Development of Outer Ring Road, Chennai from km 0+ 000 to km 29+ 650 C1092705

Detailed Design Note for VUP 1 x 12 x 5.5 DN5000 Rev C

4 STRUCTURAL DESIGN
4.1 SUMMARY OF MOMENTS (From STAAD Analysis)
Note *: Moments near supports are taken at the face of the slab
Table 4-1: SUMMARY OF MOMENTS (From STAAD Analysis)
MAXIMUM MOMENT(kNm)
TOP SLAB BOTTOM SLAB SIDE WALLS
Hogging Hogging
Hogging Sagging
Sagging in kN-m in Sagging in kN-m
Detail in kN-m in kN-m
in kN-m kN-m
Combination 1 178 154 * 258 195 * 182 * 0
Combination 2 389 319 * 422 273 * 364 * 0
Combination 3 389 396 * 422 361 * 436 * 0

Combination 1 = DL+SIDL+EP
Combination 2 = DL+SIDL+LL+SL+EF+EP+BF(
(With Braking Force)

Combination 3 = DL+SIDL+LL+SL+EF+EP+BF(Without Braking Force)

Bending Moment Diagram for combination 1

Bending Moment Diagram for combination 2

L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd. Page 1+19

Development of Outer Ring Road, Chennai from km 0+ 000 to km 29+ 650 C1092705
Detailed Design Note for VUP 1 x 12 x 5.5 DN5000 Rev C

Bending Moment Diagram for combination 3

MAXIMUM MOMENT(kN-m)
TOP SLAB BOTTOM SLAB SIDE WALLS
Detail Hogging Hogging
Hogging Sagging
Sagging in kN-m in Sagging in kN-m
in kN-m in kN-m
in kN-m kN-m
Max Moment 389 396 422 361 436 0
0.2DL+0.3LL 99 64 101 62 92 0

4.2 Comparison of BM due to various LL combinations (Per m width)

Top Slab Bottom Slab Side wall
Hogging Hogging
Hogging Sagging
Detail Sagging in kN-m in in
in kN-m in kN-m
kN-m kN-m
70R+Class A 100 66 68 23 80
3 Lanes ClassA 100 59 63 24 71
Sec 3.4 164 143 130 70 144

As the result obtained due to 70R+class A and 3 lanes of class A is very less when compared to the result obtained according to
sec 3.4, the later is only considered in the analysis and design of VUP

L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd. Page 2+19

Development of Outer Ring Road, Chennai from km 0+ 000 to km 29+ 650 C1092705
Detailed Design Note for VUP 1 x 12 x 5.5 DN5000 Rev C

Material Properties
cbc st
Grade of Steel Grade of Concrete m k j Q,t/m2
t/m2 t/m2
Fe500 M35 1167 24000 10 0.327 0.891 173.3

Depth / Thickness Clear cover

Detail 'm' 'm'
Top Slab 0.70 0.050

Bottom Slab 0.80 0.050

Side Wall 0.70 0.050

Top Slab Bottom Slab Side Wall

Detail Unit
Mid Span Support Mid Span Support Hogging Sagging
Moment 39 40 42 36 44 0 tm
d reqd 474 478 493 456 502 0 mm
= (39/173.30/1)^0.51000
d Prov 638 638 738 738 638 642 mm
Ast,reqd 2854 2905 2676 2289 3198 840 mm2
= 39/(240000.891638/1000)10^6
Min. Steel 0.12% of Ag
Min Ast,reqd 840 840 960 960 840 840 mm2
Distribution Steel
To cater for 0.2DL + 0.3LL
Moment 10 6 10 6 9 0 tm
Ast,reqd 726 469 640 393 675 0 mm2
Dia of Bar 12 12 12 12 12 12 mm

L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd. Page 3+19

Development of Outer Ring Road, Chennai from km 0+ 000 to km 29+ 650 C1092705
Detailed Design Note for VUP 1 x 12 x 5.5 DN5000 Rev C

Spacing 150 150 150 150 150 150 mm

Ast,Prov 754 754 754 754 754 754 mm2
Remarks Safe Safe Safe Safe Safe Safe

Table 3-2 Summary of Reinforcement:

Detail Bar Dia of Bar Spacing Ast,reqd Ast,Prov Remarks
25 220
Top Bar 2905 3659 Safe
20 220
Top Slab 25 220
Bottom Bar 2854 3659 Safe
20 220
Distributor bar 12 150 726 754 Safe
25 220
Top Bar 2676 3659 Safe
20 220
Bottom Slab 25 220
Bottom Bar 2289 3659 Safe
20 220
Distributor bar 12 150 640 754 Safe
25 220
Earthern face 3198 4462 Safe
25 220
Side Wall 16 220
Inner face 840 914 Safe
0 220
Distributor bar 12 150 675 754 Safe

Check for Shear

(Shear Forces are considered from STAAD Pro Results)
c
Description V (kN) v (N/mm2) % of Ast Remarks
(N/mm2)
Top Slab 219 0.344 0.574 0.335 Unsafe
Side Walls 121 0.190 0.700 0.379 Safe
Bottom Slab 310 0.420 0.496 0.379 Unsafe

L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd. Page 4+19

Development of Outer Ring Road, Chennai from km 0+ 000 to km 29+ 650 C1092705
Detailed Design note for Skew VUPs Upto 12.310 DN5004 Rev 0

8 Analysis of Closed portion cycle track for Maximum Clearance of 4.7m and 0.0 m Fill

0.5

0.5
4.700
Max. Clearance 4.70 m 5.200

0.065 thick wearing coat

0.065
0.5

6.50
Figure 8-1 Sectional Elevation of VUP for Maximum Clearance
(All Dimensions are in m)
8.1 Dimensional Details
Provide Top haunch 250 x 250 mm
Provide Bottom haunch 250 x 250 mm
Skew = 0.00 Degrees
Clear span(CS) along Square = 6m
Clear span(CS) along Skew = 6m
Maximum Clear height (CH) = 4.700 m
Top slab thickness = 0.5 m
Bottom slab thickness = 0.5 m
Side wall thickness = 0.5 m
Height of fill = 0m
Width of Extension = 5.5 * m *Carriageway width of service
Wearing course thickness = 0.065 m road
Gradient = 2.50%
Total span (along square) = 7.00 m
Total span (along skew) = 7.00 m
Total height = 5.70 m
C/C span (along square) = 6.50 m
C/C span (along skew) = 6.50 m
C/C height = 5.20 m
8.2 Basic Parameters
Angle of internal friction = 30 Degrees
Coefficient of Earth pressure at rest = 0.5
Dry density of fill = 1.8 t/m3
Concrete Density = 2.4 t/m3
Density of wearing course = 2.2 t/m3
Surcharge live load = 1.2 m

L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd. Page 5+15

Development of Outer Ring Road, Chennai from km 0+ 000 to km 29+ 650 C1092705
Detailed Design note for Skew VUPs Upto 12.310 DN5004 Rev 0

8.3 Idealised Structure for STAAD Analysis

The structure is idealised in STAAD. Pro as shown below. The dimensions have all been considered as centre
to centre.The structural analysis has been done for one metre strip.

6.500

5.2

A B D

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.250 0.250
Figure 3-2 Idealised structure for staad analysis

Figure 8-2 Idealised Staad Model of VUP for Maximum Clear Height
Effective depth provided for bottom Slab = 0.413 m
Spacing between two end springs = 0.250 m
Spacing between two intermediate springs = 1.000 m
Ref: Appendix B
Modulus of Subgrade reaction = 500 t/m3
Spring constants at end supports (A) = 500(0.250/2) = 62.50 t/m
Spring constant at support to next to end support (B) = 500(1.000+0.250)0.5
= 312.50 t/m
Spring constant at Intermediate supports(D) = 500(1.000+1.000)/2
= 500.00 t/m
9 Load Calculations for Maximum Clearance and 2.5m Fill
9.1 Live Load (LL)
Wheel Load From IRC

0.00
0.5

4.700

0.5

0.5 6.00 0.5

Figure 9-1 General Loading Diagram of LL (Max. Height & 0.5m Fill)
L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd. Page 6+15
Development of Outer Ring Road, Chennai from km 0+ 000 to km 29+ 650 C1092705
Detailed Design note for Skew VUPs Upto 12.310 DN5004 Rev 0

Case 1 : IRC Class 70R -Tracked Vehicle

Total Load = 70 tonnes Direction of traffic
1.2 0.5 Crash barrier

0.85

4.57
35T 35T 6.5 Effective span

1.2

5.5
Effective width perpendicular to traffic direction
beff = * a(1 - a/lo) + b1
Wheel No (b/ l0 ) a b1 beff beff Actual beff
1 0.846 3.250 0.980 Err:511 Err:511 Err:511 Err:511
2 0.846 3.250 0.980 Err:511 Err:511 - Err:511
Err:511 Err:511
So, Actual distribution perpendicular to traffic
Err:511 = Err:511 m
Effective width along traffic direction
Longitudinal dispersion =4.57+2(0.00+0.5+0.065) = 5.500 m
Load to be considered = Err:511 t
Load intensity = Err:511 t/m2
As per IRC-6-2000, cl:211.3, Impact factor = 25%
Load Intensity = Err:511 t/m2

Case 2 : IRC Class 70R - Wheeled Vehicle - Bogie Load (40T)

5T 5T 5T 5T
0.45 1.48 0.45 20 T 20 T
1.22

0.41 0.41 0.04 0.263

Longitudinal Transverse
Load Distribution 70R
5.5

1.93 m Crash barrier

1.20 m
0.5 m

1.22 m
0.263 6.50
0.360 m

PLAN

L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd. Page 7+15

Development of Outer Ring Road, Chennai from km 0+ 000 to km 29+ 650 C1092705
Detailed Design note for Skew VUPs Upto 12.310 DN5004 Rev 0

Min. clear distance from kerb to the edge of the end wheel = 1.20 m
Min. distance between two adjacent vehicles in trans. direction = 1.22 m
Width of contact = 0.360 m
Breadth of contact = 0.263 m
Load per tyre = 5t
contact size = 0.36 x 0.263 m
Effective width perpendicular to traffic direction
beff = * a(1 - a/lo) + b1
Wheel No (b/ l0 ) a b1 beff beff Actual beff
1 0.846 2.640 0.990 Err:511 Err:511 Err:511 Err:511
2 0.846 2.640 0.990 Err:511 Err:511 - Err:511
So, Actual distribution perpendicular to traffic = Err:511 m

Effective width along traffic direction

Longitudinal dispersion = 1.39 m
1.393 / 2 > 1.22 / 2 Therefore Overlap occurs
Distribution along traffic = 2.61 m
Overall span = 7.00 m
So, Actual length of distribution along road = 2.61 m
Load to be considered = 40 t
Load intensity = Err:511
As per IRC-6-2000, cl:211.3, Impact factor = 25%
Load Intensity = Err:511

9.2 Braking Force (BF)

As per Cl.214.2 of IRC 6 : 2000, 20% of the Live Load is taken as Braking force
total braking force Err:511 = Err:511 t
9.3 Surcharge Live Load (SL)
Live load surcharge is considered from IRC-6-2000 cl:217.1.
Surcharge live load is considered to be equivalent to 1.2 m of earth fill
=0.5001.21.8 = 1.080 t/m2
9.4 Earth Pressure (EP)
Earth Pressure at top = 0.51.8(0.00+0.5/2)
= 0.225 t/m
Earth Pressure at bottom = 0.51.8(0.00+0.5/2+5.200)
= 4.905 t/m
9.5 Earth Fill (EF)
Load due to earth cushion = 0.001.81 = 0.000 t/m
9.6 Dead Load
Self weight of top slab =0.512.354 = 1.18 t/m
Self weight of Bottom slab =0.512.354 = 1.18 t/m
Self weight of Side slab =0.512.354 = 1.18 t/m
Load due to Wearingcourse =0.06512.158 = 0.14 t/m
Load due to Earth fill =0.0011.8 = 0.00 t/m
Weight of crash barrier =0.312.4 = 0.744 t/m
Wearing course on bottom slab
=(((6.5-0.5)/2-250/1000)2.50%+0.065)2/3 x12.1582 = 0.192 t/m

Head Wall = 0.000 t/m

= 0.00 t/m
Total base area = 6.50 m2
Pressure on Bottom slab due to dead load = 5.36 t/m2
Pressure, due to live load on Top slab = Err:511 t/m2
Pressure due to live load on bottom slab = 1.20 t/m2
Total pressure on base slab = Err:511 t/m2

Max and Min Pressure Intensities at the base of the box considering braking force works to be
P/A + M/Z = Err:511 + Err:511
= Err:511 t/m2 Err:511 t/m2
Due to Wearing course & crash barrier = 0.884 t/m
Due to earth fill = 0.000 t/m
Due to Live Load = Err:511
1.080 t/m Err:511
Err:511 0.225 t/m

Live Load Surcharge Earth Pressure

Due to Wearing course

= 0.19 t/m
L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd. Page 8+15
1.080 t/m 4.905 t/m
Figure 9-2 Loading Diagram for Max. Height & 0.5m Fill
Development of Outer Ring Road, Chennai from km 0+ 000 to km 29+ 650 C1092705
Detailed Design note for Skew VUPs Upto 12.310 DN5004 Rev 0

8 Analysis of Closed portion cycle track for Maximum Clearance of 5.3 m and 0.0 m Fill

0.5

0.5
5.300
Max. Clearance 4.70 m 5.800

0.065 thick wearing coat

0.065
0.5

5.50
Figure 8-1 Sectional Elevation of VUP for Maximum Clearance
(All Dimensions are in m)
8.1 Dimensional Details
Provide Top haunch 250 x 250 mm
Provide Bottom haunch 250 x 250 mm
Skew = 0.00 Degrees
Clear span(CS) along Square = 5m
Clear span(CS) along Skew = 5m
Maximum Clear height (CH) = 5.300 m
Top slab thickness = 0.5 m
Bottom slab thickness = 0.5 m
Side wall thickness = 0.5 m
Height of fill = 0m
Width of Extension = 5.5 * m *Carriageway width of service
Wearing course thickness = 0.065 m road
Gradient = 2.50%
Total span (along square) = 6.00 m
Total span (along skew) = 6.00 m
Total height = 6.30 m
C/C span (along square) = 5.50 m
C/C span (along skew) = 5.50 m
C/C height = 5.80 m
8.2 Basic Parameters
Angle of internal friction = 30 Degrees
Coefficient of Earth pressure at rest = 0.5
Dry density of fill = 1.8 t/m3
Concrete Density = 2.4 t/m3
Density of wearing course = 2.2 t/m3
Surcharge live load = 1.2 m

L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd. Page 9+15

Development of Outer Ring Road, Chennai from km 0+ 000 to km 29+ 650 C1092705
Detailed Design note for Skew VUPs Upto 12.310 DN5004 Rev 0

8.3 Idealised Structure for STAAD Analysis

The structure is idealised in STAAD. Pro as shown below. The dimensions have all been considered as centre
to centre.The structural analysis has been done for one metre strip.

5.500

5.8

A B D

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.250 0.250
Figure 3-2 Idealised structure for staad analysis

Figure 8-2 Idealised Staad Model of VUP for Maximum Clear Height
Effective depth provided for bottom Slab = 0.415 m
Spacing between two end springs = 0.250 m
Spacing between two intermediate springs = 1.000 m
Ref: Appendix B
Modulus of Subgrade reaction = 500 t/m3
Spring constants at end supports (A) = 500(0.250/2) = 62.50 t/m
Spring constant at support to next to end support (B) = 500(1.000+0.250)0.5
= 312.50 t/m
Spring constant at Intermediate supports(D) = 500(1.000+1.000)/2
= 500.00 t/m
9 Load Calculations for Maximum Clearance and 2.5m Fill
9.1 Live Load (LL)
Wheel Load From IRC

0.00
0.5

5.300

0.5

0.5 5.00 0.5

Figure 9-1 General Loading Diagram of LL (Max. Height & 0.5m Fill)

L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd. Page 10+15

Development of Outer Ring Road, Chennai from km 0+ 000 to km 29+ 650 C1092705
Detailed Design note for Skew VUPs Upto 12.310 DN5004 Rev 0

Case 1 : IRC Class 70R -Tracked Vehicle

Total Load = 70 tonnes Direction of traffic
1.2 0.5 Crash barrier

0.85

4.57
35T 35T 5.5 Effective span

1.2

5.5
Effective width perpendicular to traffic direction
beff = * a(1 - a/lo) + b1
Wheel No (b/ l0 ) a b1 beff beff Actual beff
1 1.000 2.750 0.980 Err:511 Err:511 Err:511 Err:511
2 1.000 2.750 0.980 Err:511 Err:511 - Err:511
Err:511 Err:511
So, Actual distribution perpendicular to traffic
Err:511 = Err:511 m
Effective width along traffic direction
Longitudinal dispersion =4.57+2(0.00+0.5+0.065) = 5.500 m
Load to be considered = Err:511 t
Load intensity = Err:511 t/m2
As per IRC-6-2000, cl:211.3, Impact factor = 25%
Load Intensity = Err:511 t/m2

Case 2 : IRC Class 70R - Wheeled Vehicle - Bogie Load (40T)

5T 5T 5T 5T
0.45 1.48 0.45 20 T 20 T
1.22

0.41 0.41 0.04 0.263

Longitudinal Transverse
Load Distribution 70R
5.5

1.93 m Crash barrier

1.20 m
0.5 m

1.22 m
0.263 5.50
0.360 m

PLAN

L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd. Page 11+15

Development of Outer Ring Road, Chennai from km 0+ 000 to km 29+ 650 C1092705
Detailed Design note for Skew VUPs Upto 12.310 DN5004 Rev 0

Min. clear distance from kerb to the edge of the end wheel = 1.20 m
Min. distance between two adjacent vehicles in trans. direction = 1.22 m
Width of contact = 0.360 m
Breadth of contact = 0.263 m
Load per tyre = 5t
contact size = 0.36 x 0.263 m
Effective width perpendicular to traffic direction
beff = * a(1 - a/lo) + b1
Wheel No (b/ l0 ) a b1 beff beff Actual beff
1 1.000 2.140 0.990 Err:511 Err:511 Err:511 Err:511
2 1.000 2.140 0.990 Err:511 Err:511 - Err:511
So, Actual distribution perpendicular to traffic = Err:511 m

Effective width along traffic direction

Longitudinal dispersion = 1.39 m
1.393 / 2 > 1.22 / 2 Therefore Overlap occurs
Distribution along traffic = 2.61 m
Overall span = 6.00 m
So, Actual length of distribution along road = 2.61 m
Load to be considered = 40 t
Load intensity = Err:511
As per IRC-6-2000, cl:211.3, Impact factor = 25%
Load Intensity = Err:511

9.2 Braking Force (BF)

As per Cl.214.2 of IRC 6 : 2000, 20% of the Live Load is taken as Braking force
total braking force Err:511 = Err:511 t
9.3 Surcharge Live Load (SL)
Live load surcharge is considered from IRC-6-2000 cl:217.1.
Surcharge live load is considered to be equivalent to 1.2 m of earth fill
=0.5001.21.8 = 1.080 t/m2
9.4 Earth Pressure (EP)
Earth Pressure at top = 0.51.8(0.00+0.5/2)
= 0.225 t/m
Earth Pressure at bottom = 0.51.8(0.00+0.5/2+5.800)
= 5.445 t/m
9.5 Earth Fill (EF)
Load due to earth cushion = 0.001.81 = 0.000 t/m
9.6 Dead Load
Self weight of top slab =0.512.354 = 1.18 t/m
Self weight of Bottom slab =0.512.354 = 1.18 t/m
Self weight of Side slab =0.512.354 = 1.18 t/m
Load due to Wearingcourse =0.06512.158 = 0.14 t/m
Load due to Earth fill =0.0011.8 = 0.00 t/m
Weight of crash barrier =0.312.4 = 0.744 t/m
Wearing course on bottom slab
=(((5.5-0.5)/2-250/1000)2.50%+0.065)2/3 x12.1582 = 0.174 t/m

Head Wall = 0.000 t/m

= 0.00 t/m
Total base area = 5.50 m2
Pressure on Bottom slab due to dead load = 5.95 t/m2
Pressure, due to live load on Top slab = Err:511 t/m2
Pressure due to live load on bottom slab = 1.20 t/m2
Total pressure on base slab = Err:511 t/m2

Max and Min Pressure Intensities at the base of the box considering braking force works to be
P/A + M/Z = Err:511 + Err:511
= Err:511 t/m2 Err:511 t/m2
Due to Wearing course & crash barrier = 0.884 t/m
Due to earth fill = 0.000 t/m
Due to Live Load = Err:511
1.080 t/m Err:511
Err:511 0.225 t/m

Live Load Surcharge Earth Pressure

Due to Wearing course

= 0.17 t/m

1.080 t/m 5.445 t/m

Figure 9-2 Loading Diagram for Max. Height & 0.5m Fill
10 Analysis Results for Maximum Height and 0.5m Fill
L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd. Page 12+15
10.1 Summary of Moments (From STAAD Analysis)
Note *: Moments near supports are taken at the face of the slab
Maximum Moment (kN-m)
Sarita Vihar Clover Leaf C1073207
Design of closed and open portion for cycle track CT-4 DN017 rev. 0

5.3 Analysis of Closed portion cycle track for Maximum Clearance of 5.3 m and width of CT of 2
&3m

0.5

0.5
5.300
5.800

0.065 thick wearing coat

0.065
0.5

6.50
Figure 5.3.1 Sectional Elevation of VUP for Maximum Clearance
(All Dimensions are in m)
5.3.1 Dimensional Details
Provide Top haunch 250 x 250 mm
Provide Bottom haunch 250 x 250 mm
Skew = 0.00 Degrees
Clear span(CS) along Square = 6m
Clear span(CS) along Skew = 6m
Maximum Clear height (CH) = 5.300 m
Top slab thickness = 0.5 m
Bottom slab thickness = 0.5 m
Side wall thickness = 0.5 m
Height of fill = 0m
Width of Extension = 5.5 * m *Carriageway width of service
Wearing course thickness = 0.065 m road
Gradient = 2.50%
Total span (along square) = 7.00 m
Total span (along skew) = 7.00 m
Total height = 6.30 m
C/C span (along square) = 6.50 m
C/C span (along skew) = 6.50 m
C/C height = 5.80 m
5.3.2 Basic Parameters
Angle of internal friction = 30 Degrees
Coefficient of Earth pressure at rest = 0.5
Dry density of fill = 1.8 t/m3
Concrete Density = 2.4 t/m3
Density of wearing course = 2.2 t/m3
Surcharge live load = 1.2 m

5.3.3 Idealised Structure for STAAD Analysis

The structure is idealised in STAAD. Pro as shown below. The dimensions have all been considered as centre
to centre.The structural analysis has been done for one metre strip.

L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd. 5 Analysis and design

Sarita Vihar Clover Leaf C1073207
Design of closed and open portion for cycle track CT-4 DN017 rev. 0
6.500

5.8

A B D

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.250 0.250
Figure 5.3.3.1 Idealised structure for staad analysis

Figure 5.3.3.2 Idealised Staad Model of VUP for Maximum Clear Height
Effective depth provided for bottom Slab = 0.413 m
Spacing between two end springs = 0.250 m
Spacing between two intermediate springs = 1.000 m
Ref: Appendix B
Modulus of Subgrade reaction = 500 t/m3
Spring constants at end supports (A) = 500(0.250/2) = 62.50 t/m
Spring constant at support to next to end support (B) = 500(1.000+0.250)0.5
= 312.50 t/m
Spring constant at Intermediate supports(D) = 500(1.000+1.000)/2
= 500.00 t/m
5.3.4 Load Calculations for Maximum Clearance and 2.5m Fill
5.3.4.1 Live Load (LL)
Wheel Load From IRC

0.00
0.5

5.300

0.5

L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd. 5 Analysis and design

Sarita Vihar Clover Leaf C1073207
Design of closed and open portion for cycle track CT-4 DN017 rev. 0
0.5 6.00 0.5
Figure 5.3.4.1 General Loading Diagram of LL (Max. Height & 0.5m Fill)
Case 1 : IRC Class 70R -Tracked Vehicle
Total Load = 70 tonnes Direction of traffic
1.2 0.5 Crash barrier

0.85

4.57
35T 35T 6.5 Effective span

1.2

5.5
Effective width perpendicular to traffic direction
beff = * a(1 - a/lo) + b1
Wheel No (b/ l0 ) a b1 beff beff Actual beff
1 0.846 3.250 0.980 Err:511 Err:511 Err:511 Err:511
2 0.846 3.250 0.980 Err:511 Err:511 - Err:511
Err:511 Err:511
So, Actual distribution perpendicular to traffic
Err:511 = Err:511 m
Effective width along traffic direction
Longitudinal dispersion =4.57+2(0.00+0.5+0.065) = 5.500 m
Load to be considered = Err:511 t
Load intensity = Err:511 t/m2
As per IRC-6-2000, cl:211.3, Impact factor = 25%
Load Intensity = Err:511 t/m2

Case 2 : IRC Class 70R - Wheeled Vehicle - Bogie Load (40T)

5T 5T 5T 5T
0.45 1.48 0.45 20 T 20 T
1.22

0.41 0.41 0.04 0.263

Longitudinal Transverse
Load Distribution 70R
5.5

1.93 m Crash barrier

1.20 m
0.5 m

1.22 m
0.263 6.50
0.360 m

PLAN

L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd. 5 Analysis and design

Sarita Vihar Clover Leaf C1073207
Design of closed and open portion for cycle track CT-4 DN017 rev. 0
Min. clear distance from kerb to the edge of the end wheel = 1.20 m
Min. distance between two adjacent vehicles in trans. direction = 1.22 m
Width of contact = 0.360 m
Breadth of contact = 0.263 m
Load per tyre = 5t
contact size = 0.36 x 0.263 m
Effective width perpendicular to traffic direction
beff = * a(1 - a/lo) + b1
Wheel No (b/ l0 ) a b1 beff beff Actual beff
1 0.846 2.640 0.990 Err:511 Err:511 Err:511 Err:511
2 0.846 2.640 0.990 Err:511 Err:511 - Err:511
So, Actual distribution perpendicular to traffic = Err:511 m

Effective width along traffic direction

Longitudinal dispersion = 1.39 m
1.393 / 2 > 1.22 / 2 Therefore Overlap occurs
Distribution along traffic = 2.61 m
Overall span = 7.00 m
So, Actual length of distribution along road = 2.61 m
Load to be considered = 40 t
Load intensity = Err:511
As per IRC-6-2000, cl:211.3, Impact factor = 25%
Load Intensity = Err:511
5.3.4.2 Braking Force (BF)
As per Cl.214.2 of IRC 6 : 2000, 20% of the Live Load is taken as Braking force
total braking force Err:511 = Err:511 t
5.3.4.3 Surcharge Live Load (SL)
Live load surcharge is considered from IRC-6-2000 cl:217.1.
Surcharge live load is considered to be equivalent to 1.2 m of earth fill
=0.5001.21.8 = 1.080 t/m2
5.3.4.4 Earth Pressure (EP)
Earth Pressure at top = 0.51.8(0.00+0.5/2)
= 0.225 t/m
Earth Pressure at bottom = 0.51.8(0.00+0.5/2+5.800)
= 5.445 t/m
5.3.4.5 Earth Fill (EF)
Load due to earth cushion = 0.001.81 = 0.000 t/m
5.3.4.6 Dead Load
Self weight of top slab =0.512.354 = 1.18 t/m
Self weight of Bottom slab =0.512.354 = 1.18 t/m
Self weight of Side slab =0.512.354 = 1.18 t/m
Load due to Wearingcourse =0.06512.158 = 0.14 t/m
Load due to Earth fill =0.0011.8 = 0.00 t/m
Weight of crash barrier =0.312.4 = 0.744 t/m
Wearing course on bottom slab
=(((6.5-0.5)/2-250/1000)2.50%+0.065)2/3 x12.1582 = 0.192 t/m

Head Wall = 0.000 t/m

= 0.00 t/m
Total base area = 6.50 m2
Pressure on Bottom slab due to dead load = 5.58 t/m2
Pressure, due to live load on Top slab = Err:511 t/m2
Pressure due to live load on bottom slab = 1.20 t/m2
Total pressure on base slab = Err:511 t/m2

Max and Min Pressure Intensities at the base of the box considering braking force works to be
P/A + M/Z = Err:511 + Err:511
= Err:511 t/m2 Err:511 t/m2

L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd. 5 Analysis and design

Sarita Vihar Clover Leaf C1073207
Design of closed and open portion for cycle track CT-4 DN017 rev. 0
Due to Wearing course & crash barrier = 0.884 t/m
Due to earth fill = 0.000 t/m
Due to Live Load = Err:511
1.080 t/m Err:511
Err:511 0.225 t/m

Live Load Surcharge Earth Pressure

Due to Wearing course

= 0.19 t/m

1.080 t/m 5.445 t/m

Figure 5.3.4.2 Loading Diagram for Max. Height & 0.5m Fill
5.3.5 Analysis Results for Maximum Height and 0.5m Fill
5.3.5.1 Summary of Moments (From STAAD Analysis)
Note *: Moments near supports are taken at the face of the slab
Maximum Moment (kN-m)
Top Slab Bottom Slab Side Walls
Detail
Sagging Hogging Hogging Sagging Hogging Sagging

Combination 1 136 137 192 196 196 0

Combination 2 136 197 192 251 251 0
Combination 3 185 88 247 141 141 0
Combination 1 = DL+SIDL+LL+SL+EP - Without Braking Force)
Combination 2 = DL+SIDL+LL+SL+EP+BF(With Braking Force)
Combination 3 = DL+SIDL+LL

Figure 5.3.5.1 BMD for Combination-1 (Max. Clearance & 2.5m Fill)

L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd. 5 Analysis and design

Sarita Vihar Clover Leaf C1073207
Design of closed and open portion for cycle track CT-4 DN017 rev. 0

Figure 5.3.5.2 BMD for Combination-2 (Max. Clearance & 2.5m Fill)

Figure 5.3.5.3 BMD for Combination-3 (Max. Clearance & 2.5m Fill)

Maximum Moment (kN-m)

Top Slab Bottom Slab Side Walls
Detail
Sagging Hogging Hogging Sagging Hogging Sagging
Maximum Moment 185 197 247 251 251 0
0.2DL+0.3LL 41 20 54 30 30 0

As the result obtained due to 70R+class A and 3 lanes of class A is very less when compared to the result
obtained according to section 3.4, the later is only considered in the analysis and design of VUP.

Material Properties
Grade of Grade of cbc st
m k j Q,t/m2
Steel Concrete t/m2 t/m2
Fe500 M35 1167 24000 10 0.327 0.891 173.3

L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd. 5 Analysis and design

Sarita Vihar Clover Leaf C1073207
Design of closed and open portion for cycle track CT-4 DN017 rev. 0
Depth / Clear cover
Detail
Thickness 'm' 'm'
Top Slab 0.50 0.075
Bottom Slab 0.50 0.075
Side Wall 0.50 0.075

Top Slab Bottom Slab Side Wall

Detail Unit
Mid Span Support Mid Span Support Hogging Sagging
Moment 18 20 25 25 25 0 tm
d reqd 327 337 378 381 381 0 mm
= (18/173.30/1)^0.51000
d Prov 415 415 413 413 413 417 mm
Ast,reqd 2084 2222 2804 2849 2849 600 mm2
= 18/(240000.891415/1000)10^6
Min. Steel 0.12% of Ag
Min Ast,reqd 600 600 600 600 600 600 mm2
Distribution Steel
To cater for 0.2DL + 0.3LL
Moment 4 2 5 3 3 0 tm
Ast,reqd 467 226 608 346 346 0 mm2
Dia of Bar 16 16 16 16 16 16 mm
Spacing 250 250 250 250 250 250 mm
Ast,Prov 804 804 804 804 804 804 mm2
Remarks Safe Safe Safe Safe Safe Safe

Summary of Reinforcement:
Detail Bar Dia of Bar Spacing Ast,reqd Ast,Prov Remarks
20 125
Top Bar 2222 2513 Safe
0 125
Top Slab 20 125
Bottom Bar 2084 2513 Safe
0 125
Distributor bar 16 250 467 804 Safe
25 150
Top Bar 2804 3272 Safe
0 150
Bottom Slab 25 150
Bottom Bar 2849 3272 Safe
0 150
Distributor bar 16 250 608 804 Safe
25 150
Earthern face 2849 3272 Safe
0 150
Side Wall 16 200
Inner face 600 1005 Safe
0 200
Distributor bar 16 200 346 1005 Safe

5.3.5.2 Check for Shear

(Shear Forces are considered from STAAD Pro Results)

Description V (kN) v (N/mm2) % of Ast c (N/mm2) #1 Remark #2 Remark

Top Slab 187 0.450 0.606 0.335 Unsafe Asv is required

Side Walls 169 0.410 0.793 0.379 Unsafe Asv is required
Bottom Slab 245 0.594 0.793 0.379 Unsafe Asv is required

L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd. 5 Analysis and design

Sarita Vihar Clover Leaf C1073207
Design of closed and open portion for cycle track CT-4 DN017 rev. 0

5.3.5.2.1 Shear check for Top Slab

Effective depth available = 415 mm
Effective width considered = 1000 mm
Design Shear Force = = 186.54 KN
Normal Shear stress v = V/ (bd) = 0.450 N/mm
% of tensile steel provided = 100 Ast / (b d) = 0.606 %
Permissible shear stress in concrete c = 0.34 N/mm
Hence, Tv is more than Tc shear links are required.
Shear force for reinforcement = V - c bd Vs = 47.37 kN
Spacing of links provied for the member s= 125 mm
(maximum spacing as per IRC: minimum of 0.5 of depth of beam or 300mm)
Asw required for shear = Vs s /(0.87 fy d) Asw= 33 mm
Minimum Shear Reinforcement required
= 0.4 b s /(0.87 fy) = 115 mm
Govering Asw required for shear reinforcment = 114.9 mm
Asw for single shear Link = 114.94 / ( 1000 / 125 ) = 14.4 mm
Diameter of link considered = 8 mm
Thus Asw provided = (3.14 x 8 ^2 ) /4 = 50 mm
Hence, Provide 8 mm diameter shear links at a spacing of 125 mm c/c both ways.

5.3.5.2.2Shear check for Bottom Slab

Effective depth available = 413 mm
Effective width considered = 1000 mm
Design Shear Force = = 245.00 KN
Normal Shear stress v = V/ (bd) = 0.594 N/mm
% of tensile steel provided = 100 Ast / (b d) = 0.793 %
Permissible shear stress in concrete c = 0.38 N/mm
Hence, Tv is more than Tc shear links are required.
Shear force for reinforcement = V - c bd Vs = 88.80 kN
Spacing of links provied for the member s= 150 mm
(maximum spacing as per IRC: minimum of 0.5 of depth of beam or 300mm)
Asw required for shear = Vs s /(0.87 fy d) Asw= 74 mm
Minimum Shear Reinforcement required
= 0.4 b s /(0.87 fy) = 138 mm
Govering Asw required for shear reinforcment = 137.9 mm
Asw for single shear Link = 137.93 / ( 1000 / 150 ) = 20.7 mm
Diameter of link considered = 8 mm
Thus Asw provided = (3.14 x 8 ^2 ) /4 = 50 mm
Hence, Provide 8 mm diameter shear links at a spacing of 150 mm c/c both ways.

L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd. 5 Analysis and design

Sarita Vihar Clover Leaf C1073207
Design of closed and open portion for cycle track CT-4 DN017 rev. 0
5.3.5.2.2 Shear check for Side Walls
Effective depth available = 413 mm
Effective width considered = 1000 mm
Design Shear Force = = 169.08 KN
Normal Shear stress v = V/ (bd) = 0.410 N/mm
% of tensile steel provided = 100 Ast / (b d) = 0.793 %
Permissible shear stress in concrete c = 0.38 N/mm
Hence, Tv is more than Tc shear links are required.
Shear force for reinforcement = V - c bd Vs = 12.88 kN
Spacing of links provied for the member s= 200 mm
(maximum spacing as per IRC: minimum of 0.5 of depth of beam or 300mm)
Asw required for shear = Vs s /(0.87 fy d) Asw= 14 mm
Minimum Shear Reinforcement required
= 0.4 b s /(0.87 fy) = 184 mm
Govering Asw required for shear reinforcment = 183.9 mm
Asw for single shear Link = 183.91 / ( 1000 / 200 ) = 36.8 mm
Diameter of link considered = 8 mm
Thus Asw provided = (3.14 x 8 ^2 ) /4 = 50 mm
Hence, Provide 8 mm diameter shear links at a spacing of 200 mm c/c both ways.

L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd. 5 Analysis and design

Sarita Vihar Clover Leaf C1073207
Design of closed and open portion for cycle track CT-4 DN017 rev. 0

5.4 Analysis of Closed portion cycle track for Maximum Clearance of 3.6 m and CT width of 3m
0.3

0.5
3.600
4.000

0.065 thick wearing coat

0.065
0.5

5.50
Figure 8-1 Sectional Elevation of VUP for Maximum Clearance
(All Dimensions are in m)
5.4.1 Dimensional Details
Provide Top haunch 250 x 250 mm
Provide Bottom haunch 250 x 250 mm
Skew = 0.00 Degrees
Clear span(CS) along Square = 5m
Clear span(CS) along Skew = 5m
Maximum Clear height (CH) = 3.600 m
Top slab thickness = 0.3 m
Bottom slab thickness = 0.5 m
Side wall thickness = 0.5 m
Height of fill = 0m
Width of Extension = 5.5 * m *Carriageway width of service
Wearing course thickness = 0.065 m road
Gradient = 2.50%
Total span (along square) = 6.00 m
Total span (along skew) = 6.00 m
Total height = 4.40 m
C/C span (along square) = 5.50 m
C/C span (along skew) = 5.50 m
C/C height = 4.00 m
5.4.2 Basic Parameters
Angle of internal friction = 30 Degrees
Coefficient of Earth pressure at rest = 0.5
Dry density of fill = 1.8 t/m3
Concrete Density = 2.4 t/m3
Density of wearing course = 2.2 t/m3
Surcharge live load = 1.2 m

L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd. 5 Analysis and design

Sarita Vihar Clover Leaf C1073207
Design of closed and open portion for cycle track CT-4 DN017 rev. 0

5.4.3 Idealised Structure for STAAD Analysis

The structure is idealised in STAAD. Pro as shown below. The dimensions have all been considered as centre
to centre.The structural analysis has been done for one metre strip.

5.500

A B D

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.250 0.250
Figure 5.4.3.1 Idealised structure for staad analysis

Figure 5.4.3.2 Idealised Staad Model of VUP for Maximum Clear Height
Effective depth provided for bottom Slab = 0.417 m
Spacing between two end springs = 0.250 m
Spacing between two intermediate springs = 1.000 m
Ref: Appendix B
Modulus of Subgrade reaction = 500 t/m3
Spring constants at end supports (A) = 500(0.250/2) = 62.50 t/m
Spring constant at support to next to end support (B) = 500(1.000+0.250)0.5
= 312.50 t/m
Spring constant at Intermediate supports(D) = 500(1.000+1.000)/2
= 500.00 t/m
5.4.4 Load Calculations for Maximum Clearance and 2.5m Fill
5.4.4.1 Live Load (LL)
As over the analysed closed section only cycles will be running as live loads hence suitable intensity of 1.0 t
per sq. m is considered for design.
5.4.4.2 Braking Force (BF)

L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd. 5 Analysis and design

Sarita Vihar Clover Leaf C1073207
Design of closed and open portion for cycle track CT-4 DN017 rev. 0
As per Cl.214.2 of IRC 6 : 2000, 20% of the Live Load is taken as Braking force
total braking force Err:511 = Err:511 t
5.4.4.3 Surcharge Live Load (SL)
Live load surcharge is considered from IRC-6-2000 cl:217.1.
Surcharge live load is considered to be equivalent to 1.2 m of earth fill
=0.5001.21.8 = 1.080 t/m2
5.4.4.4 Earth Pressure (EP)
Earth Pressure at top = 0.51.8(0.00+0.3/2)
= 0.135 t/m
Earth Pressure at bottom = 0.51.8(0.00+0.3/2+4.000)
= 3.735 t/m
5.4.4.5 Earth Fill (EF)
Load due to earth cushion = 0.001.81 = 0.000 t/m
5.4.4.6 Dead Load
Self weight of top slab =0.312.354 = 0.71 t/m
Self weight of Bottom slab =0.512.354 = 1.18 t/m
Self weight of Side slab =0.512.354 = 1.18 t/m
Load due to Wearingcourse =0.06512.158 = 0.14 t/m
Load due to Earth fill =0.0011.8 = 0.00 t/m
Weight of crash barrier =0.312.4 = 0.744 t/m
Wearing course on bottom slab
=(((5.5-0.5)/2-250/1000)2.50%+0.065)2/3 x12.1582 = 0.174 t/m

Head Wall = 0.000 t/m

= 0.00 t/m
Total base area = 5.50 m2
Pressure on Bottom slab due to dead load = 4.71 t/m2
Pressure, due to live load on Top slab = Err:511 t/m2
Pressure due to live load on bottom slab = 1.20 t/m2
Total pressure on base slab = Err:511 t/m2

Max and Min Pressure Intensities at the base of the box considering braking force works to be
P/A + M/Z = Err:511 + Err:511
= Err:511 t/m2 Err:511 t/m2
Due to Wearing course & crash barrier = 0.884 t/m
Due to earth fill = 0.000 t/m
Due to Live Load = Err:511
1.080 t/m Err:511
Err:511 0.135 t/m

Live Load Surcharge Earth Pressure

Due to Wearing course

= 0.17 t/m

1.080 t/m 3.735 t/m

Figure 5.4.4.1 Loading Diagram for Max. Height & 0.5m Fill

L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd. 5 Analysis and design

Sarita Vihar Clover Leaf C1073207
Design of closed and open portion for cycle track CT-4 DN017 rev. 0
5.4.5 Analysis Results for Maximum Height and 0.5m Fill
5.4.5.1 Summary of Moments (From STAAD Analysis)
Note *: Moments near supports are taken at the face of the slab
Maximum Moment (kN-m)
Top Slab Bottom Slab Side Walls
Detail
Sagging Hogging Hogging Sagging Hogging Sagging

Combination 1 37 61 79 81 81 0
Combination 2 23 37 62 62 62 0
Combination 1 = DL+SIDL+LL+SL+EP - Without Braking Force)
Combination 2 = DL+SIDL+LL

Figure 5.4.5.1 BMD for Combination-1 (Max. Clearance & 2.5m Fill)

Figure 5.4.5.2 BMD for Combination-2 (Max. Clearance & 2.5m Fill)

L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd. 5 Analysis and design

Sarita Vihar Clover Leaf C1073207
Design of closed and open portion for cycle track CT-4 DN017 rev. 0

Maximum Moment (kN-m)

Top Slab Bottom Slab Side Walls
Detail
Sagging Hogging Hogging Sagging Hogging Sagging
Maximum Moment 37 61 79 81 81 0
0.2DL+0.3LL 7 10 18 11 11 0

As the result obtained due to 70R+class A and 3 lanes of class A is very less when compared to the result
obtained according to section 3.4, the later is only considered in the analysis and design of VUP.

Material Properties
Grade of Grade of cbc st
m k j Q,t/m2
Steel Concrete t/m2 t/m2
Fe500 M35 1167 24000 10 0.327 0.891 173.3

Depth / Clear cover

Detail
Thickness 'm' 'm'
Top Slab 0.30 0.075
Bottom Slab 0.50 0.075
Side Wall 0.50 0.075

Top Slab Bottom Slab Side Wall

Detail Unit
Mid Span Support Mid Span Support Hogging Sagging
Moment 4 6 8 8 8 0 tm
d reqd 147 188 213 217 217 0 mm
= (4/173.30/1)^0.51000
d Prov 217 215 417 417 417 417 mm
Ast,reqd 806 1331 885 913 913 600 mm2
= 4/(240000.891217/1000)10^6
Min. Steel 0.12% of Ag
Min Ast,reqd 360 360 600 600 600 600 mm2
Distribution Steel
To cater for 0.2DL + 0.3LL
Moment 1 1 2 1 1 0 tm
Ast,reqd 155 209 198 127 127 0 mm2
Dia of Bar 12 12 12 12 12 12 mm
Spacing 200 200 200 200 200 200 mm
Ast,Prov 565 565 565 565 565 565 mm2
Remarks Safe Safe Safe Safe Safe Safe

L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd. 5 Analysis and design

Sarita Vihar Clover Leaf C1073207
Design of closed and open portion for cycle track CT-4 DN017 rev. 0
Summary of Reinforcement:
Detail Bar Dia of Bar Spacing Ast,reqd Ast,Prov Remarks
20 200
Top Bar 1331 1571 Safe
0 200
Top Slab 16 200
Bottom Bar 806 1005 Safe
0 125
Distributor bar 12 200 209 565 Safe
16 150
Top Bar 885 1340 Safe
0 150
Bottom Slab 16 150
Bottom Bar 913 1340 Safe
0 150
Distributor bar 12 200 198 565 Safe
16 150
Earthern face 913 1340 Safe
0 150
Side Wall 16 200
Inner face 600 1005 Safe
0 120
Distributor bar 12 200 127 565 Safe

5.4.5.2 Check for Shear

(Shear Forces are considered from STAAD Pro Results)

Description V (kN) v (N/mm2) % of Ast c (N/mm2) #1 Remark #2 Remark

Top Slab 72 0.333 0.731 0.335 Safe Asv not Required

Side Walls 77 0.186 0.321 0.379 Safe Asv not Required
Bottom Slab 116 0.278 0.321 0.379 Safe Asv not Required

L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd. 5 Analysis and design

Sarita Vihar Clover Leaf C1073207
Design of closed and open portion for cycle track CT-4 DN017 rev. 0

5.5 Analysis of Closed portion cycle track for Maximum Clearance of 4 m and CT width of 5m
0.5

0.5
4.000
4.500

0.065 thick wearing coat

0.065
0.5

5.50
Figure 8-1 Sectional Elevation of VUP for Maximum Clearance
(All Dimensions are in m)
5.5.1 Dimensional Details
Provide Top haunch 250 x 250 mm
Provide Bottom haunch 250 x 250 mm
Skew = 0.00 Degrees
Clear span(CS) along Square = 5m
Clear span(CS) along Skew = 5m
Maximum Clear height (CH) = 4.000 m
Top slab thickness = 0.5 m
Bottom slab thickness = 0.5 m
Side wall thickness = 0.5 m
Height of fill = 0m
Width of Extension = 5.5 * m *Carriageway width of service
Wearing course thickness = 0.065 m road
Gradient = 2.50%
Total span (along square) = 6.00 m
Total span (along skew) = 6.00 m
Total height = 5.00 m
C/C span (along square) = 5.50 m
C/C span (along skew) = 5.50 m
C/C height = 4.50 m
Note*: At one end of road minimum 65mm wearing coat is assumed and on the other end, the fill height is
increased to cater for the road super-elevation. Considering this aspect, the loads are calculated for both no
fill and 0.5m fill conditions. The condition, which gives maximum load intensities is considered as the input for
further STAAD analysis.
5.5.2 Basic Parameters
Angle of internal friction = 30 Degrees
Coefficient of Earth pressure at rest = 0.5
Dry density of fill = 1.8 t/m3
Concrete Density = 2.4 t/m3
Density of wearing course = 2.2 t/m3
Surcharge live load = 1.2 m
SBC = 0 t/m2

L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd. 5 Analysis and design

Sarita Vihar Clover Leaf C1073207
Design of closed and open portion for cycle track CT-4 DN017 rev. 0

5.5.3 Idealised Structure for STAAD Analysis

The structure is idealised in STAAD. Pro as shown below. The dimensions have all been considered as centre
to centre.The structural analysis has been done for one metre strip.

5.500

4.5

A B D

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.250 0.250
Figure 5.5.3.1 Idealised structure for staad analysis

Figure 5.5.3.2 Idealised Staad Model of VUP for Maximum Clear Height
Effective depth provided for bottom Slab = 0.417 m
Spacing between two end springs = 0.250 m
Spacing between two intermediate springs = 1.000 m
Ref: Appendix B
Modulus of Subgrade reaction = 500 t/m3
Spring constants at end supports (A) = 500(0.250/2) = 62.50 t/m
Spring constant at support to next to end support (B) = 500(1.000+0.250)0.5
= 312.50 t/m
Spring constant at Intermediate supports(D) = 500(1.000+1.000)/2
= 500.00 t/m
5.5.4 Load Calculations for Maximum Clearance and 2.5m Fill
5.5.4.1 Live Load (LL)
As over the analysed closed section only cycles will be running as live loads hence suitable intensity of 1.0 t
per sq. m is considered for design.

L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd. 5 Analysis and design

Sarita Vihar Clover Leaf C1073207
Design of closed and open portion for cycle track CT-4 DN017 rev. 0
5.5.4.2 Braking Force (BF)
As per Cl.214.2 of IRC 6 : 2000, 20% of the Live Load is taken as Braking force
total braking force Err:511 = Err:511 t
5.5.4.3 Surcharge Live Load (SL)
Live load surcharge is considered from IRC-6-2000 cl:217.1.
Surcharge live load is considered to be equivalent to 1.2 m of earth fill
=0.5001.21.8 = 1.080 t/m2
5.5.4.4 Earth Pressure (EP)
Earth Pressure at top = 0.51.8(0.00+0.5/2)
= 0.225 t/m
Earth Pressure at bottom = 0.51.8(0.00+0.5/2+4.500)
= 4.275 t/m
5.5.4.5 Earth Fill (EF)
Load due to earth cushion = 0.001.81 = 0.000 t/m
5.5.4.6 Dead Load
Self weight of top slab =0.512.354 = 1.18 t/m
Self weight of Bottom slab =0.512.354 = 1.18 t/m
Self weight of Side slab =0.512.354 = 1.18 t/m
Load due to Wearingcourse =0.06512.158 = 0.14 t/m
Load due to Earth fill =0.0011.8 = 0.00 t/m
Weight of haunch
=(0.5250250+0.5250250)22.3544/1000000 = 0.29 t/m
Weight of crash barrier =0.312.4 = 0.744 t/m
Wearing course on bottom slab
=(((5.5-0.5)/2-250/1000)2.50%+0.065)2/3 x12.1582 = 0.174 t/m

L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd. 5 Analysis and design

Sarita Vihar Clover Leaf C1073207
Design of closed and open portion for cycle track CT-4 DN017 rev. 0

Head Wall = 0.000 t/m

= 0.00 t/m
Total base area = 5.50 m2
Pressure on Bottom slab due to dead load = 5.39 t/m2
Pressure, due to live load on Top slab = Err:511 t/m2
Pressure due to live load on bottom slab = 1.20 t/m2
Total pressure on base slab = Err:511 t/m2

Max and Min Pressure Intensities at the base of the box considering braking force works to be
P/A + M/Z = Err:511 + Err:511
= Err:511 t/m2 Err:511 t/m2
Due to Wearing course & crash barrier = 0.884 t/m
Due to earth fill = 0.000 t/m
Due to Live Load = Err:511
1.080 t/m Err:511
Err:511 0.225 t/m
Earth Pressure
Live Load Surcharge

Due to Wearing course

= 0.17 t/m

1.080 t/m 4.275 t/m

Figure 5.5.4.1 Loading Diagram for Max. Height & 0.5m Fill
5.5.5 Analysis Results for Maximum Height and 0.5m Fill
5.5.5.1 Summary of Moments (From STAAD Analysis)
Note *: Moments near supports are taken at the face of the slab
Maximum Moment (kN-m)
Top Slab Bottom Slab Side Walls
Detail
Sagging Hogging Hogging Sagging Hogging Sagging

Combination 1 55 62 87 99 99 0
Combination 2 39 40 72 78 78 0
Combination 1 = DL+SIDL+LL+SL+EP
Combination 2 = DL+SIDL+LL

Figure 5.5.5.1 BMD for Combination-1 (Max. Clearance & 2.5m Fill)

L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd. 5 Analysis and design

Sarita Vihar Clover Leaf C1073207
Design of closed and open portion for cycle track CT-4 DN017 rev. 0

Figure 5.5.5.2 BMD for Combination-2 (Max. Clearance & 2.5m Fill)
Maximum Moment (kN-m)
Top Slab Bottom Slab Side Walls
Detail
Sagging Hogging Hogging Sagging Hogging Sagging
Maximum Moment 55 62 87 99 99 0
0.2DL+0.3LL 14 6 21 13 13 0
Material Properties
Grade of Grade of cbc st
m k j Q,t/m2
Steel Concrete t/m2 t/m2
Fe500 M35 1167 24000 10 0.327 0.891 173.3

L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd. 5 Analysis and design

Sarita Vihar Clover Leaf C1073207
Design of closed and open portion for cycle track CT-4 DN017 rev. 0

Depth / Clear cover

Detail
Thickness 'm' 'm'
Top Slab 0.50 0.075
Bottom Slab 0.50 0.075
Side Wall 0.50 0.075

Top Slab Bottom Slab Side Wall

Detail Unit
Mid Span Support Mid Span Support Hogging Sagging
Moment 5 6 9 10 10 0 tm
d reqd 178 189 224 239 239 0 mm
= (5/173.30/1)^0.51000
d Prov 417 417 417 417 417 417 mm
Ast,reqd 617 693 973 1112 1112 600 mm2
= 5/(240000.891417/1000)10^6
Min. Steel 0.12% of Ag
Min Ast,reqd 600 600 600 600 600 600 mm2
Distribution Steel
To cater for 0.2DL + 0.3LL
Moment 1 1 2 1 1 0 tm
Ast,reqd 157 72 231 151 151 0 mm2
Dia of Bar 12 12 12 12 12 12 mm
Spacing 200 200 200 200 200 200 mm
Ast,Prov 565 565 565 565 565 565 mm2
Remarks Safe Safe Safe Safe Safe Safe

Summary of Reinforcement:
Detail Bar Dia of Bar Spacing Ast,reqd Ast,Prov Remarks
16 200
Top Bar 693 1005 Safe
0 150
Top Slab 16 200
Bottom Bar 617 1005 Safe
0 125
Distributor bar 12 200 157 565 Safe
16 150
Top Bar 973 1340 Safe
0 150
Bottom Slab 16 150
Bottom Bar 1112 1340 Safe
0 150
Distributor bar 12 200 231 565 Safe
16 150
Earthern face 1112 1340 Safe
0 150
Side Wall 16 200
Inner face 600 1005 Safe
0 120
Distributor bar 12 200 151 565 Safe

5.5.5.2 Check for Shear

(Shear Forces are considered from STAAD Pro Results)

Description V (kN) v (N/mm2) % of Ast c (N/mm2) #1 Remark #2 Remark

Top Slab 85 0.203 0.241 0.335 Safe Asv not Required

Side Walls 98 0.236 0.321 0.379 Safe Asv not Required
Bottom Slab 134 0.322 0.321 0.379 Safe Asv not Required

L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd. 5 Analysis and design

 2.25 0 46.8 5.2
x y 2.25
0.25 2.25 4.50
1.425 12.83 15.08 6m
2.6 23.40 25.65
3.775 33.98 36.23
4.95 44.55 46.80
5.2 46.80 49.05

2.25 0 52.2 5.8

x y 2.25
0.25 2.25 4.50
1.575 14.18 16.43
2.9 26.10 28.35 5m
4.225 38.03 40.28
5.55 49.95 52.20
5.8 52.20 54.45

2.25 0 40.5 4.5

x y 2.25
0.25 2.25 4.50
1.25 11.25 13.50
2.25 20.25 22.50
3.25 29.25 31.50
4.25 38.25 40.50
4.5 40.50 42.75

1.35 0 36 4.5
x y 1.35
0.15 1.35 2.70
1.05 9.45 10.80
1.95 17.55 18.90
2.85 25.65 27.00
3.75 33.75 35.10
4 36.00 37.35
 Design Shear Stress of Concrete
Grade of Concrete (M)
100As/bd 15 20 25 30 35 40
0 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.2 0.2 0.2
0.15 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.2 0.2 0.2
0.25 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23
0.5 0.29 0.3 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.32
0.75 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.38
1 0.37 0.39 0.4 0.41 0.42 0.42
1.25 0.4 0.42 0.44 0.45 0.45 0.46
1.5 0.42 0.45 0.46 0.48 0.49 0.49
1.75 0.44 0.47 0.49 0.5 0.52 0.52
2 0.44 0.51 0.53 0.55 0.56 0.57
2.25 0.44 0.51 0.53 0.55 0.56 0.57
2.5 0.44 0.51 0.55 0.57 0.58 0.6
2.75 0.44 0.51 0.56 0.58 0.6 0.62
3 and above 0.44 0.51 0.57 0.6 0.62 0.63

Read from table

Percentage Of Grade of column Design shear
Row ref. Remarks
Ast concrete ref. strength, Tc
0.606 35 4 5 0.335 Top slab
0.793 35 5 5 0.379 Side Wall
0.793 35 5 5 0.379 Bottom Slab
 Top Sag Top Hog Bot Hog Bot Sag Side
120 70R 907 620 631 201 766
0.2 Class A 449 267 283 110 320
0.2
0.23 70R +Class A 100.4 65.7 67.7 23.0 80.4
0.32 3 lanes class A 99.8 59.3 62.9 24.4 71.1
0.38 sec3.4 164 143 130 70 144
0.42
0.46
0.49
0.52
0.57
0.57
0.6
0.62
0.63
b/l0
0.1 0.4 0.4
0.2 0.8 0.8
0.3 1.16 1.16
0.4 1.44 1.48
0.5 1.68 1.72
0.6 1.84 1.96
0.7 1.96 2.12
0.8 2.08 2.24
0.9 2.16 2.36
1.0 2.24 2.48
1.1 2.28 2.6
1.2 2.36 2.64
1.3 2.4 2.72
1.4 2.48 2.8
1.5 2.48 2.84
1.6 2.52 2.88
1.7 2.56 2.92
1.8 2.6 2.96
1.9 2.6 3.00
2 2.6 3.00

Continuous Simply supported