ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF SLAB BRIDGE

Abstract
Bridges is a structure intended to carry the road traffic or other moving load to pass
through the obstacles. The bridge may be roadway bridge, railway bridge, a canal,
pipelines, etc. the main obstacles can be river, valley, and others. Bridges are very
important in the modern roads and railway transportation system, generally serving as
social infrastructure system. During constructing bridge there are three main components
of the bridge, and they are (substructure, superstructure, bearing), etc. this study is
concern about the manual analysis and design of the bridge, it’s built for the purpose of
providing passage over the obstacles, generally something that can obstacle to cross
otherwise. We referred standard code books, standard procedures, and previous research
to make a analysis and design in a good manner.

INTRODUCTION

Bridges are the structures that spans are horizontally between the support, and the
function of the bridge is to carry vertical loads, so the vertical loads can be pointed or
distributed load. The prototypical bridge is quite simple for two supports holding up the
beams. The support must be strong enough to carry the structural loads. Spans always
designed as short as possible; also, long spans are justified a good foundation. Bridges are
important to every modern highway. But they are not seen or understood in the same way
through everyone. There are types of bridges with different materials. The earliest bridge
was stepping stones, and it was the simplest one bridge ever.

There are different types of bridges, while typically, their structures can be to one of the
seven main types. Beam Bridges, Truss Bridges, Cantilever Bridges, Arch Bridges, Tied
Arch Bridges and Suspension Bridges. Although the truss bridges design is seen as the
strongest suspension bridge design is the one which can give stretch utmost.

Literature Review 1
This section provides a summary of current code language for live load resisting effective
bridge widths for flat slab bridges. Development of the current equations is discussed
along with work done by others to evaluate, compare or improve code language. The
current code equations for effective width were derived with the conservative assumption
that no curb or parapet exists. The effective width could be increased by considering the
parapet in two ways. Including the parapet width in the analytical model increases the
transverse distance between the truck and edge of the slab and increases the effective
width resisting load. Solid barriers or curbs also provide increased stiffness for slab beam
bridges but are not generally considered structural members. Potential increases of the
effective widths due to consideration of the curb or parapet would increase load ratings,
but work done to-date is limited and has not been adopted by AASHTO.

Literature Review 2
 Several methods for understanding the effect of skew are reported in the literature.
One of these is through load testing of existing bridges. Davids load tested 14 bridges and
compared the rating factors obtained with AASHTO LRFD and FEA. The study showed
that the rating factors increased up to 37.6% for bridges with skew angles between 15°
and 20° when using FEA [19]. Other load tests of slightly skewed slab bridges have
shown that the procedures for rating existing reinforced concrete slab bridges using the
European codes are conservative for both shear and bending moment [20,21]. Load
testing of highly skewed concrete bridges is rare. However, Bagheri developed an
artificial intelligence model that can predict nondimensional frequency parameters related
to the vibration modes of a slab bridge. It operates in the ranges of 0° to 60° skew angles.
The input parameters are span length, deck width, deck thickness, and skew angle. With
the nondimensional frequency parameters, one can calculate the flexural rigidity. This
magnitude is used in the load rating and nondestructive evaluation of existing bridges;
thus, the neural net is useful where structural information is incomplete [22].
Skewed slab bridges can also be studied through computational models. For
example, nonlinear analysis has been used in the past [23] and in recent years [24] to
study the behavior of skewed slab bridges at the ultimate limit state. Cope [23]
determined that the first load that generates cracking drives the response of the slab, so
that nonlinear analysis can only yield approximations of the slab’s actual behavior.
Hassan [24] also studied cracking load and observed that for skew angles up to 30°, the
cracking load remained the same as for straight bridges, but there was a decrease when
the skew reached 45°. Additionally, computational approaches have also been combined
with probabilistic approaches to determine the seismic fragility of various types of
skewed bridges [25].
Experimental work on skewed slab bridges is limited. Laboratory testing dating back
to the eighties focused on the effect of shear in reinforced concrete slabs. One of these
studies was conducted at the University of Liverpool and considered specimens with
skew angles ranging from 30° to 60°. One of the main objectives of the study was to
determine how to predict shear forces and evaluate shear capacity of skewed slabs. The
study showed that Mindlin plate theory, with appropriate mesh refinements, can predict
skewed slab behavior to a certain extent. The experiments showed that the failure mode
changes from flexure to shear, and then to punching as the skew angle increases [26].
Another study, with a much more limited scope, tested two 50° skew angle scaled bridge
models. The failure mode for the first specimen was flexure, and that of the second
specimen, which had increased flexural reinforcement, was punching shear. Additionally,
this study determined that thick plate theory could predict the initial distribution of shear
stress at the obtuse corner [27]. More recently, Sharma developed a theoretical
formulation to predict the ultimate flexural strength of skewed slab bridges. The outcome
of the formulation was compared to results obtained from scaled test specimens with
skew angles from 15° to 60°, and yielded accurate results [28].
Parametric studies provide an additional way of comprehending the response of
skewed slab bridges. Some parametric studies have focused on the development of skew
factors. For example, Théoret conducted a parametric numerical study on 390 simply
supported slabs. This study resulted in a series of expressions for moment reduction
factors and shear magnification factors as a function of the skew angle. These factors
compensate for skewness when using the simplified analysis procedures from AASHTO
LRFD [9]. Similarly, skew factors that increment load effects were developed in the
Netherlands for bridge assessment [29].
Other parametric numerical studies have focused on force distribution and
concentration in skewed slab bridges. Menassa analyzed 96 case study bridges using the
AASHTO Standard Specifications, AASHTO LRFD, and LFEA. The research, which
focused on bending moments, confirmed that skewed slab bridges can be designed as
straight for skew angles smaller than 20° [30]. Likewise, Hulsebosch developed a
parametric study with a focus on the influence of skew towards the magnitudes of
bending moments and shear forces. He determined that the addition of ATS (additional
triangular segments) adjacent to the free edges of the slab bridge reduces the governing
shear forces at the obtuse corners [12], and recommended this practice for the design of
new skewed slab bridges. Additionally, Fawaz analyzed 96 case study bridges with a
special attention on the influence of railings on bending moments. The parametric study
showed that the presence of railings, on top of the skew angle, can further reduce the
main longitudinal bending moments obtained with AASHTO LRFD in skewed slab
bridges [31].
From the literature review, we identified the research gap as a parametric study on
the resulting reinforcement layout in reinforced concrete skewed slab bridges. By
focusing on the resulting reinforcement, this paper provides the designer with practical
insights. Additionally, since there is no clear consensus on how to evaluate the shear
capacity of slab bridges [14], the application of a new approach is presented herein. The
selected procedure comes from Lipari, who proposed variations to extend shear design
code provisions for straight geometries to skewed geometries [32].

Literature Review 3
For the correct functioning of our project I have undergone various national and
international papers published. The summary of some important papers skillful are as
below. The design aspects of various journals and theses were studied. Variable
parameters such as Depth of Slab, Length of Slab and width of Slab are the variable
parameters considered during the design of Solid Slab Bridge. RCC Slab bridge is
designed as per the Limit state method using the, IRC: 06-2017, IRC: 112-2011 and
analyzed by STAAD Pro.

Shreedar and Mamadapur (2012) The bridge deck of the T-beam bridges constructed
with girders has to be studied. Using the Finite Element Method, they analyzed the T-
beam deck slab, applying an IRC loading to it. Comparing 3-D model results with 1-
dimensional model results, they found that Finite Element Method results are less than
that of one dimensional model. They used 70R and IRC loading methods for Class A and
Class AA. An IRC study was conducted on a one-dimensional version of a simple span
T-beam bridge. For both the bridge deck slab and the main beam, a three-dimensional
analysis is conducted using finite element software STAAD ProV8i. Loading is simulated
to produce maximum bending moments for both models. Due to the lower accuracy of
finite element analysis than onedimensional analysis, manual calculations based on
IRC loadings typically produce conservative results.
Gaur and Pal (2019) We have learned from the research that there is a gap in the
research and objectives of the research in the field of the slab deck structure system. They
provide a new perspective on the RC deck sab problem. It is possible to enhance the
economic aspect of a deck slab bridge by evaluating its performance with different
thicknesses. This will guide the design of a stronger, safer, and more economical bridge.
Kanathe and Kushwaha (2019) Precast concrete decks with prestressed surface conform
to greater range of forces, moments, and displacements than plain beam decks. The Finite
Element Method involves assigning a finite element number to each part of the structure
so it can be analysed separately. A nodal intersection is when two elements intersect. This
has been taken into account when analysing a bridge with the same IRC loading and span
of 30 meters for critical loads. The results of analysing these critical loads will then be
compared to determine the most stable and economical section based on all factors,
including forces, deflection, weight, and cost. Prestressed concrete deck slabs experience
fewer variations than plain beam decks in terms of forces, moments, and displacements.
Roopa (2020) An analysis of the static and vibrational responses of bridge deck slabs. At
the two edges of bridges, the most important structures are the bridge deck slabs. This
structure is typically orthogonal to the route of traffic. They may, however, occasionally
not be orthogonal to a traffic route for a variety of reasons. This type of bridge deck is
called a skew bridge deck. Despite the growing interest in skew slab bridges, very few
studies have been conducted on either static or vibration behaviour. Hence, finite element
analysis was utilized to analyse the behaviour of skew slab bridge decks using a static and
vibration analysis. Static analysis is performed for different skew angles and for different
aspect ratios, for multiple loading scenarios including dead load, for IRC class A loading,
for the case of slab slabs without and with edge stiffening beams. Parametric studies were
also carried out to evaluate the effect of area stiffening and bearing flexibility at the static
level on bridge decks with 30° skew angles and aspect ratios of 0.4. Simple skew slab
bridges of different skew angles and aspect ratios were analysed for vibration.
Mohaliya and Dashore (2021) The study of A Deflection Analysis of Deck Slabs.
Researchers have studied a steel-free composite deck bridge system for the past two
decades. It is an entirely new concept. The new structural system eliminates the need for
steel reinforcement in concrete deck construction. Concrete decks of bridges are
traditionally designed to withstand loads in flexion. Innovative bridges without steel
decks develop internal compressive forces which result in shear failure by punching at
loads many times higher than their designed flexural loads. The new composite bridge
concept has been applied to five bridges in Canada.

Methodology
. METHODOLOGY
2.1 Acquisition of data
For the design of our bridge, the preliminary data needed was acquired after carrying
outdifferent surveys.
2.1.1 Site selection survey
• A straight reach of river.
• Steady river flow without whirls and across currents.
• A narrow channel with firm banks.
• Sustainable high banks above high flood level on each side.
• Rock or other hard in-erodible strata close to the river bed level.
• Proximity to a direct alignment of the road to be connected.
• Absence of sharp curves in the approaches.
• Absence of expensive river training works.
• Avoidance of excessive underwater construction

In selection of site, care should be taken to investigate a number of probable

alternative sites and then decide on the site which is likely to serve the needs of the
bridges at the least cost.
2.1.2 Topographical survey
Topographical survey was carried out for detailed engineering survey of the proposed
bridge site. Total station, reflector and measuring tape were usually used for detailed
survey.
After consultation with the technical personnel and the local villagers and as directed by
the river morphology; an axis joining line joining left bank and right bank was fixed.
The bridge site detailing area covers a suitable region along the length of river both
upstream and downstream. It also covers left and right banks along the existing approach
roads.
4|Page
2.1.3 Geotechnical Investigation
Geotechnical investigation is one of the major parts of the project work for the design of
the proposed bridge at Bagmati River in Kathmandu & Lalitpur district.
Geotechnical investigation works includes core drilling, test pitting, visual investigation
at site. For our project this was not quite possible. Thus, the geotechnical data were
adopted suitable with our locality and as per the similar works done in the region.
However, we carried out the sieve analysis of the bed soil, finding out its mean size,
specific gravity and water content.

Methodology Using SALOD

Using the SALOD methodology for future flat slab load ratings will be the best way to
improve
load ratings and avoid postings for many flat slab bridges. The SALOD method provides
an effective width that is conservative compared to load testing results, but less
conservative than the effective width calculated using AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications. Although the effective width calculated using SALOD is less conservative
than the effective width calculated using equations in AASHTO, it is still an acceptable
method per AASHTO. The Manual for Bridge Evaluation, section 6A.3.3 allows the use
of refined methods of analysis for “bridges that exhibit insufficient load capacity when
analyzed by approximate methods” (AASHTO, 2018). SALOD was developed and is
based on isotropic plate models, which meet the requirements of AASHTO refined
methods of analysis (AASHTO, 2017). Use of SALOD has fallen out of favour in recent
years due to the “black box” nature of the program. The program interface only allows
the user to see input and output values. Intermediate calculations done by the program to
calculate an effective width are not visible to the user and therefore cannot be checked.
And, unless the program user has reviewed the report on original development of the
program, they would not understand the logic used to generate effective widths (Hays &
Hachey, 1984). To address those problems, the SALOD methodology has been
incorporated into a MathCAD worksheet so that underlying calculations can be easily
reviewed by the user. Review of the SALOD Methodology section of this report will aid
the program user in understanding how the program generates an effective width. The
methodology used in the MathCAD program matches the SALOD program with a few
exceptions, which are appropriate considering current design practice and code changes
which have occurred since the original development of SALOD. There are several
differences between the process followed by the MathCAD program and SALOD. The
first difference simplifies the program based on typical analysis processes. For a second
lane placed on the bridge, SALOD will re-analyze for the maximum longitudinal moment
in order to place the truck longitudinally. This is unnecessary as, typically, only one type
of truck needs to be analyzed at a time. In the case of multiple of the same truck placed
on the bridge, they can all be placed at the same longitudinal position because the
longitudinal position that produces maximum moment will be the same for all trucks.
This change simplifies the computational effort of the program and is sufficient for load
rating according to AASHTO requirements. For the rare case in which two different
trucks need to be loaded on the bridge, the user could input each truck as a user defined
truck and then use the smaller or average of the resulting effective widths. Or the user
could input the two trucks together as a single user defined truck and modify the
MathCAD programming to recognize the user defined truck as a truck with 4 axles. The
SALOD program uses a transverse wheel spacing and standard truck gage that is not in
line with current AASHTO. See Figure 5.2 in (Hays & Hachey, 1984) and Figure 26 for
the SALOD transverse truck placement. The truck gage spacing used by the SALOD
program is 6’-4”, whereas the current gage spacing required BY AASHTO is 6’-0”
(AASHTO, 2017). For the MathCAD program a gage spacing of 6’-0” will be used. Case
3 and 4, used in SALOD and shown in Figure 26, will not be included in the MathCAD
program. By inspection, case 1 will produce maximum effects at the exterior edge of the
bridge and case 2 will produce maximum effects at the interior of the bridge. Cases 3 and
4 are extraneous and unnecessary. Two additional cases are added to the MathCAD
program to address bridges with clear width between 20 and 24 feet. AASHTO requires
that bridges with clear widths in that range accommodate 2 lanes, with each lane having a
width equal to half the clear width (AASHTO, 2017). Figure 27 shows the two cases to
address those bridge widths along with SALOD cases 1 and 2, modified to have the
current AASHTO truck gage spacing of 6’-0”. The final difference between SALOD and
the MathCAD program concerns movement of the truck transversely across the bridge. In
order to determine the controlling effective width, the truck is moved transversely across
the bridge and the effective width is analyzed for each transverse movement. SALOD
moves the truck transversely across the bridge in increments of 1 foot. For simplicity and
because bridge widths vary greatly, a set distance will not be used for incremental
transverse movement of the trucks in the MathCAD program. Instead, the truck will be
moved transversely by 25 divisions of the allowable truck movement shown in Figure 27.
This will result in increased accuracy for narrower bridges than wider bridges, but the
difference between this method and the current SALOD method was measured to be
0%to 1% for typical bridges.

METHODOLOGY:
To achieve the above-mentioned objectives our methodology is as follows:
1. Review the existing literature on topics of solid slab (bridge) structural for analysis.
2. Engineering properties of the materials (like modulus of elasticity, poisons ratio,
ultimate tensile strength, etc.) to be used in analysis is inserted.
3. Modelling of the structure is done by using STAAD-Pro V8i software.
4. Generate beam geometry is done and element size is chosen in such a way that
accuracy in analysis is ensured.
5. Provide slab thickness and material properties
6. Now the support condition is provided at edges of the slab, and the load is applied at
top face of the slab.
7. Apply different type of load and load combination on the slab. (i.e., top face slab,
bottom face slab).