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

net/publication/303458658

ANALYSIS & DESIGN OF 3-SPAN CONTINUOUS STEEL-CONCRETE COMPOSITE

BRIDGE

Conference Paper · October 2009

CITATIONS READS

0 431

4 authors, including:

Punashri Phadnis
Shivaji University, Kolhapur
10 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Punashri Phadnis on 24 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ACSGE-2009, Oct 25-27, BITS Pilani, India

ANALYSIS & DESIGN OF 3-SPAN CONTINUOUS

STEEL-CONCRETE COMPOSITE BRIDGE

Ms. Punashri P. Phadnis 1 Dr. Shrirang N. Tande 2

1
Lecture, Applied Mechanics Depart, Walchand College of Engineering, Sangli
punashri.phadnis@gmail.com
2
Assitant Professor, Applied Mechanics Depart, Walchand College of Engineering,
Sangli sntande1@rediffmail.com

Abstract: Steel concrete Composite construction has been increasingly popular in

advanced countries like USA & UK and is fast catching-up in developing countries.
Though few such constructions have come up in India during the last few decades there
is now a sense of realization of the potential benefits of steel concrete composite
construction. It is an ideal example wherein there is most effective utilization of
materials i.e. concrete is in compression and steel in tension. Composite sections have
higher stiffness and high ductility of steel ensures better seismic resistance.

In this paper an attempt is made to highlight the advantages of composite

construction. Analysis and design of three spans continuous composite bridge has been
carried out with reference to IS code provisions. Investigations have been made for cost
effectiveness of superstructure of composite and reinforced concrete bridges, which
shows that the composite construction is more economical than the reinforced concrete
Construction.

Keywords: Composite construction; Bridges; Steel; Reinforced concrete; Analysis.

Introduction (second Hooghly Bridge) & flyover in

It is often necessary when
constructing concrete bridges to elevate
the structure from ground level. Composite
construction in the broad sense would
embrace any construction involving the
combination into one structural element of
two dissimilar elements. [1]. Building steel
bridges with a composite concrete deck is
a means of circumventing this step.
Indeed, the steel girder’s ability to support
formwork, reinforcement and the deck
concrete has greatly contributed to the
increasing popularity of composite bridges,
along with the reduced construction time
compared to concrete bridges. [14]
Garihat in Kolkata, Sardar Vallabhabhai
Patel flyover at Ghatkopar in Mumbai. [21]
Deck type of construction is very
common & is suitable for highway bridges.
The most common type of Composite
Bridge Deck comprises of a reinforced
concrete continuous slab supported by
steel plate girders. Composite beams
comprise steel beams, usually of I sections
which are designed to act compositely with
concrete or composite slabs by use of
shear connectors. Sometimes, composite
slabs comprise profiled steel decking (or
sheeting) as the permanent formwork to
the underside of concrete slabs spanning
between support beams. [13]

The Steel - Concrete Composite 1.1 COMPOSITE BRIDGES: PRINCIPAL

Construction is very useful in mitigating
the transportation problem in congested
urban areas like Dehli, Kolkata & Mumbai.
The recent examples of successful
implementation of such are grade
separators at Andresganj & Mayapuri
flyovers constructed along Ring Road in
Dehli, the cable stayed Vidhyasagar setu
TYPES
Two types namely I-girder & Box-
girder composite bridges are available
(fig.1.1) The “Box” shape is more rigid
than the “I” shape of girders & it uses the
material efficiently. [19]

1
 ACSGE-2009, Oct 25-27, BITS Pilani, India

Fig.2.1 INFLUENCE LINE FOR BENDING MOMENT AT

Series1
1.0000
SUPPORT 'B'
0.5000
0.0000
-0.5000 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31

-1.0000
-1.5000
-2.0000
-2.5000
-3.0000
-3.5000

Fig.2.2 INFLUENCE LINE FOR BENDING MOMENT AT

Series1
SUPPORT 'C'
1.0000
0.5000
0.0000
-0.5000 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31

-1.0000
-1.5000
(b) Box-girder composite section [5] -2.0000
-2.5000
Fig.1.1 TYPES OF COMPOSITE
-3.0000
BRIDGES [5]
-3.5000

2 ANALYSIS OF LONGITUDINAL
GIRDER Fig.2.3 INFLUENCELINE FOR BENDING MOMENT AT
SECTION 0.1L Series1
(3m FROM SUPPORT A)
2.1 DATA FOR ANALYSIS 3.0000

2.5000
Superstructure : 3 - span continuous 2.0000
Spans : 30m, 35m, 30m
1.5000
Carriageway : 11.0m wide, 3 lanes
Surfacing : 65mm thick mastic asphalt 1.0000
- wearing coat 0.5000
Footpath : No, Crush barrier provided
0.0000
Girder : Built - up steel girders 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
Deck slab : RCC -0.5000

Loading : The following loads & their

combinations have been
Fig.2.4 INFLUENCE LINE FOR BENDING MOMENT AT
considered in the present
SECTION 0.2L Series1
study.
i) Dead load (6m FROM SUPPORT 'A')
5.0000
ii) Live load
a. Class 70 R 4.0000

b. Class A
3.0000

Analysis of Longitudinal Girder is done by 2.0000

the use of Influence Line Coefficient
1.0000
method in Microsoft Excel. The Influence
Lines for bending moment at various 0.0000
sections are plotted. 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
-1.0000

2
 ACSGE-2009, Oct 25-27, BITS Pilani, India

Fig.2.5 INFLUENCE LINE FOR BENDING MOMENT AT Fig.2.9 INFLUENCE LINE FOR BENDING MOMENT AT
SECTION 0.3L SECTION 0.7L (21mFROM SUPPORT 'A') Series1
Series1 5.0000
(9m FROM SUPPORT 'A')
7.0000 4.0000
6.0000 3.0000
5.0000
2.0000
4.0000
1.0000
3.0000
2.0000 0.0000
1.0000 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
-1.0000
0.0000
-2.0000
-1.0000 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
-2.0000
-3.0000

Fig.2.6 INFLUENCE LINE FOR BENDING MOMENT AT Fig.2.10 INFLUENCE LINE FOR BENDING MOMENT AT 0.8L
SECTION 0.4L (12m FROM SUPPORT 'A') Series1 (24m FROM SUPPORT 'A') Series1
7.0000
4.0000
6.0000
3.0000
5.0000
4.0000 2.0000

3.0000 1.0000
2.0000
0.0000
1.0000 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
-1.0000
0.0000
-1.0000 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 -2.0000

-2.0000 -3.0000

Fig.2.7 INFLUENCE LINE FOR BENDING MOMENT AT Fig.2.11 INFLUENCE LINE FOR BENDING MOMENT AT
SECTION 0.5L (15m FROM SUPPORT 'A') Series1
SECTION 0.9L (27m FROM SUPPORT 'A') Series1
7.0000 2.0000
6.0000 1.5000
1.0000
5.0000
0.5000
4.0000
0.0000
3.0000
-0.5000 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
2.0000
-1.0000
1.0000 -1.5000
0.0000 -2.0000
-1.0000 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 -2.5000
-2.0000 -3.0000

Fig.2.8 INFLUENCE LINE FOR BENDING MOMENT AT Fig.2.12 INFLUENCE LINE FOR BENDING MOMENT AT
Series1 SECTION 1.1L Series1
SECTION 0.6L (18m FROM SUPPORT 'A')
6.0000 (3.5m FROM SUPPORT 'B')
3.5000
5.0000
3.0000
4.0000
2.5000
3.0000
2.0000
2.0000 1.5000

1.0000 1.0000

0.0000 0.5000

-1.0000 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 0.0000
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
-2.0000 -0.5000

-3.0000 -1.0000

3
 ACSGE-2009, Oct 25-27, BITS Pilani, India

Fig.2.13 INFLUENCE LINE FOR BENDING MOMENT AT Fig.2.17 INFLUENCE LINE ORDINATES FOR SHEAR
SECTION 1.2L (7m FROM SUPPORT 'B') Series1 FORCE AT SUPPORT 'A' Series1
7.0000 1.2000
6.0000
1.0000
5.0000
0.8000
4.0000
3.0000 0.6000

2.0000 0.4000
1.0000 0.2000
0.0000
0.0000
-1.0000 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
-0.2000
-2.0000

Fig.2.18 INFLUENCE LINE ORDINATES FOR SHEAR FORCE

Fig.2.14 INFLUENCE LINE FOR BENDING MOMENT AT
SECTION 1.3L (10.5m FROM SUPPORT 'B') Series1
AT SUPPORT 'B' Series1
9.0000 1.2000
8.0000
7.0000 1.0000
6.0000
0.8000
5.0000
4.0000 0.6000
3.0000
0.4000
2.0000
1.0000 0.2000
0.0000
-1.0000 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 0.0000
-2.0000 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31

Fig.2.15 INFLUENCE LINE FOR BENDING MOMENT AT Fig.2.19 INFLUENCE LINE ORDINATES FOR SHEAR FORCE
Series1 AT
10.0000
SECTION 1.4L (14m FROM SUPPORT 'B') Series1
1.2000
SUPPORT 'C'
8.0000
1.0000

6.0000 0.8000

4.0000 0.6000

0.4000
2.0000
0.2000
0.0000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 0.0000
-2.0000 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31

Fig. 2.16 INFLUENCE LINE FOR BENDING MOMENT AT Fig. 2.20 INFLUENCE LINE ORDINATE FOR SHEAR FORCE
SECTION 1.5L (17.5m FROM SUPPORT 'B') Series1 AT SUPPORT 'D' Series1
10.0000 1.2000

8.0000 1.0000

6.0000 0.8000

4.0000 0.6000

2.0000 0.4000

0.0000 0.2000
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
-2.0000 0.0000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
-4.0000 -0.2000

4
 ACSGE-2009, Oct 25-27, BITS Pilani, India

CLASS A CLASS 70R

0.7900
0.4500 0.4500

1.8000 1.7000 0.7950 0.7950

0.2000 0.2500 0.2000

CROSS GIRDER
LONGITUDINAL
GIRDER
1.4500 3.0000 3.0000 3.0000 1.4500

Fig.2.21 LIVE LOAD POSITION FOR LOAD COMBINATION - 1

0.4500 CLA SS A CLASS A CLA SS A 0.4500

1.8000 1.7000 1.8000 1.7000 1.8000

0.2000 0.2000

CROSS GIRDER
LONGITUDIN AL
GIRDER

1.4500 3.0000 3.0000 3.0000 1.4500

Fig.2.22 LIVE LOAD POSITION FOR LOAD COMBINATION - 2

1.2 LIVE LOAD ANALYSIS = 1.207 x 700 [(7.6 + 7.6) / 2]

From the Influence Lines drawn for various = 6421.24 kNm
positions of loads, it is observed that the Maximum Negative Bending Moment
maximum bending moment will be at 1.5 L = 1.207 x 700 [(1.7883 + 1.7313) / 2]
from support ‘A’. = 1486.86 kNm
So, by trial & error the live load bending 2.2.1.2 For Class A Loading:
moment is calculated as follows: Maximum Positive Bending Moment
2.2.1 Live Load Bending Moment = 4048.13 kNm
2.2.1.1 For Class 70R Tracked Vehicle: Maximum Negative Bending Moment
Maximum Positive Bending Moment = 1029.55 kNm

5
 ACSGE-2009, Oct 25-27, BITS Pilani, India

2.2.1.3 For Class 70R Wheeled Vehicle: Total dead load ≈ 31 kN/m
By Moment Distribution following results are
Maximum Positive Bending Moment
obtained:
= 8581.77 kNm
Reaction at support
Maximum Negative Bending Moment
= 2045.03 kNm RA = 355.59 kN
RB = 1116.9 kN
2.2.1.4 Load Combinations
RC = 1116.9 kN
One Lane of Class 70R + RD = 355.59 kN
MAB (+) = 2039.43 kNm
One lane of Class A
MBC (+) = 4746.88 kNm
= 1/2 (8581.77 + 4048.13) Maximum Positive Dead load bending
= 6314.95 kNm. moment for span AB & CD = 2039.43 kNm
Maximum Positive Dead load bending
1) Class A 3 – lanes moment for span BC = 1464.43 kNm
= 1/2 (4048.13 + 4048.13) Total Design Bending Moment
= 6314.95 + 1464.43
= 4048.13 kNm. = 7779.38 kNm  8000 kNm
2.2.2 Live Load Shear Force Design shear force = 859.22 + 1116.9
= 1976.12 kN.
2.2.2.1 Shear Force at support A
1) Class 70R Tracked = 760.41 kN
2) Class A = 433.79 kN DESIGN OF 3 – SPAN
3) Class 70R Wheeled = 820.21 kN CONTINUOUS STEEL CONCRETE
COMPOSITE BRIDGE
2.2.2.2 Shear Force at support B
1) Class 70R Tracked = 837.34 kN The design covers the basic design
methodology for design of continuous steel
2) Class A = 561.74 kN
concrete composite bridge.
3)Class 70R Wheeled = 1157.09 kN
Design Method: - Working stress method
2.2.2.3 Load Combinations as per IRC & IS codes.

1) One Lane of Class 70R + One lane of 3.0 INTRODUCTION

Class A = 1/2 (561.74 +1157.09)
= 859.22 kN.
2) Class A 3 – lanes
= 1/2 (561.74 + 561.74) = 561.74 kN.
2.3 DEAD LOAD ANALYSIS
2.3.1 Dead load & Dead Load Bending
Moment Calculations for Longitudinal
Girder: [10]
The design of superstructure girders for a 3
– span continuous composite (steel -
concrete) superstructure has been
presented here in detail. The span
configuration considered is 30m – 35m –
30m. An obligatory span of around 35m is
very common for many rail & road
crossings. The shorter end spans have
been considered to achieve economy of the
continuous girders. The width of carriage
way is 11.0 m (three lanes). The design
has been done as per IS codes, live loads
are as per IRC: 6 – 2000.

Dead load of interior slab panel & wearing 3.1 DESIGN DATA
coat & Dead Load of
Cantilever Portion is calculated by referring Superstructure: 3 – span continuous.
fig. 2.26 & 2.27 Spans : 30 m, 35m, 30m

6
 ACSGE-2009, Oct 25-27, BITS Pilani, India

Carriageway : 11m wide, 3 lanes Normally as girder spacing increases, the

Surfacing wearing coat: 65 mm thick weight of structural steel per unit area of
asphalt deck slab decreases. However, construction
Footpath: No, Crush Barrier provided is more difficult in widely spaced girders
Girder : Built-up steel girder (over 3 m). Girder spacing considered in
Deck slab: R.C.C. this problem is 3 m.
Cross girders are placed at 1.875 m c/c for
3.2 GIRDER SPACING end spans & at 1.75 m c/c for intermediate
span.

1 .4 5 0 0
3 .0 0 0 0
3 .0 0 0 0
3 .0 0 0 0
1 .4 5 0 0
3 0 .0 0 0 0 3 5 .0 0 0 0 3 0 .0 0 0 0
1 6 @ 1 .8 7 5 2 0 @ 1 .7 5 1 6 @ 1 .8 7 5

F ig .3 . 1 P L A N S H O W IN G T H E A R R A N G E M E N T O F L O N G & C R O S S G IR D E R

0 .4 5 0 0 1 1 .0 0 0 0 0 .4 5 0 0
DECK SLA B 0 .0 6 5 0 m W E A R IN G C O A T
0 .3 0 0 0

0 .2 0 0 0 0 .2 5 0 0 0 .2 0 0 0
C R O S S G IR D E R
L O N G IT U D IN A L
G IR D E R
1 .4 5 0 0 3 .0 0 0 0 3 .0 0 0 0 3 .0 0 0 0 1 .4 5 0 0

F ig .3 .2 T Y P IC A L C R O S S S E C T IO N O F S U P E R S T R U C T U R E

7
 ACSGE-2009, Oct 25-27, BITS Pilani, India

3.3 MATERIALS For 35m

Grade of concrete : M 30 span

Grade of steel : Fe 250 (fy = 250 N/mm2) For Class A 0.1098 0.186

Grade of Reinforcement :Fe 415

(fy = 415 N/mm2)  Max. Impact Factor (for Composite

ES (Structural steel): 2.11 E 5 N/mm2 girders) = 0.207

EC (Concrete) : 3.05 E 4 N/mm2 3.5.2 Impact Factors For Cross Girders

ES (Reinforcement) : 2.00 E 5 N/mm2 [2]

Loading RCC Steel
3.4 LOAD
Class 70 R 0.25 0.25
The following loads & their combinations
Class A
have been considered in the present study.
i) Dead load
ii) Live load
3.5.3 Impact Factors for Deck Slab
a) Class 70 R
(Span L = 3m) [2]
b) Class A
Loadings Impact
ii) 3.5 IMPACT FACTORS [Clause No.
factors
211.5 of IRC: 6 - 2000] [2]
Class 70 R 0.25  Impact
iii) 3.5.1 Impact Factors for
factor = 0.545
Longitudinal Girders
Class A 0.545
For 30m RCC Bridge Steel
3.7 DESIGN OF LONGITUDINAL
span Bridge
GIRDER
For Class 70 0.14 0.20
Summary of section properties are
R Tracked
given below:
vehicles
Steel girder
For Class 70 0.14 0.20
1. Area = 45750 mm2
R wheeled
2. C.G. from top = 866.23 mm
vehicles
3. M.I. about major axis
For 35m
=1.67 x 1010 mm4
span
4. M.I. about minor axis
For Class 70 0.1175 0.175
= 453.7 × 106 mm4
R loading
5. Section modulus (top)
For 30m
= 19.28 × 106 mm3
span
6. Section modulus (bottom)
For Class A
= 24.60 × 106 mm3

8
 ACSGE-2009, Oct 25-27, BITS Pilani, India

Composite Girder (Permanent

Loading) 0.1063 0.1063
SHEAR
CONNECTOR
1. Area = 100216.23 mm2
0.2500
0.1640
2. C.G. from top of slab
= 510.27 mm 0.0405 0.0405

3. M.I. about major axis WEB

= 4.1864 × 1010 mm4
4. M.I. about major axis 0.0160

= 669.12 × 106 mm4 40mmØ

0.4000 SHEAR
5. Section modulus (top of slab) CONNECTOR

= 82.04 × 106 mm3

0.1900
6. Section modulus (top of girder)
= 160.85 × 106 mm3 0.1900
7. Section modulus
0.1900
(bottom of girder) =32.59 × 106 mm3

Composite Girder (Transient Loading) Fig.3.13POSITIONOFSHEARCONNECTORS

1. Area =154750 mm2
2. C.G. from top of slab = 418.07 mm
3. M.I. about major axis
3.9 DESIGN OF CROSS GIRDER
= 4.8928 × 1010 mm4
The section used for cross girder is
4. M.I. about minor axis
Overall depth = 1000 mm
= 2.18 × 109 mm4
Web thickness = 10 mm
5. Section modulus (top of slab)
Bottom flange plates = 350 mm  20 mm
= 117.04 × 106 mm3
Top flange plates = 350 mm  20 mm
6. Section modulus (top of girder)
Summary
= 291.15 × 106 mm3
1. Area = 23600 mm2
7. Section modulus (bottom of girder)
2. C.G. from top of slab = 500 mm
= 35.53 × 106 mm3
3. M.I. about major axis
3.8 SHEAR CONNECTORS [12]
= 4.2373  109 mm4
The longitudinal shear per unit length is
4. M.I.about minor axis
given by
= 436.92  106 mm4
5. Section modulus (top of slab)
= 8.4746  106 mm3
6. Section modulus (bottom of slab)
= 8.4746  106 mm3

9
 ACSGE-2009, Oct 25-27, BITS Pilani, India

SHEAR CONNECTOR (40mm DIA)

m WEARING COAT
0.0650
0.2500
12 # @ 100c/c

0.2900
7mm
CONTINUOUS 5-160-160
WELD (WELD)

1.5000 5-160-160
(WELD)
INTERMEDIATE
BEARING STIFFNER
STIFFNER (160mm*16mm)
(250mm*25mm) @1000mm

ABUTMENT

Fig.3.19 LONGITUDINAL ELEVATION OF COMPOSITE

BEAM SHOWING DETAILS OF SHEAR CONNECTOR

6 COST EFFECTIVENESS

Table 6.1 COST ESTIMATE FOR SUPERSTRUCTURE OF 3 SPANS CONTINUOUS

(30m - 35m - 30m) 3 LANE STEEL CONCRETE COMPOSITE BRIDGE AS PER IS
CODES

Item Description of Items Unit Approx. Qty. Amount (Rs.)

No. Rate (Rs.)
1. Reinforced cement concrete cu.m. 5000.00 282.63 14,13,150.00
in deck slab including
centering & shuttering but
excluding reinforcement M30

2. TMT / High Yield Strength tonne 28000.00 31.18 8,73,040.00

Deformed bars of Fe 415
grade in all RCC items all
complete as per Technical
Specification
3. Structural Steel Work as tonne 26000.00 231.417 60,16,842.00
per IS:2062
TOTAL 83,03,032.00

10
 ACSGE-2009, Oct 25-27, BITS Pilani, India

Table 6.2 COST ESTIMATE FOR SUPERSTRUCTURE OF 3 SPANS CONTINUOUS

(30m - 35m - 30m) 3 - LANE REINFORCED CONCRETE BRIDGE

Item Description of Items Unit Approx. Qty. Amount (Rs.)

No. Rate (Rs.)
1. Reinforced cement concrete cu.m. 5000.00 1198.47 59,92,350.00
in deck slab including
centering & shuttering but
excluding reinforcement
M30

2.(a) TMT / High Yield tonne 28000.00 86.03 24,08,840.00

Strength Deformed bars
of Fe 415 grade in all RCC
items all complete as per
Technical Specification
2.(b) Mild Steel Work of Fe tonne 26000.00 28.00 7,28,000.00
250grade in all RCC items
all complete as per Technical
Specification
TOTAL 91,29,190.00

Table 6.3 COST ESTIMATE FOR SUPERSTRUCTURE OF 3 SPANS CONTINUOUS

(30m - 35m - 30m) 3 LANE STEEL CONCRETE COMPOSITE BRIDGE AS PER BS:
5400

Item Description of Items Unit Approx. Qty. Amount

No. Rate (Rs.) (Rs.)
1. Reinforced cement concrete in cu.m. 5000.00 351 17,55,000.00
deck slab including centering &
shuttering but excluding
reinforcement M30

2. TMT / High Yield Strength tonne 28000.00 41.0 11,48,000.00

Deformed bars of Fe 415 grade
in all RCC items all complete as
per Technical Specification
3. Structural Steel Work as per tonne 26000.00 191 49,66,000.00
IS:2062
TOTAL 78,69,000.00

OBSERVATIONS

From the above cost calculations it is found that Continuous Steel - Concrete
Composite construction for bridges is more economical on initial cost basis itself. It is
known fact that Steel - Concrete Composite construction is always faster & life of Steel –
Concrete bridges is much higher compared to PSC bridges. On long term basis the
Continuous Composite Bridges are more economical & should considered as one of the
options.

11
 ACSGE-2009, Oct 25-27, BITS Pilani, India
CONCLUSION
The efficiency, speed and cost
savings are the key components of a
composite construction. Composite
construction utilizes most economic use of
materials. Composite sections have higher
stiffness and hence experience lesser
deflection than non-composite steel
sections. Cost of formwork is lower as
compared to RCC construction. Saving in
overall depth of the beam in turn reduces
the cost of embankment in flyover / bridge
when compared with RCC spans.
Compared to concrete bridges of longer
spans, faster construction can be achieved
by utilizing rolled and or pre-fabricated
components. Also speedy construction
facilitates quicker return of the invested
capital. Life cycle cost analysis is
competitive compared to all concrete or
non-composite structures.
The above study results encourage
adopting the Continuous Composite
Construction Option for substantial
reduction in cost. This will help to utilize
the resources more effectively & more
number of bridges fast & economically.
REFERENCES
1. IRC: 6 - 2000 “Standard Specifications & Code
of Practice for Road Bridges”, Section II, Loads &
Stresses (Fourth Edition), Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Dehli, India.
2. D. Johnson Victor, “ Essentials of Bridge
Engineering”, Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt.
Ltd., New Dehli, Bombay, Calcutta, Third Edition,
January1980.
3. IRC: 21 - 2000 “Standard Specifications & Code
of Practice for Road Bridges”, Section III Cement
Concrete (Plain & Reinforced) (Third Revision),
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Dehli, India.
4. IRC: 22 - 2000 “Standard Specifications & Code
of Practice for Road Bridges”, Section VI
Composite Construction for Road Culverts &
Medium Span Bridges Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Dehli, India.
5. IS: 456 - 2000 “Indian Standard Concrete Code
of Practice for Plain & Reinforced Concrete”,
(Fourth Revision), Bureau of Indian Standards,
New Dehli, India.
6. IS: 800 - 1984 “Indian Standard Code of
Practice for General Construction in Steel”
(Second Revision), Bureau of Indian Standards,
New Dehli, India.
7. IS: 1893 - 2002 “Indian Standard Code of
Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of
Structures”, Part 1 General Provisions &
Buildings, (Fifth Edition), Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Dehli, India.
8. IS: 2911 - 1971 (Part I / Section2) “Indian
Standard Code of Practice for Design &
Construction of Pile Foundations”, Part I Concrete
Piles, Section 2, Bored Cast in-situ Piles, Bureau
of Indian Standards, New Dehli, India.
12
View publication stats
9. IS: 6403 - 1981 “Indian Standard Code of
Practice for Determination of Bearing Capacity of
Shallow Foundations”, (First revision), Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Dehli, India.
10. Lecture 10.10: Composite Bridges
www.kuleuven.ac.be/.../master/wg10/l1000.htm
11. M.G.Aswani, V.N.Vazirani, M.M. Ratwani –
“Design of Concrete Bridges”, Khanna Publishers,
Dehli, Second Edition.
12. N. Krishna Raju – “Design of Bridges”, Oxford &
IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Dehli, (Page
No. 150 to 164).
13. Neena S. Panandiker – “General Review of
Composite Bridge”, Design Advances In Bridge
Engineering, March 24-25, 2006.
(www.iitr.ac.in/departments/CE/abe/499-
505.pdf) (Page Nos.499 - 505).
14. Peter Collin & Tore Lundmark – “Competitive
Swedish Composite Bridges”, IABSE Symposium,
Melborne, 2002. (Page Nos.1 – 10).
15. Pydi Lakshmana Rao – “Continuous Steel
Concrete Composite Construction for Bridge – An
Economical Solution”, INSDAG’s Steel in
Construction, January 2006, Volume 7, No.2
(Page No.55 - 70).
16. Pydi Lakshmana Rao – “Guide Book of
Continuous Composite Bridges”, INSDAG’s Steel
in Construction, September, 2004.
17. SP: 16 – 1980 “Design Aids for reinforced
Concrete to IS: 456 –1978”, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Dehli, India.
18. SP: 22 - 1982 “Explanatory Handbook on Codes
for Earthquake Engineering IS: 1893 – 1975 &
IS: 4326- 1976”, Bureau of Indian Standards,
New Dehli.
19. Suhaib Yahya Kasin Ai – Darzi & Airong
Chen – “Development of Hybrid Composite
Bridges: State of Art & Conceptual Design”,
Journal of Applied Sciences6 (13), 2006. (Page
No.2799 - 2803).
20. Shamsher Prakash, Gopal Ranjan, Swami
Saran – “Analysis & Design of Foundations &
Retaining Structures”, Sarita Publications,
December 1979,
(Page No.301 to 418).
21. Taneja A.K., Bandyopadhyay S.S. & Guha T.
– “Use of Steel Concrete Composite Structure for
Urban Flyovers”, Journal of Indian National group
of the International Association for Bridge &
Structural Engineering
Special number, Volume 33, No.4 (Page No. II -
69 to II - 76).