You are on page 1of 10

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL CIVIL ENGINEERING International Journal of Civil Engineering OF and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 AND – 6308

(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May June (2013), © IAEME TECHNOLOGY (IJCIET)
ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print) ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), pp. 111-120 © IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijciet.asp Journal Impact Factor (2013): 5.3277 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com

IJCIET
© IAEME

COMPARITIVE ANALYSIS OF BOX GIRDER BIRDGE WITH TWO DIFFERENT CODES
Patil Yashavant S.1, Prof. Shinde Sangita B.2 P.G. Student, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Jawaharlal Nehru Engineering College, Aurangabad-431003, Maharashtra. India. Asst. Professor, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Jawaharlal Nehru Engineering College, Aurangabad-431003. Maharashtra, India.
2 1

ABSTRACT The design of a highway bridge is critically dependent on standards and criteria. Naturally, the importance of highway bridges in a modern transportation system would imply a set of rigorous design specifications to ensure the safety, quality and overall cost of the project. This paper discusses the comparative analysis of two standards namely AASHTO and IRC followed in construction of bridge superstructures subjected to load of heavy vehicles. To find out optimized cross section, variety of checks and exercise are performed that are presented in this paper. As a result of this exercise it is clear that results of bending moment and stress for self-weight and superimposed weight are same, but those are different for the moving load consideration, this is due to the fact that IRC codes gives design for the heavy loading compared to the AASHTO codes. In load combination, AASHTO codes have taken more factor of safety than IRC. Area of prestressing steel required for AASHTO is less compared to IRC. The results also showed the IRC codes are costly because for same dimension the numbers of Strand in the Web are more than those with AASHTO code. Analysis is carried out using the MIDAS CIVIL of finite elements base modeling. Keywords- Concrete Box Girder Bridge, impact factor, Prestress Force, shear strength, MIDAS CIVIL Model

111

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), © IAEME I. INTRODUCTION

For design of Mega Bridge superstructures there are many codes used around the world and most of countries have their own code depending on the natural conditions and the surrounding environmental factors, such as the effect of earthquakes and heavy snowfall, etc. In the United States, Bridge Engineers use the code of AASHTO “American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials”; this code can be adopted for design of the highway bridges with special requirements. Similarly, Indian bridge engineers refer to the IRC (Indian Road Congress) standard to do the design. However The AASHTO Standard Specification is adopted by many countries as the general code for bridge designs. While designing project two different codes might result in different design. Therefore to choose the most appropriate one, it’s important to do comparative analysis of codes and their resulting design. To prove this hypothesis in this study following two codes are adopted 1) AASHTO-LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 2) IRC and IS codes Design Specification The Two codes will be used to do the analysis of Box Girder. The similarities and differences, advantages and disadvantages of each code will be investigated. II. MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND ALLOWABLE STRESS

Concrete properties: Grade: M45 Tendon Properties: P .C Strand: Φ15.2 mm (0.6˝strand) Yield Strength: fpy = 1600 N/mm2 Ultimate Strength: fpu = 1900 N/mm2 Cross Sectional area of each tendon = 140 mm2 Modulus of Elasticity: Eps = 2.0 X 105N/mm2 Jacking Stress: fpj = 0.7fpu = 1330 N/mm2 Curvature friction factor: µ = 0.3 /rad Wobble friction factor: k = 0.0066 /m Anchorage Slip: ∆s = 6 mm (At the Beginning and at the End) III. CROSS SECTION SPECIFICATION Span = 50m Total width = 9.850m Road width = 8.750m Wearing coat = 100mm Area : 4.95 m² Ixx : 5.73 m4 Iyy : 2.47 m4 Izz : 2.80 m4 Center: y : 1.05 m Center: z : 4.93 m

112

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), © IAEME Checks for optimization of cross section dimensions :-( AASHTO-LRFD 5.14.2.3.10) 1. Check the thickness of flanges - Top flanges: Clear span between webs, lw = 4500 mm Minimum thickness = 4.5/30 =150 mm Top flange thickness = 300 mm. OK. - Bottom flanges: Clear span between webs, lw = 3800 mm Minimum thickness = 3800/30 =126.6 mm Bottom flange thickness = 200 mm. OK. 2. Check whether transverse prestressing is required or not lw = 4.500 m < 4.57 m( = 15 feet) Transverse prestressing not required. 3. Check web thickness Total depth = 2000 mm Minimum thickness, tmin = 2000/15=133mm (= 12 inches) Web thickness, tw = 300 mm. OK. 4. Check the length of top flange cantilever The distance between centerline of the webs: ln = 4925 mm ln X 0.45 = 2216 mm > 1500 mm. OK. 5. Check overall cross-section dimensions Maximum live load plus impact deflection: 6.433 mm Deflection limit, L/1000 = 30000/1000 = 30 mm. OK.

Figure 1. Cross section of Box girder IV. 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 the IRC 6:2000(Section II) and AASHTO-LRFD (Section 3) But the common forces are considered to design the model are as follows:
113

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), © IAEME 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. Wearing coat = 0.1x8.750x18 = 15.75kN/m Footway Load: (As per the IRC 6 -2000 clause 209) P = ࢖′ െ ቀ ૢ ቁ Where, P = Live Load in KN/m2 P’ = As per the case 40KN/m2 or 50 KN/m2 L= The effective span of girder P = ࢖′ െ ቀ ቁ ૢ 2 P=300kg/m P=3KN/m2 Total superimposed load = 15.75+ (3x1) = 18.75kN/m 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. In this case Following types of loadings are adopted for the analysis of two lane box girder, As per IRC Vehicle Load: - Class AA and Class A Dynamic Allowance: - 33% As per AASTHO Vehicle Load: - HL-93TDM, HL-93TRK Dynamic Allowance: - 33% Wind Loads Wind Load: 3 kN/m Total Height = Section Depth + Barrier = 2+1.55 = 3.55 m Wind Pressure = 3 kN/m2 Wind Load = 3.55 m X 3 KN/m2= 10.65 kN/m (Horizontal Load) = 10.65 kN/m X -1.33m = -28.47 kN.m/m (Moment)
૝૙ࢄ૜૙ି૜૙૙ ૝૙ࡸି૜૙૙

114

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), © IAEME

Figure 2. Wind load distribution 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. V. MIDAS CIVIL MODELING Figure 3: Midas Civil Model

VI.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The analysis of Box girder is done with the help of MIDAS civil Modelling,The Bending moment and shear force result for the self weight of Box girder is shown below,which are to be same for both the cases.

115

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), © IAEME

Figure 4 : Bending moment due to self weight

Figure 5: Beam Stress Diagram for Self weight Impact factor: As per the IRC 6-2000 6 (clause 211.2) Impact factor for Class A loading = As Per the AASHTO = = 0.405

= 0.125

Load combination : The load combination for both code are different,which are tabulated as below, Code IRC AASHTO Self weight Superimposed load 1 1 1.25 1.25 Table 1 :Load Combination Moving Load 1 1.75

Reactions for moving load are different, because weight of vehicle are different changes as we change the code, In IRC 6-2000 2000 class AA types vehicle having a weight of 700kN with two track each ach of weight 350kN and class A types vehicle i.e., heavy duty truck with two trailer transmits loads from 8 axles varying from a minimum of 27kN to a maximum of 114kN. It’s a 554kN train of wheeled vehicles on eight axles. For the AASHTO code, the HL-93TDM andHL-93TRK 93TRK types loading are considered, consider with the uniformly distributed load intensity of 9.34 kN/m , Shear-z z ,torsion, moment-y moment Effect of moving load on Girder as mention in table 2, 2
116

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), © IAEME
IRC Element Shear-z (kN) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 -1591.2 -1425.21 -1037.45 -875.88 -689.22 862.05 1014.94 1357.64 1537.66 1699.92 -1851.85 -1691.95 -1364.27 -1195.85 -1031.58 -725.24 961.68 1170.49 1325.59 1616.04 -1815.89 -1616.04 -1333.27 -1170.49 -961.68 710.84 1031.58 1150.73 1356.32 1691.95 -1907.47 -1706.56 -1537.66 -1357.64 -1102.45 -862.05 -659.09 845.47 1013.62 1425.21 1591.2 Torsion (kN*m) 4355.62 3892.26 -3349.94 -2965.53 2502.17 1959.85 2409.49 2965.53 3197.21 3799.59 4355.62 3813.31 3428.89 -2965.53 2423.22 2038.8 2502.17 2733.85 3289.89 3892.26 4268.09 3892.26 3428.89 2886.58 2502.17 2038.8 2270.48 2826.52 3428.89 3660.57 4355.62 -3892.26 -3349.95 -2965.53 2502.17 1959.86 2363.16 2919.19 3197.21 3753.25 4355.62 Moment-y (kN*m) 0 4311.36 7141.65 9632.31 9902.91 9997.5 9355.6 7435.09 4586.12 -6069.54 -9216.07 -6413.02 -4701.88 6536.63 7845.99 8316.06 8078.13 6928.24 4905.49 -5423.25 -8001.56 -5423.25 4905.49 6928.24 8078.13 8316.06 7845.99 6536.63 -4701.88 -6413.02 -9216.07 -6069.54 4586.12 7435.09 9355.6 9997.5 9902.91 9632.31 7141.65 4311.36 0 Shear-z (kN) -489.25 -410.24 -336.6 -268.86 -207.49 257.77 321.51 385.52 448.84 510.48 -554.15 -486.8 -417.84 -349.26 -282.91 -220.51 276.66 343.16 411.48 479.74 -545.92 -479.74 -411.48 -343.16 -276.66 220.51 282.91 349.26 417.84 486.8 -569.39 -510.48 -448.84 -385.52 -321.51 -257.77 207.49 268.86 336.6 410.24 489.25 Torsion (kN*m) 1548.01 1336.88 1135.84 944.89 764.03 593.25 764.03 944.89 1135.84 -1336.9 1548.01 1336.88 1135.84 944.89 764.03 593.25 764.03 944.89 1135.84 1336.88 1548.01 1336.88 1135.84 944.89 764.03 593.25 764.03 944.89 1135.84 -1336.9 1548.01 1336.88 1135.84 944.89 764.03 593.25 764.03 944.89 1135.84 -1336.9 1548.01 Moment-y (kN*m) 0 1274.8 2170.74 2708.51 2949.62 2902.3 2595.93 2014.99 1204.59 -1445.61 -2292.14 -1673.55 -1328.46 1857.06 2274.41 2402.2 2292.49 1894.03 1230.94 -1413.01 -1986.13 -1413.01 1230.94 1894.03 2292.49 2402.2 2274.41 1857.06 -1328.46 -1673.55 -2292.14 -1445.61 1204.59 2014.99 2595.93 2902.3 2949.62 2708.51 2170.74 1274.8 0 AASHTO

Table 2: Shear-z, torsion, moment-z due to moving load comparison

117

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), © IAEME
As we observer the table values, Shear-z, torsion, moment-y effect on girder due to IRC loading is more as compared to AASHTO loading, i.e., because of heavy vehicle load consideration in IRC as compared to AASHTO, but as per as impact factors concern, for AASHTO impact factor is 0.405 and for the IRC impact factor is 0.125, which are mention in above calculations. It means consideration of impact factor in AASHTO is more compared to IRC. Considering load combination of self-weight, superimposed dead load, moving load i.e., live load for the finding ultimate moments and stress as per the codes, which are tabulated in table 3,
IRC Torsion (kN*m) 4355.62 3892.26 -3349.94 -2965.53 2502.17 1959.85 2409.49 2965.53 3197.21 3799.59 4355.62 3813.31 3428.89 -2965.53 2423.22 2038.8 2502.17 2733.85 3289.89 3892.26 4268.09 3892.26 3428.89 2886.58 2502.17 2038.8 2270.48 2826.52 3428.89 3660.57 4355.62 -3892.26 -3349.95 -2965.53 2502.17 1959.86 2363.16 2919.19 3197.21 3753.25 4355.62 AASHTO Torsion (kN*m) 2709.02 2339.55 1987.73 1653.56 1337.05 1038.18 1337.05 1653.56 1987.73 -2339.55 2709.02 2339.55 1987.73 1653.56 1337.05 1038.19 1337.05 1653.56 1987.73 2339.55 2709.02 2339.55 1987.73 1653.56 1337.05 1038.19 1337.05 1653.56 1987.73 -2339.55 2709.02 2339.55 1987.73 1653.56 1337.05 1038.19 1337.05 1653.56 1987.73 -2339.55 2709.02

Element 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Shear-z (kN) -3196.01 -2623.38 -1829 -1260.79 680.82 1290.42 1849.95 2599.28 3185.94 3754.83 -4016.59 -3450.06 -2715.74 -2140.69 -1569.78 -856.8 1236.75 1852.2 2413.94 3111.02 -3717.5 -3111.02 -2421.62 -1852.2 -1236.75 842.4 1569.78 2095.56 2707.79 3450.06 -4369.02 -3761.47 -3185.94 -2599.28 -1937.45 -1290.42 -680.82 1230.37 1805.17 2623.38 3196.01

Moment-y (kN*m) 0 8515.85 14330.73 18586.06 19401.42 18820.87 16283.92 11248.44 -4612.2 -12145.8 -22067.1 -13379.7 -7004.22 7678.75 11212.65 12687.36 12234.17 9649.1 4971.27 -9232.47 -16905.7 -9232.47 4971.27 9649.1 12234.17 12687.36 11212.65 7678.75 -7004.22 -13379.7 -22067.1 -12145.8 -4612.2 11248.44 16283.92 18820.87 19401.42 18586.06 14330.73 8515.85 0

Shear-z (kN) -2859.5 -2213.62 -1577.15 -950.99 368.66 985.83 1605 2224.61 2843.03 3458.51 -3672.05 -3046.58 -2418.29 -1790.66 -1166.94 -550.13 827.53 1451.52 2078.7 2705.76 -3329.18 -2705.76 -2078.7 -1451.52 -827.53 550.13 1166.94 1790.66 2418.29 3046.58 -4069.22 -3458.51 -2843.03 -2224.61 -1605 -985.83 -368.66 950.99 1577.15 2213.62 2859.5

Moment-y (kN*m) 0 7479.45 12773.03 15917.01 17018.98 16093.38 13191.62 8286.51 -2600.79 -10115 -20053.3 -11625.4 -5198.86 4675.57 8182.88 9660.62 9199.91 6711.05 2236.26 -7227.88 -14590.9 -7227.88 2236.26 6711.05 9199.91 9660.62 8182.88 4675.57 -5198.86 -11625.4 -20053.3 -10115 -2600.79 8286.51 13191.62 16093.38 17018.98 15917.01 12773.03 7479.45 0

Table 3: Shear-z, torsion, moment-z due to load combination comparison
118

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), © IAEME From the above table, bending moment at end support are zero, due to simply support condition, but in the intermediate support it shows the negative bending moment which is to be less compare to positive bending moment. Comparing both the results, IRC combination show more moment compared to the AASHTO combination, i.e., because of heavy moving load consideration, while observing load combination multiplying factor for self-weight, 2nd dead load, moving load are one for IRC, but in AASHTO 1.25,1.25,1.75 respectively. It shows that consideration of factor of safety is more in AASHTO. Calculation of Prestressing force IRC 0.8x 0.45x 45 = 16 N/mm2
଴.଼ଵ୶ଵ.଼ହ୶୉ଽ ଶ.ଶ଴଺଻୶୉ଵ଴

fbr finf Prestressing force Anchorage type No. of cables Area

AASHTO 0.8x 0.45x 45 = 16 N/mm2
଴.଼ଵ୶ଵ.଼ହ୶୉ଽ ଶ୶୉ଵ଴

=14.91 N/mm2 =

= 13 N/mm2 =

ସ.ଽସ଼ଽ୶୉଺ ୶ ଵସ.ଵଵ ୶ ଵ.଼ହ ୶୉ଽ

24308.998 kN

ଵ.଼ହ୶୉ଽାସ.ଽସ଼ଽ ଡ଼ ୉଺ ଡ଼ ଻଴଴

22396.667 kN

ଵ.଼ହ୶୉ଽାସ.ଽସ଼ଽ ଡ଼ ୉଺ ଡ଼ ଻଴଴

ସ.ଽସ଼ଽ୶୉଺ ୶ ଵଷ ୶ ଵ.଼ହ ୶୉ଽ

19K -15 (15.2mmϕ,19 strands) 27K -15 (15.2mmϕ,19 strands) Duct Dia=95mm Duct Dia =110mm 8 21280 mm2 4 15120 mm2

Table 4: Prestress calculation

VII.

CONCLUSION

This paper presents comparative analysis of concrete box girder that would help designer while considering different factors based on code at the beginning of the project. We also showed how to use MIDAS civil use for the analysis of box girder. It gives result based on finite element modeling, node by node result are specified in above tables, Box girder shows better resistance to the torsion of superstructure. For the optimization of section, different types of check need to be performed; those are carried out in this paper. Results of bending moment and stress for self-weight and superimposed weight are same, but those are different for the moving load consideration, because IRC codes gives design for the heavy loading compared to the AASHTO codes. In load combination, AASHTO codes have taken more factor of safety than IRC. Area of prestressing steel required for AASHTO is less compared to IRC. Finally based on this comparative study it’s clear that AASHTO code is more economical than IRC.

119

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), © IAEME REFERENCES 1. IRC: 6- 2000 “Standard specifications and code of practice for road bridges” Indian road congress. 2. IRC: 18 – 2000 “Design criteria for prestressed concrete road bridges (post – tensioned concrete)” Indian roads congress. 3. IS: 1343 – 1980 “Code of practice for prestressed concrete” Indian standard. 4. IRC: 21 –2000 “Standard specification and code of practice for road bridges (Plain and Reinforced)” Indian road congress. 5. AASHTO (2007). “AASHTO-LRFD Bridge Design Specifications” 6. Hussein Yousif Aziz and Jianlin Ma, “Design and analysis of bridge foundation with different codes”, Journal of Civil Engineering and Construction Technology Vol. 2(5), pp. 101-118, May 2011. 7. Priyanka Bhivgade, “Analysis and design of prestressed concrete box Girder Bridge” Civil engineering portal. 8. Young-Ha Park and Chan-Min Park, “Development of Long Span Prestressed Concrete I Girder Bridge by Optimal Design” expressway transportation research institute 08-06. 9. V.N. H EGGADE, R.K. MEHTA & R. P RAKASH,” Design and Construction of Pre-Tensioned Sutlej Bridge in Punjab” 143-158. 10. Hussein Yousif Aziz and Jianlin Ma,“Experimental and Theoretical Static Analysis of High-Speed Railway” The Open Construction and Building Technology Journal,2012, 6, 17-31 11. RICHARD A. MILLER “AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications of Prestressed Concrete” AASHTO-LRFD Specification, 4th Edition 12. S. Rana & R.Ahsan, “Design of prestressed concrete I-girder bridge superstructure using optimization algorithm”, IABSE-JSCE Joint Conference on Advances in Bridge Engineering-II, August 8-10, 2010. 13. Text Book of “Design of Bridges”, By N. Krishna Raju, Fourth Edition OXFORD & IBH PUBLISHING CO. PVT. LTD. 14. Text Book of “Prestressed Concrete a fundamental Approach”, By Edward G. Nawy, Fifth Edition. 15. Prof. P.T. Nimbalkar and Mr.Vipin Chandra, “Estimation Of Bridge Pier Scour For Clear Water & Live Bed Scour Condition” International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET),Volume 4,Issue 3, 2013, pp. 92 - 97, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316 16. Vinod P, Lalumangal And Jeenu G, “Durability Studies On High Strength High Performance Concrete” International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 4,Issue 1, 2013, pp.16 - 25, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316

120