See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/304395832

Behaviour of Skew Bridge Using Grillage
Anology Method
Conference Paper · March 2016

CITATIONS

READS

0

13

3 authors, including:
Hardik Solanki
PARUL UNIVERSITY
2 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SELF SENSING CONCRETE View project

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,
letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Hardik Solanki
Retrieved on: 06 October 2016

com Parul Institute of Engineering & Technology Wagodia . Skew angle. Prof.391760. Skew bridge allow a large variety of solution in roadway alignments. the force flow in skew bridge is much more complicated than right bridge. unless the unit weights have been determined by actual weighing of representative samples of the materials in question.391760. Vadodara. 15°.solanki@paruluniversity.. Gandhinagar E-mail ID bnkadia@gmail.Behaviour of Skew Bridge Using Grillage Anology Method Punit Patel P. the volume of traffic. This contribution to a small environments impact for new road construction project. of Civil Engineering Dy. Dept. IRC: 6 standards is DEAD LOAD CONSIDERATION A As Per IRC: 6 (2014) – Clause 203 The dead load carried by a girder or member shall consist of the portion of the weight of the superstructure which is supported wholly or in part by the girder or member including its own weight. Executive Engineer Design R & B Circle. T-Beam girder of 20 m span length with 2 lane of carriage way width is 7. For this study. the expected normal traffic loads that might go over the bridge.com Asst.ac. The analysis result show maximum bending moment. KEY WORDS: Skew Bridges. In India. river crossing and other extreme grade changes where skew geometry is necessary due to space limitations. 60°.5 m considered. bridge decks. This is due to space construction in congested urban area. In the present study an attempt has been made to study a single-span T-Beam Reinforced Concrete Girder under Indian Road Congress (IRC) loading. Gujarat. It can also be needed due to geographical constraints such as mountainous terrains. To determine effect of skew ness on the general behavior of bridge. One of the most important steps in the process of analysis and designing a bridge is to determine the most appropriate live load representing to a high certainty. torsional moment and shear force compared with different skew angle. Dept. referred for load considerations while designing and analysis of bridge. Gujarat. T-beam. Analysis is done using Staad Pro Software. the nature of the expected major traffic passing over the bridge. of Civil Engineering Parul Institute of Engineering & Technology Wagodia .in ABSTRACT HEADING In this study summarizes the analysis of skew bridge with the different skew angle consists of 0°. The main objective of this study is to finding the similarities and differences between skew bridge and normal bridge under IRC live load. Prof. However. The following unit weights of materials shall be used to determining loads. Dead Load. 1 . Student. span length. These expected live loads vary from a country to country. India E-mail ID punitrpatel06@gmail. 45°. 30°. depending upon many parameters such as degree of locality. India E-mail ID hardil. Hardik Solanki Bhanuprasad N Kadia Asst. In addition skew bridges are common at highway interchange. Vadodara. INTRODUCTION Newly designed bridge are often skew.G. along with live load combination is considered. in which case the actual weights as thus determined shall be used. Vehicular Live Load.

1 m AS PER IRC: 6 (2014) – CLAUSE 204 I. between the outer edged of passing or crossing vehicles on multi-lane bridges shall be.3 m. The minimum Clearance. 1. The ground contact area of wheels shall be as under: TABLE II. Fig.7 Fig. UNIT WEIGHT AS P ER I RC 1 Concrete (Asphalt) Weight (t/m³) 2. Remaining width of carriageway shall be loaded with 500 kg/m².2 2 Concrete (Breeze) 1. 3. MINIMUM C LEARANCE FOR MULTILANE B RIDGES g Varies from 0.5 7 Concrete (Lime-Brick Aggregate) 1.4 6.5 5 Concrete (Cement-Plain) Concrete (Cement-Plain with Plums) Concrete (Cement-Reinforced) 6 Concrete (Cement-Prestressed) 2. LIVE LOAD CONSIDERATION TABLE III. Elevation of IRC Class 70R Loading Ground Contact Area B (mm) W (mm) 250 500 200 280 150 200 Notes: 1. Elevation Of Irc Class A Wheeled Loading Notes: 1.1 m Above 6. For single lane bridges having carriage way width less than 5. heavier stresses may occur under class A loading.4 3 2. 2 . Clear Width 5.5 2. 2. f. The nose to tail spacing between two successive vehicles shall not be less than 90 m for tracked vehicle and 30 m for wheeled vehicle. 3. Linear Dimensions in metre.5 m. GROUND CONTACT AREA FOR IRC CLASS A WHEELED LOADING Axle Load (Tonne) 11. II.5 2. one lane of class A shall be considered to occupy 2.4 m to 1.2 m 1. Sr. A. 2.2 m f 150 mm for all carriageway width Axle loads in tonne. For multi-lane brides each class a loading shall be considered to occupy single lane for design purpose. The nose to tail distance between successive trains shall not be less than 18. IRC Class A Loading This loading is to be normally adopted on all roads on which permanent bridges and culverts are constructed.5 Fig. IRC Class 70R Loading This loading is to be normally adopted on all roads on which permanent bridges and culverts are constructed.3 to 6.1 4 Materials 2. g. between outer edge of wheel and the roadway face of the kerb and the minimum clearance. Bridges designed for Class 70 R loading should be checked for Class A Loading also as under certain conditions.3 m.9 8 Concrete (Lime-Stone Aggregate) 2.TABLE I. 4. 6. No. Cross Section of Minimum Clearance For Multilane Bridges 5.

50 m Total Width 8.375 m Depth of Kerb 0. For Span Less than 9 m 1. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Effective Span of Bridge 20. Tracked 25 Percent for spans up to 5 m linearly reducing to 10 Percent for span up to 9 m 2.325 m Width of Kerb 0.500 m Longitudinal Girders Centre to Centre Distance Between 5. Steel Bridge 3. Class 70R loading is applicable only for bridges having carriageway width of 5. Grade of Concrete M 30 Grade of Steel Fe 415 Live Load Considered IRC Class A Wheeled Loading – For 2 Lanes IRC Class 70R Wheeled Loading – For 1 Lane Impact Factor For IRC Class A Wheeled Loading 1.0 (LL + IM) IMPACT LOAD GENERAL DESIGN DATA A As Per IRC: 6 (2014) – Clause 208 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I.000 m Clear Carriage Way Width 7. 4.3 m and above. For multi-lane bridges and culverts. 5 for spans in excess of 23 m. 5. accordance with the curve in Fig. for beyond 45 m refer Fig. Axle load in tonnes. each Class 70R loading shall be considered to occupy two lanes and no other vehicle shall be allowed in these two lanes.173 For IRC Class 70R Wheeled Loading 1. LOAD COMBINATIONS A. 6. Numbers of Cross Girders 5 Nos.Vehicles 2.250 m Depth of Girder 2. 5 for spans in excess of 12 m.0 DL + 1.2 m. 5. 4. Cross Section Of T-Beam Bridge 1. For Class A Loading The impact fraction shall be determined from the following equations which are applicable for spans between 3 m and 45 m. ‘C’. For Tracked Vehicles 10 Percent for all span For Wheeled Vehicles 25 percent up to a span of 23 m and in accordance with the curve in Fig. The passing or crossing vehicle can only be allowed on lanes other than these two lanes.550 m Centre to Centre Distance Between 2. 25 percent up to a span of 12 m and in 3 . The maximum loads for the wheeled vehicle shall be 20 tonne for a single axle or 40 tonne for a bogie of two axles spaced not more than 1. Impact Fraction Graph As Per IRC II. 4. Wheeled B.000 m Cross Girders Numbers of Longitudinal Girders 3 Nos.250 Fig. The minimum clearance between the road face to the kerb and the outer edge of the wheel or tracked. 25 Percent For Span 9 m or more Reinforced Concrete Bridges Fig. Linear dimension in meters. 5 for spans in excess of 40 m. 3. shall be 1. 4.000 m Width of Girder 0. For Wheeled 10 percent up to a span of 40 m and in accordance with the curve in Fig. For Class 70R Loading A. following load combination is taken: Service I: 1.250 m Depth of Slab 0.22 m centres. For Tracked Vehicles 2. As Per IRC: 6 (2014) – Table 1 For this case study.

895 1071.451 1089.174 508. The following are analysis summary including load combinations defined as per each code. 10.195 909.62 1158.56 OUTER GIRDER S. Class A Loading TABLE IV. Screenshot of 15° Skew Bridge Generating Model I.F ( KN ) 831.345 SUMMARY OF INNER GIRDER AS P ER IRC DESIGN LOAD COMBINATION B.M ( KN.844 INNER GIRDER S.M ( KN.112 1144.F ( KN ) 740. 8. Screenshot of 0° Skew Bridge Generating Model Fig. Screenshot of 45° Skew Bridge Generating Model Fig. 9. Screenshot of 30° Skew Bridge Generating Model TABLE V.m ) 94.m ) 3600.55 3204.Fig.427 861.634 3451.484 T.868 1150.M ( KN.848 3145.392 912.614 .299 732.13 3497.940 T.56 2687.36 2189. SKEW ANGLE 0° 15° 30° 45° 60° Fig. 6. Screenshot of 60° Skew Bridge Generating Model ANALYSIS SUMMARY Analysis is done manually for IRC Live Load STAAD PRO Software is use for analysis purpose. 7.598 790.896 921.14 927.805 2599.758 757.m ) 219.M ( KN. SKEW ANGLE 0° 15° 30° 45° 60° 4 SUMMARY OF OUTER GIRDER AS PER I RC DESIGN LOAD COMBINATION B.931 2076.105 542.m ) 3565. A Results for IRC Live Load Fig.152 1081.

M ( KN.90 843.F ( KN ) T.742 1017.M For Class A Loading Fig.21 1182.03 1006.582 1280.19 60° 2396.39 TABLE VII.056 30° 3379.77 45° 2891.10 905. Comparision Of S. 11. SKEW ANGLE SUMMARY OF O UTER GIRDER AS PER I RC DESIGN LOAD COMBINATION B.m ) OUTER GIRDER S.570 1017.M ( KN.F For Class A Loading SUMMARY OF O UTER GIRDER AS PER I RC DESIGN LOAD COMBINATION B.86 595.26 984.54 30° 3440. SKEW ANGLE Fig.M For Class A Loading Fig.m ) 0° 3851.87 1241.87 15° 3759.15 Fig. Comparision Of T.763 60° 2415.291 45° 2832.M ( KN. Comparision Of B.m ) INNER GIRDER S.03 1163.679 204. Class 70 WHEEL Loading TABLE VI.871 827.F ( KN ) T. Comparision Of B. 14.M ( KN. 12.146 15° 3684.18 226.M For Class 70 Wheel Loading 5 . 13.II.120 876.138 645.574 814.m ) 0° 3771.21 1075.10 1127.337 1273.

it increase around 20.47 % as compared to right bridge in case of class A loading.. Loads and Stresses. “Concrete Bridge Practices – Analysis. Mirzabozorg “Load Distribution Factors In Simply Supported Skew Bridges” Journal Of Bridge Engineering © Asce / Jul/Aug 2003 . “Concrete Bridges Handbook”. New Delhi. it decreased around 40. Bentley Systems. [4] V. Aggrawal “Grillage Analogy in Bridge Deck Analysis”. Indian Roads Congress. Section II. Comparision Of T.32 % in class 70 Wheel Loading. IEG Group.417 % as compared to right bridge in case of class 70 Wheel loading. II III IV V VI Bending moment decreases with increasing skew angle. March 2008.405 % and it decrease after 45° around 6. S . Raina.M For Class 70 Wheel Loading CONCLUSION I. “Design of Bridges”. Krishna Raju. Design and Economics”. [5] C. 6 [1] IRC 6 – 2014 “Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges”. Khaloo And H. K. [3] V.89 % and it decrease after 45° around 5. [6] Bridge Design using the STAAD. Torsion moment increase with increasing skew angle up to 45° around 86. Comparision Of S. Shear Force increase with increasing skew angle. 15. 16.Surana and R. Torsion moment increase with increasing skew angle up to 45° around 82.F For Class 70 Wheel Loading Fig.657% as compared to right bridge in case of class A loading. 2014.REFERENCES Fig. Raina. India. Bentley Systems Inc. [7] Ali R.Pro/Beava”.86 % as compared to right bridge in case of class 70 Wheel loading. S. it increase around 20.47 % in class A Loading. Bending moment decreases with increasing skew angle. Shear Force increase with increasing skew angle. K. it decreased around 36. [2] N.