Comparison of Design Parameters of Two Lane Bridge Super-structures

using AASHTO LRFD and IRC Codes

K.I.Gajjar*, N.K.Arora**

*Post Graduate Student **Associate Professor

Department of Applied Mechanics, L.D College of Engineering
Ahmedabad, 380015, Gujarat, India
*gajjarkanaki@yahoo.com ** narendrakarora@gmail.com 
 
ABSTRACT
 
Indian bridge code IRC-6(2010) has recently been revised wherein limit state design method
has been recommended. In United States of America, AASHTO bridge codes are commonly
followed which are based on LRFD method. The philosophy behind both aforementioned
methods is same, however, the vehicular configuration suggested in both codes of practice
are different. Therefore, an attempt has been made in present work to compare the live load
bending moment, shear force and torsion using IRC and AASHTO LRFD method. A two
traffic lane carriageway with crash barrier on both sides has been accounted for spans
varying from 15 to 55m. The results indicate that the maximum bending moment and shear
force corresponding to AASHTO loads can be as high as 1.5 times the IRC loads.

Key words: Bridge deck, superstructure, analysis, IRC, AASHTO

INTRODUCTION

Due to the current scenario of openness on trade front, it has become common to export or
import vehicles from one country to other. It will therefore be desirable to verify the safety of
Indian bridges under other country loads. Du and Au(3) , carried out reliability analysis by
accounting Chinese, Hong Kong and AASHTO LRFD loads for prestressed Concrete bridge
girders. Nowak et. al.(4) compared the results of reliability analysis using Eurocode, Spanish
Norma IAP and AASHTO LRFD loads on prestressed concrete bridge girders. 
 
Up till now, bridge design in India has been carried out by working stress method. However,
due to greater assertion of behavior of reinforced concrete through prolonged research data,
IRC has recently been shifted its design philosophy from working stress method to limit state
design method. In USA, AASHTO has adopted LRFD method since 1993. Hence, both IRC
and AASHTO codes are based on same philosophy, however, the loading vehicles prescribed
by both codes are different. A comparison of design parameters of given bridge
superstructure by rolling above loads will give an idea about the safety of bridges under both
loads. In present work, only limit state of collapse is considered.
OBJECTIVE

The main objective of the present study is to compare the live load bending moment, shear
force and twisting moment of a two lane bridge having different span lengths under IRC and
AASHTO loading.

SCOPE
The present study is carried out for two lane Indian highway bridges having span lengths
from 15m to 55m, over which IRC and AASHTO vehicular loads are applied. Class 70-R,
Class A (two lanes) and Class AA (tracked vehicle) loads of IRC and HL-93 load of
AASHTO are applied on superstructure. The analysis of superstructure is carried out in
BEAVA module of STAAD which is capable of generating influence surface of desired
parameter. Finally maximum live load bending moment, shear force, and twisting moment
corresponding to IRC and AASHTO are compared.

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The present study is carried out for a two lane bridge which does not have any footpath. The
width of carriageway is considered 7.50 m and crash barriers on either side of carriage way
are of 0.45m making overall width as 8.4m. For span range 15m to 25m, RCC superstructure
is assumed whereas for 30m to 55m span, PSC superstructure is assumed. Super structure is
assumed to have three girders with center to center spacing 2.8m. The spacing has been
chosen as per the thumb rule of cantilever slab span equal to the one half of the spacing
between the girders. The span to depth ratio is taken as 14 for RCC and 18 for PSC
superstructure. Number of cross girders are three for span 15.0m and 20.0m, four for span
30.0m and 35.0m and five for 40.0m, six for span 45.0m to 55.0m as per the conventional
practice. A typical cross section of the super structure is shown in figure 1. Other dimensions
are taken as per the figure 2.

Fig.1 – Cross Section of Super Structure

Fig. 2 – Cross Section of T-Girder

ANALYSIS
The analysis of bridge super structure is carried out in BEAVA module of STAAD-Pro. It has
in-built facility to define various load vehicles corresponding to IRC and AASHTO-LFRD.
In BEAVA, geometric configurations are defined and influence surface is generated using
‘Generate influence surface’ command. The maximum structural response of superstructure
at requisite girder locations corresponding to various load vehicles is acquired from influence
surface. In present study, maximum structural response in terms of bending moment; shear
force and torsional moment is determined at six span locations viz. 0L, 0.1L, 0.2L, 0.3L, 0.4L
and 0.5L.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Analytical results were obtained for live load bending moment, shear force and torsional
moment at requisite span locations viz. 0L,0.1L, 0.2L, 0.3L, 0.4L and 0.5L for spans ranging
from 15 to 55m. The maximum response of aforementioned parameters were determined at
each location for IRC loading by considering Class 70R wheeled, Class A – two lane &
Class AA Tracked vehicle load whereas for AASHTO-LRFD, HL-93 load was considered.
These parameters were determined separately for inner and outer girders. The variation of
live load bending moment, shear force and torsional moment for outer and inner girder at
different span locations and for different span corresponding to IRC and AASHTO loads is
shown graphically in fig 3 to 8. Following observations are made,

Bending Moment Due to Live load: (Ref. fig. 3 & 4)

 From 15 to 25m spans, bending moment in outer girder is higher for IRC loads
whereas after 30m span, AASHTO loading has higher bending moments than IRC
loading.
 Bending moment in inner girder produced by AASHTO loading is higher for all
spans.
 The ratio of bending moments produced by AASHTO loading to IRC loading
increases with increase in span. The bending moment corresponding to AASHTO
load is as large as 1.5 times the bending moment due to the IRC load at 55m span.

Shear Force Due to Live Load: (Ref. fig. 5 & 6)

 Similar to the bending moment pattern, shear force in outer girder is higher for IRC
loads from all spans between 15 and 25m whereas after 30m span, AAHTO loading
has higher shear force than IRC loading.
 The inner girder shear force corresponding to AASHTO loading is always higher than
the IRC loading for all spans under consideration except 15.0 m span.
 The shear force in inner as well as outer girder corresponding to IRC load increases
slowly upto span 25m however beyond 30m span, increase in shear force is not
significant.
 Shear force in inner as well as produced by AASHTO load increases steadily with
increase in span.
 The ratio of shear force produced by AASHTO loading to IRC loading increases with
increase in span. The shear force corresponding to AASHTO load is as large as 1.5
times the shear force due to the IRC load at 55m span.
Torsion Due to Live Load: (Ref. fig. 7 & 8)
 Torsional moment due to IRC loads in more up to 25m span for outer girder and upto
30m span for inner girder. Torsion due to AASHTO loading becomes higher beyond
these spans.
 In shorter span the value of torsion in outer girder is 1.5 times higher in IRC loading
than AASHTO LRFD.
 Torsional moment in inner as well as outer girder corresponding to IRC load increases
up to span 30m however beyond 35m span, increase in shear force is not significant.

CONCLUSIONS
The aim of present study is to compare the design parameters due to rolling of IRC loading
and AASHTO LRFD loading on a two lane bridge having carriageway 7.5m and overall
width 8.4m. The span ranging from 15m to 55m are accounted in present work.
Following conclusions are drawn from the study:
1. In general, bending moment and shear force due to AASHTO load is higher than IRC
loads for all spans.
2. The difference in bending moment and shear force due to AASHTO load and IRC
load increases with increase in span length. Bending moment and shear force
corresponding to AASHTO load is as high as 1.5 times the corresponding values of
IRC loads.
3. Shear force in inner and outer girder becomes almost constant for spans longer than
30m.

REFERENCES

1. Standard Specification and Code of Practice for Road Bridge, Section – II, Loads and
Stresses, IRC: 6-2000.The Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi.
2. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Washington, DC: Association of State
Highway and Transportation; 1998.
3. J.S. Du, F.T.K. Au, “Deterministic and reliability analysis of prestressed concrete
bridge girders: comparison of the Chinese Hong Kong and AASHTO LRFD Codes”,
Journal of structural safety, science direct, Structural Safety 27 (2005) 230–245.
4. Andrzej S. Nowaka, Chan-Hee Parkb, Juan R. Casasc, “Reliability analysis of
prestressed concrete bridge girders: comparison of Euro code, Spanish Norma IAP
and AASHTO LRFD”, Journal of structural safety, science direct, Structural Safety
23 (2001) 331–344.
Fig. 3 - Bending Moment in Outer Girder Fig. 4 - Bending Moment in Inner Girder

Fig. 5 - Shear Force Outer Girder Fig. 6 – Shear Force in Inner Girder

Fig. 7 - Torsion in Outer Girder Fig. 8 – Torsion in Inner Girder