010AllrightsreservedIntegratedPublishingservices

Researcharticle

ISSN0976 4399

AnalysisandDesignofUnderpassRCC Bridge

Mohankar.R.H1,Ronghe.G.N2
1Lecturer,CivilEngineeringDept.,G.HRaisoniCollegeofEngineering,Nagpur,India.
2Professor,AppliedMechanicsDept.,VisvesvarayaNationalInstituteofTechnology,
Nagpur,India
roshanmohankar@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
TheUnderpassRCCBridgeisveryrarelyadoptedinbridgeconstructionbutrecentlythe
UnderpassRCCBridgeisbeingusedfortrafficmovement.Inthispaper,theanalysisof
the underpass RCC bridge is carried out.The analysis of this underpass RCC bridge is
done by considering fixed end condition. Finite Element Method (FEM) analysis is
performedandresultsarepresented.Comparisonofdifferentforcesbetween2Dand3D
models for fixed end condition is provided. In this study we show a 2D model can be
effectively used for analysis purpose for all the loading condition mentioned in IRC: 6,
Standard Specifications and Code of Practice Road Bridges The Indian Roads
CongressandDirectorateofbridges&structures(2004),Codeofpracticeforthedesign
ofsubstructuresandfoundationsofbridgesIndianRailwayStandard.
Keywords:RCCUnderpassbridge,FEManalysis.
1. Introduction
TheUnderpassRCCBridgeisveryrarelyadoptedinbridgeconstructionbutrecentlythe
UnderpassRCCBridgeisbeingusedfortrafficmovement.ThisunderpassRCCbridgeis
pushed insidetheembankmentby meansofhydraulic jacksystemSincetheavailability
of land in the city is less, such type of bridge utilizes less space for its construction.
Hence constructing Underpass Bridge is a better option where there is a constraint of
spaceorland.DetailedanalysisanddesignofunderpassRCCbridgehasnotbeencarried
outtilldate.RongheG.N.andGatfaneY.M(20042005)haveworkedontheanalysis
anddesignof2DunderpassRCCbridgemodel.
In this paper 2D along with 3D analysis of underpass RCC bridge is carried out
considering six different loading conditions and eight different loading combinations
whichareconsideringfromIRC:62000,StandardSpecificationsAndCodeOfPractice
Road Bridges The Indian Roads Congress and Directorate of bridges & structures
(2004), Code of practice for the design of substructures and foundations of bridges
IndianRailwayStandard.Theendconditionisconsideredtobefixedforboth2Dand3D
underpassRCCbridgemodel.
1.1 Modelingofsystem
ForthestudyofUnderpassRCCbridge,earthpressureactingonsidewallsofunderpass
RCCbridgebecausestructureembeddedaswellasverticalloadingduetoimposedload

558

INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING
Volume1,No 3,2010
Copyright2010AllrightsreservedIntegratedPublishingservices

Researcharticle

ISSN0976 4399

and live load from Bridge rules, Rules specifying the loads for designing the super
structureandsubstructureofbridgesand forassessingthestrengthofexistingbridges
(Indian Railway Standard code) on the top of underpass RCC bridge is considered. As
there is a top loading, there is reaction at bottom also. This underpass RCC bridge is
provided for city traffic also. For that purpose live load from IRC: 62000 inside the
underpassRCCbridgeisconsidered.
Vertical

Earth
Pressuredue
tobackfill

Earth
Pressuredue
tobackfill

Reactionatbottom
Figure1: 2DModelofRCCUnderpassBridge
2DunderpassRCCbridgemodelshowninFigure1isanalyzedconsideringwithoutsoil
structureinteraction.

Figure2:3DModelofRCCUnderpassBridge
3DunderpassRCCbridgemodelshowninfigure2isanalyzedconsideringwithoutsoil
structureinteraction.

559

INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING
Volume1,No 3,2010
Copyright2010AllrightsreservedIntegratedPublishingservices

Researcharticle

ISSN0976 4399

2.Formulation
2.1Loadsonthetopofslab
Total load for bending moment and shear force is considered from IRS code rules
specifyingtheloadsfordesigningthesuperstructureandsubstructureofbridgesandfor
assessingthestrengthofexistingbridges.Forspanof8mtotalloadforbendingmoment
981kNandtotalloadforshearforceis1154kNisconsidered.
Deadloadofearthfilloverthebox=Areaxdepthxdensity
1.1
Totalverticalpressureontopslab =Imposedload+Deadload+Liveload
1.2
2.2Loadsonsidewalls
The coefficient of active earth pressure of the soil is given by the equation
cos 2 (f - a )
Ka =

cos a cos (a + d ) 1+

sin (f + d ) - sin (f - i)

cos (a - d ) - cos (a - i)

1.3
where,
=Densityofsoil,=Angleofinternalfriction, d =angleoffrictionbetweenwalland
earthfill
Wherevalueof d isnotdeterminedbyactualtests,thefollowingvaluesmaybeassumed.
(i)
d =1/3forconcretestructures.
(ii)
d =2/3formasonrystructures.
=
Angle
which the earth surface makes with the horizontal behind the earth retaining
i
structure
( i =00forembeddedstructure).
Since this concrete structure is embedded in soil, the value of d is considered as 1/3
(forconcretestructures)consideredforcalculationofcoefficientofactiveearthpressure
ofthesoil.
2.3 Earthpressureactingonthesidewalls:
2.3.a)Earthpressureduetobackfill
Earthpressurecenteroftopslab= Ka

g H

Earthpressurecenterofbottomslab=

Ka g H

1.4
1.5

2.3.b)Earthpressureduetodeadloadsurcharge
Earthpressureactingonsidewalls:
AtTop=Imposedloadoftrack+Earthpressureonthetopofslab+Liveload
1.6
ATBottom =Horizontaleffectofsurcharge+Earthpressurecenterofbottomslab 1.7

560

INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING
Volume1,No 3,2010
Copyright2010AllrightsreservedIntegratedPublishingservices

Researcharticle

ISSN0976 4399

2.4 Reactionatthebottomofbox
Selfweightof box=Weightoftopslab+Weightofbottomslab
+Weightofsidewalls
Totalreactionatbottom=Selfweightof box +Weightof imposedload
+Weightof liveload
Theboundaryconditionconsideredisfixed.

1.8
1.9

3.Analysisof2DunderpassRCCbridgemodel
A 2D underpass RCC bridge (Figure 1) is modeled considering 1m length for the
following details shown below. Box dimensions: 1mx7.5mx4.1m (LxWxH) (Center to
center). In addition to the dimensions mentioned in Figure 3, following parameters are
considered forthe2Danalysis. Keepingalltheparameterssame,theanalysis iscarried
out using two methods viz. conventional slope deflection method (manual calculations)
and other by using SAP2000 (programming software). The manually calculated values
forthebendingmomentatcornerAis205kNmandcornerCis302kNmfordeadload
case.ForthesamecornersA&C,theSAPresultsarefoundtobe203kNmand298kN
mrespectively.
8
m

7.5
m
A

0.
6

4.1
3.5
m

4.7

0.6
m
7m

0.
0.5
(a)(b)
5
m

Figure3:(a)CentertocenterDimensionsofRCCUnderpassBridge
(b)DimensionsofRCCUnderpassBridge
DimensionsofunderpassRCCbridge
Clearhorizontalopening
7m
Clearverticalopening
3.5m
Slabthickness
0.6m
Wall thickness
0.5m
Outertoouterhorizontalwidth 8m
Outertoouterverticalheight
4.7m
LengthunderpassRCCbridge1m
Angleof internalfriction()
25o
Densityofsoil()19kN/m3
Gradeofconcrete
M40
561

INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING
Volume1,No 3,2010
Copyright2010AllrightsreservedIntegratedPublishingservices

Researcharticle

ISSN0976 4399

Gradeofsteel
Fe415
ThemaxBMandSFobtainedfor2DunderpassRCCbridgemodelconsideringwithout
soil stiffness are shown in Table 1. Shear force and bending moment diagram after
analysisisshowninFigure4(a)&(b)

(a)

(b)

Figure4:(a)SFdiagramfor2DAnalysis

(b)BMDFor2DAnalysis

3.1Validationofresults
ThebendingmomentresultsobtainedbyslopedeflectionmethodandSAP2000program
for 2 dimensional model of underpass RCC bridge are approximately same. The slight
variationofresultsmaybeduetothevariationofmomentofinertiavalues.Basedonthis
validityofresultsfurtheranalysisofsame2Dmodelforvariouscombinationsofloading
caseswascarriedout.Also itwasobservedthatwasthesamecornersofthe3D model
thebending momentresultsobtainedweresame and hence3Danalysiswascarriedout
usingSAP2000.
Table1:MaxBMandMaxSFof2D
Member

Results

MaxSF
BMMidSpan
BMCorner
MaxSF
Bottom
BMMidSpan
Slab
BMCorner
MaxSF
Side
BMMidSpan
Walls
BMCorner
Top
Slab

MaxBM&MaxSFof2Dmodel
withoutsoilstiffness(kNm)
456.33
572.72
339.94
259.92
372.73
147.11
79.68
204.67
339.94

562

INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING
Volume1,No 3,2010
Copyright2010AllrightsreservedIntegratedPublishingservices

Researcharticle

ISSN0976 4399

3.2Analysisof3DunderpassRCCbridgemodel
A3DunderpassRCCbridgeismodeledconsideringtotallength13mwithdetailsshown
aboveandthereisnochangeindetailsexceptlength.Boxdimensions:13mx7.5mx4.1m
(LxWxH)(Centertocenter).ThemaxBMandSFobtainedfor3DunderpassRCCbridge
modelconsideringwithoutsoilstiffnessareshowninTable2.

Table2:MaxBMandMaxSFof3D
Member

Results

MaxSF
TopSlab BMMidSpan
BMCorner
MaxSF
Bottom
BMMidSpan
Slab
BMCorner
MaxSF
Side
BMMidSpan
Walls
BMCorner

MaxBM&MaxSFof3Dmodel
withoutsoilstiffness(kNm)
458.85
530.49
413.63
282.49
377.87
154.14
78.93
220.74
413.63

4.Comparisonof Resultof 2d&3dUnderpassRccBridgeModel

The comparison of the maximum bending moment and shear force values obtained for
2Dand3DunderpassRCCbridgemodelswhichareconsideredwithoutsoilstiffnessare
compared.Thecomparisonbetweenthesetworesults(Table3)showsthatthevaluesof
bending momentandshear forcefor2Dand3D model forall loadingcasesconsidered
for the analysis purpose from IRC: 62000, Standard Specifications and Code of
PracticeRoadBridgesTheIndianRoadsCongressandcombinations,areapproximately
same.
Table3:ComparisonofMaxBMandMaxSFof2Dmodeland3Dmodelofthebox
ComparisonofMaxBMof2D&3Dmodelwithoutsoilstiffness
MaxBMof 2D
MaxBMof3D
%
modelwithoutsoil modelwithoutsoil
Member
Results
Difference
stiffness(kNm)
stiffness(kNm)
MaxSF
456.33
458.85
0.55
TopSlab BMMidSpan
572.72
530.49
7.96
BMCorner
339.94
413.63
17.82

563

INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING
Volume1,No 3,2010
Copyright2010AllrightsreservedIntegratedPublishingservices

Researcharticle

MaxSF
Bottom
BMMidSpan
Slab
BMCorner
MaxSF
Side
BMMidSpan
Walls
BMCorner

ISSN0976 4399

259.92
372.73
147.11
79.68
204.67
339.94

282.49
377.87
154.14
78.93
220.74
413.63

7.99
1.36
4.56
0.95
7.28
17.82

5.Conclusions
Fromtheanalysis itcan beobservedthatbending momentandshear forceobtained for
2D and 3D model are approximately same. A 2D model can be effectively used for
analysis purpose for all the loading condition mentioned in IRC: 6 and Directorate of
bridges & structures (2004),Code of practice for the design of substructures and
foundationsofbridgesIndianRailwayStandard.Furtherresearchisneededtoverifythe
use of 2D model for different parameters such as dynamic analysis, soil structure
interactionetc.
6.REFERENCES
1.RongheG.N.AndGatfaneY.M."AnalysisAndDesign OfABridgeByAPushBack
System.ADissertationof M.techInstructuralEngineering.20042005.
2.Directorateofbridges&structures(2004),Codeofpracticeforthedesignof
substructuresandfoundationsofbridgesIndianRailwayStandard.
3.IRC:212000,StandardSpecificationsAndCodeOfPracticeRoadBridgesThe
Indian RoadCongress.
4.IS456:2000,PlainandReinforcedconcretecodeforpracticeBureauofIndian
Standards.
5.IRC:62000,StandardSpecificationsAndCodeOfPracticeRoadBridgesThe
IndianRoadCongress.
6.IRC:82000,Designcriteriaforprestressedconcreteroadbridges(PostTension
concrete)TheIndianRoadsCongress.

564