Box Girder Bridge Modelling using Finite Element

Method and Grillage Analogy: A Comparative Study

M.TECH Dissertation

By

RAMA CHANDRA BHAIRAVARASU

Roll No. 21243011

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY RAIPUR
RAIPUR - 492010
August, 2023

1
 CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION
I hereby certify that the work which is being presented in the thesis entitled “Box Girder
Bridge Modelling using Finite Element Method and Grillage Analogy: A Comparative
Study”, in the partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award of the Degree of Master of
Technology and submitted in the Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of
Technology, Raipur, is an authentic record of my own work carried out during a period from
July 2022 to June 2023 under the supervision of Dr. U.K.DEWANGAN, NIT Raipur. The
matter presented in the thesis has not been submitted by me for the award of any degree of
this or any other Institute/ University.
(Rama Chandra Bhairavarasu)

This is to certify that the above statement made by the candidate is correct to the best of my
knowledge.

(Dr. U.K. DEWANGAN)

Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
National Institute of Technology Raipur

The MTech. Viva-Voice examination of Mr. Rama Chandra Bhairavarasu, Research Scholar,
has been held on ………………………

Signature of Supervisor Signature of H.O.D. Signature of External Examiner

2
 ABSTRACT

Box girder bridges deck are one of the best options for bridge with span of more than 30 m in
length.Box girder bridges are popular mainly due to their better stability, serviceability,
economy, and structural efficiency. In this project, a finite element analysis of box girder
bridge is carried out using MIDAS Software. A box girder bridge with an overall span length
of 42 m and Carriage way width of 7.5 m is considered for its analysis in this work. The
loadings are considered as per the IRC 6:2017. TheFinite Element modeling and analysis is
performed in MIDAS Software model. The bending moments, shear force and reactions are
found on box girder bridge as per the IRC Loadings combinations. A Finite Element
modeling-basedgrillage analysis of the box girder bridge is also carried out using STAAD
Pro model. The loads which are present on the slab deck are distributed along the nodes at the
intersection of gridlines. In this work, analysis is performed at nodal points.The manual
calculations of the Box Girder Bridge Deck is also carried out in an EXCEL sheet which has
been cross verified by ref 39. In manual calculation the analysis of the box girder bridge
considered different vehicle loadswith the self-weight combination. Pre-stressed Cable
profiles are drawn. Pre-stressing forces and losses are also found out. The results obtained
from finite element analysis are the compared with results obtained from manual
calculationsdone as per the standards in the textbook (ref 39.) and Grillage analysis in
STAAD Pro.

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Completion of this thesis was possible with the support of several people. First of all, I would
like to express my great indebtedness to my respected philosopher and mentor, research
guide, Dr. U.K. Dewangan, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of
Technology, Raipur, for his valuable guidance and consistent encouragement, profound
advice and persistent encouragement throughout this work. It has been an excellent learning
experience to work under his supervision. I'm also thankful to Dr. Gangadhar Ramtekkar,
Head of the department, Department of Civil Engineering and Dr. Govardhan Bhatt,
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology,
Raipur, for their valuable insight given by him during the curriculum.

I sincerely thank all faculty members of the Civil Engineering Department for their
cooperation and valuable support and special thanks to Dr. R. K. Tripathi, Dr. Mohit Jaiswal,
Dr. S.V. Deo, Dr. Alfia Bano and Dr. Meena Murmu, Department of Civil Engineering,
National Institute of Technology Raipur for their valuable guidance.

I take this opportunity to thank every source that has contributed in carrying out this research
work. Last but not the least, I wish to thank all those who have helped me in all stages of my
research work.

Rama Chandra Bhairavarasu

Roll No. (21243011)

4
 CONTENTS
Page No.

Candidate's Declaration 2
Abstract 3
Acknowledgement 4
Contents 5
List of Figures 7
List of Tables 8
Appendix details x

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION 9
2 LITERATURE STUDY
2.1 Summary 21
3 MODELLING OF BOX GIRDER BRIDGE
3.1 Problem statement 22
3.1.1 Longitudinal Analysis
3.1.2 Section Properties 24
3.1.3 Bending moment and shear force values 24
3.1.4 Pre-stressing forces 28
3.1.5 Checking sections for stresses 31

4 GRILLAGE ANALYSIS
4.1 Grillage Analysis Program 33
4.2 Guidelines for Grillage layout 33
4.3 Forces assigned to nodes 34
4.4 Torsional Moment of Inertia 35
4.5 Moment of inertia of transverse grillage 36

5
 4.7 Grillage analysis using STAAD Pro 37
5 MODEL
5.1 Bending moment and Shear force for the model under self-weight 41
5.2 Bending moment and Shear force for the model under 70R loading 44
5.3 Bending moment and Shear force for the model under Class A loading 45
6 RESULTS 46
7 CONCLUSIONS 46
8 REFERENCES 47

6
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Details of figure Page No.

1.1 Box girder bridge 9

3.1 Box girder cross-section 24

3.2 Typical cable profile 29

4.1 Idealized Grillage model 32

4.2 Statical distribution of loads in rectangular panel 34

4.3 Cross section of box 35

4.4 Longitudinal section of box girder deck 36

4.5 Longitudinal gridlines 37

4.6 Grillage idealization in STAAD Pro. 38

4.7 Properties assigned 38

4.8 Bending moment in STAAD Pro. 39

5.1 Cross-section of the model 40

5.2 3D view of the model 40

5.3 Bending moment diagram due to Self weight 44

5.4 Shear force diagram due to Self weight 44

5.5 Bending moment diagram due to 70R loading 44

5.6 Shear force diagram due to 70R loading 45

5.7 Bending moment diagram due to Class A loading 45

5.8 Shear force diagram due to Class A loading 45

7
 LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Details of table Page No.

3.1 Section properties 24

3.2 Max values of BM and SF at different sections 27

3.3 Stresses caused by BM 28

3.4 Cable profile 29

3.4 Pre-stress losses 30

3.5 Resultant stresses 31

4.1 Bending moment and Shear force for the model under self-weight 41

4.2 Bending moment and Shear force for the model under 70R loading 42

4.3 Bending moment and Shear force for the model under class A loading 43

5.1 Manual values vs FEM values 46

8
 Introduction

A box girder bridge, is a bridge in which the main beams comprise girders in the shape of a
hollow box. Girders are the large section beams above which the slab(deck) rests. They are
generally adopted for the bridges. The Box Girder are hollow channel-shaped beams
containing two (or more) side webs and two flanges. The box girder normally comprises pre-
stressed concrete, structural steel, or a composite of steel and reinforced concrete. The box is
typically rectangular or trapezoidal in cross-section. Box girder bridges are commonly used
for highway flyovers and for modern elevated structures of light rail transport. Although the
box girder bridge is normally a form of beam bridge, box girders may also be used on cable-
stayed and other bridges. Hollow Box cross sections are efficient for transverse loads. Hollow
box as compared to solid rectangle of equivalent sectional has greater moment of inertia.
These are strong in torsion due to their closed shape. Hence these are ideal choice for long
span bridges as they have optimal resistance to both bending and torsion. Economical. In this
paper alternate methods for calculating BM are considered.

Ref. Mumbai-Ahmedabad High Speed Rail.

Fig 1.1. Box girder bridge

9
 Literature Review

This section covers a wide range of literature available on analysis of Box Girder Bridges and
observations from the literature study are discussed. The literature study is conducted to set
the main objectives of the present study. Although this literature covers a wide variety of
parametric studies and analysis methods this literature study focusses mainly on finite
element analysis and modelling of Pre-stressed Box girder bridge. The observations from the
literature study are discussed in the form of summary at the end of the section.

Chen Y.S.,YenB.T. (1980), developed a procedure for stress analysis of steel concrete
composite box girders on the basis of classical elastic theory. From the procedure,
information can be derived for proportioning of box girder cross sections. For box-girder with
high ratios of flange width to span length, shear lag effect in the flange cannot be ignored.To
evaluate shear lag, the stress strain relations of deck and bottom flange must first be
formulated. Now we use equilibrium equations for plane stress elasticity and with stress-
strain relations established, solve for the shear lag in both top deck and bottom flange. After
solving the equation, an arbitrary box girder with low concrete strength is considered. From
this we can see the effect of shear lag on longitudinal stresses is quite prominent, regardless
of reinforcement arrangement as indicated by the max to average stress ration as well as by
longitudinal normal stress distribution.

ShuskewichW.K. (1988), proposed a method in this paper is to do a 3D analysis of box

girder bridge as predicted by folded plate, finite strip and finite element analysis can be
approximated by using simple membrane equations in conjunction with plane frame analysis.

Limitations of this method prior to this paper are: webs are assumed to be vertical; loads are
placed directly over the webs, loads were symmetrically placed. In this paper these
limitations were addressed such as webs may be inclined, self-weight uniform load and loads
over webs may all be considered with respect to transverse flexure and both symmetrical and
anti-symmetrical loads may be considered with respect to longitudinal shear and torsion.

10
Determination of various forces is useful since:

(a) Transverse reinforcement and prestressing must be designed to resist Mxx and
transverse membrane force Nyy.
(b) Stirrups are designed to resist membrane shear force Nxy due to both longitudinal
shear and torsion.
(c) Longitudinal prestressing and reinforcing to resist Nxx.
(d) Individual box girder elements must be adequate to resist transverse normal shear
force Qyy.
Results of folded plate analysis can be approximated very closely by using some membrane
equations in conjunction with plane frame analysis especially the method allows prestressing
to be proportioned for transverse flexure, stirrups proportioned for longitudinal shear.

Pulmano V.A. (1974), proposes in the paper the methodthat analyses continuous multi-cell
box girder bridges without interior diaphragms. It is simply supported at its transverse edges
and intermediate supports can be placed arbitrarily along the span.The method proposed is
based on folded plate theory.

Analysis of frames using flexibility method follows below steps:

(a) Vertical displacement of primary structure due to applied loads at location of

intermediate supports are determined.
(b) Flexibility influence coefficients at these locations are calculated.
(c) Using results from above two steps magnitude of intermediate support reactions are
determined as there are no vertical supports at the supports.
(d) With intermediate reactions known the magnitude of stress resultants and
displacement components are obtained by superposition.
In this paper, an example of single-cell box girder with one transverse line of intermediate
supports at right angle to the box girder, located at mid span is chosen. The method is
applicable to multi-cell box girders with any number of transverse lines of intermediate
supports, either orthogonal or skew with respect to longitudinal direction of the structure.

11
Esmerald Filajet al (2016), are the authors of the paper which proposes the method for the
design and analysis of Box girder bridge. In this paper only transverse analysis is discussed.
For this a simplified 2-D plane frame model of unit length is built and analysed using SAP-
2000 software for two cases:

(a) Using linear frame elements connected in rigid joints (truss model).
(b) Using shell elements.
In this model load distribution to webs and slab members is done relative to their stiffness.
For studying joint stiffness effects only self-weight and live load are considered. Mono
cellular RC box girder bridge with trapezoidal cross-section will be analysed. To study joint
stiffness effects, some simplifications are done such as only self-weight is considered in dead
loads, live load is assumed to act on girder extremities.

Two different analysis models are built using SAP-2000 software, to analyse box girder
bridge are:

(a) 2D plane frame of unit length, built using frame elements, with variable cross-section
connected in rigid joints.
(b) 2D plane frame of unit length, built using shell elements thus considering quite ideal
rigid joint regions and no discontinuities.
In box girderbridge, corner rigid regions affect its overall transverse behaviour. The overall
transverse behaviour depends on how elements and rigid joints are modelled. The model built
with shell elements is more appropriate to be used for this kind of design analysis.

Stallings J.M and YooC.H. (1991) three short span slab-on-girder bridges' grid analyses and
field test results were compared. The comparisons highlight the errors involved in simulating
and examining an existing bridge structure. They discovered that the grid analysis could, for
all three bridges, accurately duplicate the maximum measured values to within 30%. This is
especially relevant in light of the fact that the models employed did not receive any further
refinement beyond what would have been feasible in the absence of the test results.

The findings of the grid analysis gave cautious overestimates of the observed stresses. For
two of the bridge spans, it was also possible to compare the outcomes of the grid analysis
with those of the AASHTO simplified analysis approach. In both instances, it was discovered
that the grid analysis results more closely matched the measured data. The observations made
above show how grid analyses can help with slab-on-girder bridge design and evaluation of
live load capability.

12
Leslie G. Jaeger and BaidarBakht (2009) did study on how to idealize the various type of
bridge superstructure like slab, bean and slab, cellular and voided slab bridges. They
conclude that the grillage analogy is good for analysis of various type of bridge
superstructure, the also find that grillage analysis is also capable of dealing with complicated
feature such as heavy skew, edge stiffening, deep haunches, isolated supports etc.

Linzell and Shura et al. (2009) By creating grillage models and analysing the bending stress
elevations, researchers looked into the precision and reaction times of girders. Further
research on the choice of modelling tools to determine a response prediction of the already-
existing curved bridges was advised.

Adamakos and Vayas et al. (2010) has concentrated on the modelling of curved steel-girder
bridges by numerical techniques. They came to the conclusion that an accurate forecast of
bridge behaviour in real-world scenarios cannot be achieved by employing FEA modelling to
analyse the structural behaviour of curved and straight bridges. More research on employing
other approaches is also required, as well as more 3D bridge modelling with better meshes for
analysis of various bridge types.

Kwasniewski et al. (2006) has used the FEA method to numerically simulate a case study of
a highway bridge in Florida called US 90. The study, however, only considered a multi-girder
bridge

Kirsch et al. (1998) has suggested and developed a method for grillage structures in general
to approximate the rigidity using stiffness analysis formulations.

Brien and Keogh et al. (1998) did a 3D bridge deck model with 2 spans using FEA method.
They used a new upstand technique to indorse their model and to proof the accuracy of the
method in forecasting the longitudinal bending stresses.

Lu, Xie and Shao et al. (2012) has conducted both numerical and experimental studies on a
composite bridge. They designed a 3D FEA composite curve interface bridge and validated
the results with the experimental part to demonstrate the efficiency of their model in
predicting the structural stability and serviceability when compared with real life situations.

13
Khalid Abdel Naser Abdel Rahim(2019) has modelled a two dimensional bridge deck for a
cantilever bridge with a 15 m long span that has been modelled and analysed using
computational modelling software (LUSAS) to obtain maximum moments and shear forces.

Ramana P.V. (2013), used in this paper the method which is proven to be most effective
numerical technique for static analysis of bridge. In this study, finite strip method is applied
for analysis of box girder bridge subjected to dead load and IRC live loads. Loading of class
70R (tracked and wheeled), class AA (tracked and wheeled) and class A are incorporated into
the program. In this case, program is for simply supported conditions, without intermediate
diaphragms. Objective of this study was to elaborate the behaviour of rectangular and
trapezoidal box girder bridges for various positions of IRC load.

A right box girder bridge structure is divided into a member of finite strips (rectangular)
bounded by nodal lines within each strip displacements are found by linear interpolation of
nodal lines. Box girder is assumed to be a combination of bending plates and plate-stress
plates.

[ S ] m { δ } m={ F } m
¿] = [S ij ¿¿ P ]¿ 0

0 [S ij ¿¿ b]¿

[S ij ¿¿ P ]¿ denotes plane stress stiffness.

[S ij ¿¿ b]¿ denotes bending stiffness.

The box girders in this paper are divided into 21 strips and there are 20nodal lines. The deck
is divided finer mesh when compared to bottom slab. Deck divided into four strips and
bottom slab into two strips and one strip for the web of the bridge. From the analysis,
rectangular section of box girder bridge gives greater deflection to some extent as compared
to trapezoidal section for both the loadings of class A and class 70R. Deck slab must be
divided into finer mesh compared to bottom slab due to the effect of concentrated load. In the
web only one strip.

14
AriciMarcello, FabioMichele (2013), proposed in their paper warping and distortion of box
girders is analysed through BEF analogy, by using 4 th order differential equation. Class beam
theory does not consider the deformation of box section. But cross-sections do not remain
stiff in their plane. Folded plate analysis can be developed through BEF analogy, deriving 4 th
order differential equation, to solve the problem of cross-section deformability under anti-
symmetric loads. In this paper the solution of BEF analogy is given for a number of practical
cases and they are reported in the form of graphs. The objective is to provide useful tool for
designs, who need a fast and simple procedure to take into effects of concrete box
deformability in the analysis of bridge structures. In this paper the scheme can be divided into
one with symmetric loads and another with anti-symmetric loads. Effects of symmetric loads
are calculated through classical beam theory giving mainly vertical displacements,
longitudinal normal stresses into slab and webs due to bending, tangential stresses due to
shear.

HalkudeS.A.,Akim C.Y. (2012), proposed in their paper that box girder is considered as a
beam so bending and shear exist longitudinally. Due to thin wall and widespread cross-
section, shear is not uniform even along the width. Exhibits torsion when eccentric loading is
applied. Some approximate analytical methos are being used for analysis. The objective of
this paper is to perform analysis on box girder using Finite Strip Method.

Conditions suitable for applying FSM are structure must have constant cross-section and end
boundary conditions do not change transversely. In each strip, the displacement of the strip is
expressed in terms of displacement of strip is expressed in terms of displacement of nodal
lines by means of polynomials in transverse direction and differentiable smooth series is
longitudinal direction. The stress and displacement components at any point in the structure
can be obtained by expressing strain energy and potential energy of external loads in terms of
displacement parameters.

П = U+ W

Then total potential energy of system is considered as minimum. From solving this equation,
we get results such as deflection and moments. In each strip displacement components are
found by using four displacement parameters. These yields set of linear equations upon
solving which displacements and bending moments at any point in the structure are found.

15
The time and effort required for the analysis using finite strip is less compared to finite
element analysis.

Schlaich Jorg (1982), proposed in his book, the analysis of sectional forces to which
structure is subjected can be handled by various approaches. One of them includes
considering the box girder loaded symmetrically in transverse direction and then analysing it
as a beam longitudinally and transversely as a frame independent of each other.All the
transverse loads are integrated as point loads or line loads. Bending moments and shear
forces are calculated for these loads. Frame analysis in transverse direction for symmetrical
edge loads and anti-symmetrical edge loads were conducted. Analysis of web panel loaded
with qs due to diagonal force S yielding longitudinal stress and transverse bending moment.
Superposition of with and with m yields longitudinal and transverse stresses.

PatelDhiraj, KumbharPopat (2016), proposed in this paper the analytical study of

behaviour of single cell skewed and curved rectangular box girder using simple FE models
considering IRC 70R and dead load as primary forces. Parameters which are varying in this
paper are skew angle and radius of curvature. Skew angle of bridges varies from 0 to 60 and
radii of curvature varies as 120m, 150m, 180m and 210m). The width of top and bottom
flanges is 9.6m and 5.43 m respectively and total depth of box girder is 2.31 m. The thickness
of flanges and webs is 0.3814 m and the grade of the concrete is M40 concrete. In this study
only superstructure is modelled. As for boundary conditions the supports at end are treated as
roller and support at the middle are taken as hinges. A four nodded 3D shell element with six
degrees of freedom at each node is used to model the RC box girder bridge. Top and bottom
element of web integrated with top and bottom slab connections, to ensure compatibility. In
this study, 28 bridges were analysed for various configurations for radii of curvature and
skew angle. In each configuration maximum deflection, support reaction, maximum bending
moment, maximum torsion and maximum shear stress were obtained. From this study, we
learn that combined efforts of skew angle and radii of curvature cannot be ignored for future
considerations. Maximum deflection occurred for 50 skew angle which is 4.16% greater than
0-degree angle. Shear stress for skewed and curved box girder bridges is directly proportional
to skew angle while inversely proportional to radius of curvature. Effect of skew angle can be
minimized by radii of curvature.

16
Chitra J et al (2018), proposed that to save on money and time, designers resort to simplified
analysis for predicting longitudinal and transverse bending moments. Among them SFA is the
simplest and widely used in offices. It is found that majority SFA work is restricted to single
cell box girder bridges. The bridge is modelled using finite element software and the results
are then compared with simplified frame analysis. This paper focuses on establishing
correction factors for transverse bending moment values obtained from SFA.

Assumptions for SFA:

(a) Rotational and translational fixity at the web flange junctions.

(b) Neglect distortional analysis.
(c) Wheel load is taken as an equivalent line load.
(d) Only transverse bending action in top flange is considered, with no regard to curvature
of longitudinal direction.

Due to above mentioned limitations, the values are usually enhanced by nearly 10%.
Modelling vehicle load in SFA:

The concentrated load, P = Q/be ; here be = effective width.

be = αx(1-(x/l)) + bw; here bw=B+2C.

In this paper a double cell box girder bridge is used for study. The study focuses on
calculating approximate correction factors for transverse bending moment from SFA, so as to
make it more reliable. The box is modelled and analysed using CSI bridge and the box frame
modelled for SFA is analysed using STAAD software.

Model: Span= 30m; Flange thickness = 0.25m; web thickness = 0.5m; Total width =5m;
load=350 kN.

Correction factor = (3D FEA transverse moment)/(SFA transverse moment)

Correction factors are calculated for each element. It can be seen that correction factors
obtained are comparable to the correction factors obtained from single cell box girder bridge.

Viranjan Verma, Nallasivam K. (2010), proposed an analysis done on a thin-walled box-

girder bridge subjected Indian railway loading using a three nodded one-dimensional beam

17
element. MATLAB coding is done to obtain various response parameters for single as well as
double cell box girders. Obtained values are validated by solving two numerical examples.

Muthanna Abbu (2013), proposed the work on 3D FE modelling of composite box Girder
Bridge. The conclusion was interaction between the two parts of the bridge in the ANSYS
analysis model using rigid links to give full interaction between components. The thickness
of precast concrete 15cm was big to simulate using shell elements, so note-worthy differences
were observed (about 2 %) by using 3-D solid elements to model such thickness. The value
of the degree of freedom in coincident with the points to be coupled, was important thing
effects on result of simulation of constrained point load, big difference appeared (15 %) when
the loading simulated by Coupling to force a set of nodes to have the same DOF value.

Berthellemy Jacques (1992), proposed different methods for analysis of box girder are
introduced such as grillage or orthotropic plate analysis. For uniform loading, elementary
beam theory gives useful results but distribution analysis by a grillage or an orthotropic plate
method is needed for more complex loadings. In a simple form of grillage analysis, each
beam is given a torsional stiffness and a flexural stiffness in the vertical plane. Vertical loads
are applied only at the intersections of the beams. The matrix stiffness method analysis is
used by the software to find the rotations about two horizontal axes and the vertical
displacement at these nodes, and hence the bending and torsional moments and vertical shear
forces in the beams at each intersection.

Karthika Santhosh, Asha Varma P. (2017), analysedBox Girder Bridge of single cell type
using SAP2000 V14. Three shapes rectangular, trapezoidal, and circular are considered and
the curvature of the bridges varies only in horizontal direction. Moving load of IRC class, a
tracked vehicle is applied and static analyses under different loading conditions are
performed. From this study it is concluded that the trapezoidal section is superior to circular
and rectangular section. Among rectangular, circular and trapezoidal box girders of all radii,
the torsion is maximum for circular box girders and least for trapezoidal box girders. The
trapezoidal section is the stiffest section and the most stable among the three sections.

18
Vishal S. Jawanjal and Manoj Kumar (2006), presented the Finite Element Analysis of
simply supported box-girder bridge curved in plan with skewed supports. In this study the
finite element analysis has been carried out using the 9-node degenerated shell element,
however, the geometry of the bridge has been modelled with the help of STAAD Pro. In
order to study the behaviour of skewed-curved box-girder bridge, a 20m span Reinforced
Concrete (RC) bridge has been considered and the degrees of curvature and skewness has
been varied to study the effect of curvature and skewness on deflection, longitudinal bending
stress and shear lag.

Gupta P.K. (2010), used SAP-2000 to carry out linear analysis of these box girders. Three
dimensional 4-noded shell elements have been employed to analyse the complex
behaviour of different box-girders. The linear analysis has been carried out for the Dead
Load (Self Weight) and Live Load of IRC Class 70R loading, for zero eccentricity as well
as maximum eccentricity at mid-span. In the paper, results of linear analysis of three box
girder bridge cross-sections namely Rectangular, Trapezoidal and Circular of varying depths
have been presented.

Abrar Ahmed, Lokhande R.B. (2017), utilized this paper to identify the best section for
bridges with various spans. Designing and analyzing sections for various I.R.C. vehicles is
the goal of the task. Csi-bridge software is used to analyze the structure, and the working
stress method and Courbons theory are used for validation. We can see that the I.R.C. 70-R
vehicle has the most influence. T-beam girders are suitable for bridges up to 30 meters in
span, but they become unprofitable at longer spans. Box girder is appropriate for greater
spans.

Tangupalli, M. K. And Sudhamani J.(2017),used STAAD Pro V8i in this project to

compare all loadings, all methods, and the same bridge. The three logical approaches are used
to analyze the girder (Hendry Jaegar, Guyon-Massonet, Courbons theory). IRC loadings
Class A, Class AA, Class 70-R, and Class B are the ones that were assigned. The many
country loadings mentioned include the British Standard, the AASHTO, and the Saudi Arabia
loading.

19
ShreedharR. and KhardeRashmi (2013), carried out comparative study of grillage method
and finite element method of rcc bridge deck in this they used STAAD PRO and found out
that, In general for practical slab bridge deck, result for finite element gives lesser value in
terms of bending moment compared with grillage model. Therefore, it can be concluded that
analysis by using finite element method gives more economical design when compared with
the grillage analysis. But the benefit for grillage analysis is that it is easy to use and
comprehend.

Kale Rajesh F., Gore N.G., Salunke P.J. (2014), presents a cost optimization approach for
superstructures. This optimization is done using MATLAB software. Design constraints for
the optimization are considered according to IRC codes. The optimization process is done for
different grades of concrete and steel. The comparative results for different grades of concrete
and steel are presented in tabulated form. The function to be satisfied is the cost of R.C.C. T-
beam bridge deck whose main components are cost of concrete and steel. It is assumed that
cost of steel, launching and casting formwork etc. are directly proportional to volume of
concrete. Actual percentage of the saving obtained for optimum design for girder depend
upon the deck slab thickness, depth of girder, grade of steel and grade of concrete.

Amit Saxena (2013) Based on loadings and other relevant characteristics, this study
illustrates two different types of bridge systems: box girder and simply supported reinforced
cement concrete t-beam bridges. The consumption of steel and concrete materials in building
is calculated. The choice of bridge type is made based on crucial civil engineering
considerations like affordability, use, and safety. STAAD Pro is the programme that is used to
do the analysis. Out of these two, the economical one has been chosen after being examined
manually and through software.

20
Summary:
The literature survey is carried out as per the above paper. Some important observations are:

(a) Shear lag effects are prominent for box girders for span to width ratiosgreater than 4.
For these the normal stresses are calculated by shear lad analysis, whereas the
shearing stresses may be computed by the ordinary beam theory.
(b) Approximate methods of analysis such as using membrane equations with plane
frame analysis are close substitute to folded plate analysis. Especially as it allows pre-
stressing and stirrups to be proportioned for transverse flexure and longitudinal shear
respectively.
(c) The transverse behaviour of box girder bridge depends on the location of the rigid
joints and placement of elements as the load distribution is relative to their stiffness.
(d) Using finite strip method, we can conclude that box girder with rectangular cross-
section give greater deflection when compared with the one with trapezoidal cross-
section.
(e) Usually for analysis of Box girder the classical beam theory is used, but this theory
does not consider deformation of box. To include warping and distortion BEF analogy
is used for analysis of Box girder bridges.
(f) Shear stress for skewed and curved box girder is directly proportional to skew angle
and inversely proportional to radius of curvature.
(g) Correction factors for both multi-cell and single cell box girder are similar under
simplified frame analysis.

21
 MODELLING OF BOX GIRDER BRIDGE

3.1 Problem Statement, with reference to the book Ponnuswamy ref. (39)
(a) Given Data

To design a two-lane highway bridge girder for a major highway project with the
following input data
Clear span 40.5 m
Overall length of girder 42.0 m
Effective span 41.42 m
Clear deck width 7.50 m
Width of crash barrier 500 mm each
Overall width of deck 8.5 m
Girder is to be designed with concrete grade M-45 and Fressinet system of Prestressing
with 19K13 strand prestressing cables, area of each being 1875 sq.mm
UTS of cables is 355.79 tonnes or 3490 kN (1861 N/sq.mm)
No tension is permitted in concrete in service stage.
Modulus of elasticity of HTS 195 x106 kN/sqm.
Reinforcement steel to be used is HYSD bars Fe 415 Grade.

(b) Assumed Data:

Depth of girder2620 mm
Sections at mid-span: Deck 225 mm
Web 300 mm
Soffit 240 mm

Webs and soffit to be thickened at end to 500 mm each.

Wearing coat thickness 65 mm average

22
LONGITUDINAL ANALYSIS
Step 1
Check Overall Dimensions
Assumed Depth =2.6 m
Span/depth ratio = 41.42/2.62 = 15.7 − within suggested ratio of 21 to 25 for PSC girders.
Also > 1.5 m, the minimum required for inspection purposes.

Not to be less than 0.045 L as per AASHTO = 0.045*41.42 = 1.86 m It is 0.063

Box width provided= 4.500 m
Box width shouldnot less than Lane width /2 i.e., should be > 7.5/2 or 3.75 m
Hence the provided section Depth = 2.6m & Box width = 4.5 m is Adequate
Deck thickness not to be less than 200 mm, as per IRC and span /20 or 210 mm as per
AASHTO; At cantilever deck thickness ends it is kept as 200 mm.
Deck thickness provided is 240 mm which is more than required.
At junction with webs the thickness is 350 mm > 300 mm minimum haunch thickness as per
IRC:18−Clause 9.3.2.5.

Soffit—There will be one layer of cables with duct dia. 90 mm.

Minimum depth of soffit required as pr IRC:18 Clause 9.3.2.3 to be not less than
= 150 mm +duct diameter
=150 +90 mm i.e., 240 mm.
Also, as per AASHTO,
Sofit to be > 140 mm (plus duct dia)
and > s/16 (3400 / 16 i.e., 212.50 mm)
Hence Provided Sofit depth = 240 mm.
Web Thickness —
Min. desirable Web Thicknessas per general recommendations
= 200 + duct dia. = 200 + 90 = 290 mm.
As per IRC:18-Clause 9.3.2.1,
= it should not be less than 150 + dia. of duct = 150 + 90 = 240 mm or
= d/36 + 2 x clear cover + dia. of duct = 2620/ 36 + 2 x 40 +90 = 243 mm
Minimum to be 300 mm or 200 + duct dia. as per AASHTO practice
Hence providing 300 mm web thickness −satisfies all conditions.

23
Step 2
3.1.2. Section Properties

8500 mm

240 mm

2620 300 mm

4.5 m

Figure 3.1 Box Girder Bridge Cross Section

Table 3.1: The Following Properties were obtained with reference to the Fig 2.
Section Distance Area Moment c.g c.g Z-top Z-
reference –metre sq.m of from from m2 bottom
from ends from inertia top m bottom m2
midspan m4 m

Mid-span 0 4.5668 4.5639 0.9859 1.6341 4.6292 2.7929

3.1.3 Working out Bending Moment and Shear force

Bending moment and shear forces are worked out individually for Dead load (i.e., the girder
and main deck only); Super-imposed dead load (for wearing coat, crash barrier, kerbs and
foot path, if any); and for Live load.
Two alternative loading conditions are considered for Live load, viz., Class A on 2 lanes and
one lane with 70 R wheeled loads. In both cases, BM and Shear forces have to be worked out
for two sets of conditions

24
Design of slab panel

(a) Dead load bending moments

Dead weight of slab = 7.2 kN/m2

Dead weight of WC = 1.76 kN/m2

Total dead load (g) = 8.96 kN/m2

~ 9 kN/m2

Maximum negative bending moment due to dead load = 0.107x gL

= 4.3335kN-m

Maximum positive bending moment at centre of span = 0.077*g*L

= 3.1185 kN-m
Maximum shear force = = 0.6xgxL
= 24.3 kN

(b) Live load bending moments

IRC 6:2017 P Clause no ............... class A

The effective width of dispersion of the wheel through the wearing coat is computed as

u = [0.85 + (2 x 0.08)] = 1.01 m

v = [3.60 + (2 x 0.080] = 3.76 m

1.25 x 350
Average intensity of wheel load with impact factor = [ ]
3.76 x 1.01
= 115.20 kN

Concentrated load acting at the centre of span in the transverse direction is computed as

Q = (115.20 x 1.01)

Q =116.352 kN

Max. +ve BM at middle of end-span = 0.21 QL

= 109.95264 kNm

25
 Max. -ve BM at support = 0.181 QL =94.768
= 94.768 kNm
Max shear force = 0.6Q
= 69.82 kN

Design bending moment and shear forces

Total positive bending moment

Mup = 1.35MD+1.5ML
= 169.139kNm
M un = 1.35MD+1.5ML
Total negative bending moment = 148.003 kNm
Total Maximum shear force = 1.35 Vg+1.5Vq
= 137.52 kN
Design of slab and reinforcement

d=
√ Mu
0.138 f ck b
=142.9 mm

Effective depth provided is 250mm with 50mm cover.

Area of reinforcement
M
A st = =3848.44 mm2
σ st jd

Provide 20 mm diameter at 150mm centre to centre.

Design of web girder

(a) Dead-load bending moments and shear forces

Self-weight of flanges = 14.4 kN/m2

Self-weight of WC = 1.76kN/m2

26
 Total load = 16.16kN/m2
Self-weight of web = 10.08 kN/m2
Total load on each I girder, g = 42.4kN/m

Dead load bending moments at mid span MgB = 0.125gL2

= 9349.2 kNm
Dead-load shear is maximum near the mid-support
= 0.62 gL
section Vg
= 1104.09 kN

(b) Live-load bending moments in continuous web girder

R B=¿] = 385kN

M max (positive) = (I.F.) *(0.203 QL) = 3610.76 kNm

M max (negative) = (I.F.) *(0.188 QL) = 3343.956 kNm

Live-load shear force in girder

Reaction of load Won interior girder =

( 35040x 48.2 )=421.75 kNm
Maximum live-load shear force with impact = 421.75x1.1
= 436.925 kN

Table 3.2. Max values of BM and SF at different sections

Section Name Mid- 3/8th span 1/4th span 1/8th span Support
Bending Moment /SF span
Maximum Bending Moment 10442.71 10123.18 8225.71 4447.39 0
for Class A loading kN-m
Corresponding Shear Force- 168.48 340.09 577.07 885.70 1025.72
kN
Maximum Shear Force for 444.61 591.64 738.66 885.70 1032.72
70R loading kN
Corresponding Bending 10085.73 10034.33 8208.36 4671.83 0
Moment kN-m
Bending Moment due to Dead 25432.94 24339.23 19588.14 11669.62 0
load
Bending Moment due to 4591.19 4304.25 3443.39 2008.65 0
Superimposed Dead load—
kN-m

27
 Shear force due to Deadload 0 605.09 1204.84 1825.32 2635.82
Shear force due to 0 109.31 218.63 327.94 437.26
Superimposed Dead load- kN

Step 4
Estimation of Prestressing Force

Prestressing force required is worked out for countering the worst bending effect at mid-span
and theprofile (and curtailment if any) is designed such that there is balancing of forces and
no resultant tension is induced at any of the other sections.
Maximum Design Moments
Moment due to Dead load = 25925.5 kN-m
Moment due to superimposed Dead load = 4680.1 kN-m
Moment due to Live load including impact and 10% factoring = 10645.0 kN-m
Total Maximum BM = 41250.6 kN-m
The stresses caused by the BM on the concrete section are worked out below.
Table 3.3 Stresses caused by BM

At bottom At top
(tension) (compression)
Stress due to dead load 9282.7 5600.5
Stress due to SIDL 1675.7 1011
Stress due to Live load 3811.4 2299.5
Total maximum stress without pre-stressing 14769.8 8911
C.G. of the cables will be at 0.120 m from bottom of girder.
Lever arm for Pre-stressing force- eccentricity = 1.634 − 0.120 = 1.514 m
Zb = 2,793m2 Zt = 4.567 m2 A = 4.567 m2
Minimum Pre-stressing force should be such that the total compressive stress caused by it
(after all losses) during service is able to counter the stress at bottom and there is no residual
tension there. = fb
P pe
This condition will be satisfied if +
A Zb
P Px 1.514
i.e., + = 14770
4.567 2.793
resolving the equation, P = 19409 kN

P works out to 19410 kN

28
 Using 19T13 strands, 80% UTS for one cable = 2719.58 kN
Assuming total losses of 35% nett force per cable = 1767.72 kN
Number of cables required = 19400/1768 = 10.98
Allowing for 4 % extra for dummy cables, requirement = 11.42
Adopt 12 cables.
At the stage of pre-stressing (single stage) stresses are fck is the greater of 0.50 fcj or 20 Mpa.
Using M45 concrete, fck = 20 N/sqmm
Pre-stressing force for total cables = 21212.69 kN and

Resultant stresses work out to:

At top = (21212/4.629 − 21212 ¥ 1.514/4.629) + 8911 = 6622 kN/sqm

< 11500 kN/sqm
At top = (21212/4.629 − 21212 ¥ 1.514/4.629) − 14770 = 1373 kN/sqm
< 11500 kN/sqm.

Next step is to assume a cable profile. They are placed straight and level for some distance in
the middle and straight and inclined for some distance from ends, with a parabolic connecting
length in between. The profile of one of the cables is sketched below.

Fig. Typical Cable profile.

.
There are 12 cables placed symmetrically about the axis. They deflect vertically at different
locations as tabulated below. The reference points are mid-section; L is the horizontal
distance from centre and Y vertical ordinate with the soffit of the girder as the reference
point. Profile of cables—overall length 42 metres.

Table 3.4Cable profile

Cable Ordinate Exit a.E- Start Y2 Jacki L1 L2 L3 Total

No. at Juncn. angle- 03 Y1 ng curv curv jackin cable
Y2 radians end e e g end length
Y3 starts ends
1 0.798 3.020 5.02 0.66 0.798 1.45 3.75 9 21.35 42.739
2 0.580 2.18 3.63 0.48 0.58 1.05 3.75 9 21.35 42.739
3 0.384 1.827 3.04 0.3 0.384 0.65 7.75 13 21.35 42.72
4 0.199 2.757 7.3 0.12 0.199 0.25 17 20.3 21.35 42.71
5 0.199 2.757 7.3 0.12 0.199 0.25 17 20.3 21.35 42.705

29
 6 0.199 2.757 7.3 0.12 0.199 0.25 17 20.3 21.35 42.705
Dummy 1.069 3.618 4.3 0.84 1.069 1.85 1.75 9 21.35 42.759

In this case, the prestressing forces after friction and slip loss work out as follows:

At support = 28131 kN
At 1/8th span = 28848 kN
At 1/4th span =29082 kN
At 3/8th span = 29472 kN
At mid-span = 28726 kN
Average prestress force at c.g of cable = 28958 kN
Jacking force not to exceed 0.765 fp = 2770 kN for cable
The inclined portion of the cables will have a vertical component which contributes
equivalent shearforce in upward direction, partly resisting the shear force at concerned
lengths. The horizontal component provides the prestressing force over the corresponding
lengths.

The prestressing force will cause elastic shortening of the girder, which will result in
corresponding loss in force. There will be shrinkage in concrete which is also dependant on
age of concrete. Since the stressing will be done after 14 days, the residual shrinkage that
occurs after 14 days is computed. This is done for 60th day and for infinity.
During service, there will be loss due to relaxation of steel, which is time dependant. It is
worked out for the duration that elapses after stressing. It is also computed for the 60th day
and for infinity. There will be a loss due to creep in steel under stress. Details of working are
not given here. The resultant losses as computed in this case are:
Loss due to elastic shortening per cable = 47.88 kN i.e., 1.793%
Average stress at c.g., of cable after loss due to elastic shortening = 9837 kN/sqm
Other time dependant losses have been computed based on the norms prescribed in IRC; 18-
2000 and they are as follows:

Table 3.5 Pre-stress losses

Description Unit Loss between Loss between 60th day Total time
14th and 60th day and infinity dependent loss
Shrinkage kN/cable 28.929 60.753 89.682
Relaxation kN/cable 143.098 0 143.098
Creep kN/cable 31.853 118.318 150.171

30
 Total kN/cable 203.88 179.071 382.951
Loss for 12 kN/cable 2446.6 2148.85 4595.45
cables

Total time dependant loss per cable = 382.951 kN

Loss due to slip and friction = 368.954 kN
Loss due to elastic shortening = 47.885 kN
Total loss from applied initial force = 799.790 kN/cable
Applied force = 2670.076
Percentage of force lost = 799.790 ¥ 100/2670.076 = 29.95%
< 35% assumed for initial calculations

3.1.5 Checking Sections for Stresses

This is done for longitudinal bending forces caused by beam action and including those due
to warping and distortion. Typical calculations made for the mid-section is given below.
Checking at other sections will be similar and is done for the other four sections. The same
can be assumed for remaining four sections on the other side of mid-section due to symmetry.
Similarly, the resultant stresses have been worked out at other sections and final results are
tabulated below:
Table 3.5 Resultant stresses
Section Position in Dead load SI DL BM Live load Stress at top Stress at
No. span BM BM (kN/m2) bottom
(kN/m2)
4 3/8th span 24339 438.76t 10119 6769 2599
3 1/4th span 19588 19588 8226 5477 4514
2 1/8th span 11667 11667 4742 3070 7413
1 support 0 0 0 151 7792

It will be seen that the maximum stresses at all sections are within the permissible fck and no
tension occurs at any section. Similar computations are made for checking the sections for
bending under ultimate loads after multiplying the moments due to DL, SIDL and LL by
respective load factors.

31
 GRILLAGE ANALYSIS
The box girder as shown in the figure 4.2 with span length of 42 m has been modelled using
grillage analysis as shown in figure 4.1. The spacing of the grillage are given according to the
guidelines listed below. FEM analysis is carried out and values of bending moment and shear
force values at the nodes are found out.

 It is one of the most popular computer-aided method for analysis of bridge decks.

 It is easy to use and is proved to be relatively accurate for a wide variety of bridge
superstructure.

 This method of analysis is based on stiffness matrix approach.

 The method consists of converting or representing an actual decking system into an

equivalent grillage of beams.

 The actual deck loading is replaced by an equivalent nodal loading

32
 Bridge Deck Idealized model

Fig 4.1 Idealized Grillage model

4.1 GRILLAGE ANALYSIS PROGRAM

When a bridge deck is analyzed by the method of Grillage Analogy, there are essentially five
steps to be followed for obtaining design responses:

 Idealization of physical deck into equivalent grillage

 Evaluation of equivalent elastic inertia of members of grillage.

 Application and transfer of loads to various nodes of grillage.

 Determination of force responses and design envelopes and

 Interpretation of results.

4.2 GUIDELINES FOR GRILLAGE LAYOUT

 Grid lines are placed along the center line of the existing beams, if any and along the
center line of left over slab, as in the case of T-girder decking.
33
  Longitudinal grid lines at either edge be placed at 0.3D from the edge for slab bridges,
where D is the depth of the deck.

 Grid lines should be placed along lines joining bearings.

 A minimum of five grid lines are generally adopted in each direction.

 Grid lines are ordinarily taken at right angles.

 Grid lines in general should coincide with the CG of the section.Some shift, if it
simplifies the idealization, can be made.
 For better results, the side ratios i.e., the ratio of the grid spacing in the longitudinal
and transverse directions should preferably lie between 1.0 to 2.0
 When longitudinal and transverse members of grillage cross each other, they form
panels.

4.3 Forces assigned to nodes

Plate load is at point P which is transferred to the nodes at the edges of the rectangle as shown
in the figure 4.2

Ly

2 3

Lx

c
1 4

b a
34
Fig4.2. Statical distribution of loads in Rectangular Panel of Grillage anlogy of Slab

ad
1 At node 1: P 1= P
Lx L y

ac
2 At node 2: P 2= P
Lx L y

bc
3 At node 3: P 3= P
Lx L y

bd
4 At node 4: P4 = P
Lx Ly

4.4 Torsional Moment of Inertia

S1

t1

t3
S3

3
t2
3

S2

Fig 4.3. Cross-section of Box girder

2
4A
J= s1 + s 2 + 2 S3
t1 t2 t3

The above expression is applicable to closed cross-sections with one or two symmetric cells.

35
In the cross-section of the box considered in this report we can calculate J from the above
formula.

A = 9.98 m2; S1 = 4.5 m; S2= 4.5 m; S3= 2.62 m

t1= 0.240 m; t2= 300 mm; t3= 300 mm

J = 7.78 mm4

This value of J is divided into two parts and assigned to gridlines which are along the
girders.

4.5 Moment of inertia of transverse grillage

t1

d1
Neutral Axis
d

d2

t2
3

Fig 4.4. Longitudinal section of Box-Girder Deck

 i 1=t 1 d 1
2
+ t 2 d 22

36
 2
d t1 t2
 i 1=
t 1+ t 2
per unit width

Here,

t1 = 0.24 m;

t2 = 0.3 m;

d = 2.54 m

i1 = 0.86m4/ m

8.5 m

4.5 m

Fig 4.5 Longitudinal Gridlines.

4.6 Grillage analysis using STAAD Pro

A general-purpose structural analysis and design tool called STAD Pro, the for structural
analysis and design application created by Bentley Solutions Center, was used for the grillage
37
modelling and analysis carried out in this work. On a personal computer, the software is
accessible. STAD Pro V8i was used to conduct the analyses for this thesis. The Grillage
Analogy Method is used to illustrate the analysis in this section, considers an 8.5-meter
bridge width and a 42-meter bridge span identical to the typical section depicted in fig.

Step 1: In order to do a grillage analysis, the bridge deck structure must first be transformed
into a network of firmly interconnected beams at discrete nodes. The accompanying
illustration depicts a bridge deck with T-girders that have four longitudinal grid lines. The
chosen transverse grid lines are seventeen, spaced uniformly as illustrated below.

Fig 4.6. Grillage idealization of Box Girder

Step 2: The second crucial step is to provide each member of the equivalent grillage,
consisting of longitudinal and transverse grid lines meeting at discrete nodes, the necessary
elastic properties, such as flexural and torsional stiffness. This is done after simulating the
real bridge structure.

38
 Fig 4.7. Properties assigning

Step 3: The third step is application of loads; grillage analysis requires that the applied loads
be transformed in to equivalent loads at nodes for the generation of load vector if the live
load fall on the panel form by the grillage, then the equivalent load is transferred to the
adjacent nodes.

Step 4: The final phase is interpretation of the results. The output from the grillage analysis
includes vertical deflection and X and Z rotation of each node, shear force and torsional
moment of each beam element, bending moment at each beam element's two ends, and
response at support.

26273.704 kNm

39
 Fig 4.8. Bending moment

5. MODEL:

Fig 4.1 Cross-section of the model

40
 Fig 4.2 Model 3D view

Table 4.1 Bending moment and Shear force for the model under self-weight.

Shear-z Moment-y
Distancein m
(kN) (kN-m)

0 -2605.05 -0.09
1 -2481 2542.94
2 -2356.95 4961.91
3 -2232.9 7256.84
4 -2108.85 9427.71
5 -1984.8 11474.54
6 -1860.75 13397.31
7 -1736.7 15196.04
8 -1612.65 16870.71
9 -1488.6 18421.34
10 -1364.55 19847.91
11 -1240.5 21150.44
12 -1116.45 22328.91
13 -992.4 23383.34
14 -868.35 24313.71
15 -744.3 25120.04
16 -620.25 25802.31
17 -496.2 26360.54
18 -372.15 26794.71
19 -248.1 27104.84
20 -124.05 27290.91
21 0 27352.94
22 124.05 27290.91
23 248.1 27104.84
24 372.15 26794.71
25 496.2 26360.54
26 620.25 25802.31
27 744.3 25120.04
28 868.35 24313.71
29 992.4 23383.34
30 1116.45 22328.91
31 1240.5 21150.44
32 1364.55 19847.91
33 1488.6 18421.34
34 1612.65 16870.71
35 1736.7 15196.04
36 1860.75 13397.31
37 1984.8 11474.54
38 2108.85
41 9427.71
39 2232.9 7256.84
40 2356.95 4961.91
41 2481 2542.94
42 2605.05 -0.09
Table 4.2 Bending moment and Shear force for the model under 70R loading.

Distance Shear- Moment-

from the z y
support (kN) (kN*m)
0 0 0
1 3.7 908.59
2 9.14 1740.14
3 24.55 2610.22
4 25.08 3326.19
5 41.08 4071.55
6 66.79 4758.14
7 68.05 5368.14
8 95.02 5944.29
9 120.73 6505.13
10 121.99 6976.34
11 148.95 7401.82
12 174.66 7836.3
13 179.49 8144.41
14 215.14 8463.31
15 251.09 8760.63
16 253.66 9006.9
17 292.19 9193.22
18 328.14 9398.33
19 330.71 9461.82
20 369.24 9552.06
21 405.2 9576.31
22 407.77 9552.06
23 446.29 9461.82
24 482.25 9398.33
25 484.82 9193.22
26 523.34 9006.9
27 559.3 8760.63
28 561.87 8463.31
29 600.4 8144.41
30 636.35 7836.3
31 638.92 7401.82
32 677.45 6976.34
33 713.41 6505.13
34 715.97 5944.29
35 754.5 5368.14

42
 36 790.46 4758.14
37 793.03 4071.55
38 831.55 3326.19
39 867.51 2610.22
40 870.08 1740.14
41 908.61 908.59
42 944.6 0

Table 4.3 Bending moment and Shear force for the model under Class A loading.

Distance
Shear-z (kN) Moment-y
from the
support
0 -1207.02 -0.03
1 -1192.01 1194.67
2 -747.86 2144.25
3 -747.86 2715.76
4 -747.86 3395.56
5 -747.86 4090.07
6 -747.86 4790.96
7 -747.86 5528.83
8 -747.86 6266.94
9 -747.86 7005.06
10 -747.86 7752.71
11 -747.86 8500.57
12 -747.86 9248.44
13 -709 9680.05
14 -677.46 10071.23
15 -647.55 10398.63
16 -597.78 10715.58
17 -548.32 11197.58
18 -513.55 11484.92
19 -480.58 11535.24
20 -445.81 11538.99
21 414.47 11490.17
22 447.06 11549.55
23 481.42 11541.41
24 514.08 11490.76
25 548.65 11375.67
26 581.43 11201.86
27 616.06 10956.69
28 649.04 10647.85
29 683.81 10268.99
30 716.78 9822.86
31 751.55 9311.15
32 784.52 8754.34
33 819.29 8140.4
34 852.26 7449.91
35 887.47 6701.75
36 920 5874.51
37 961.19 5018.1

43
 38 987.75 4056.91
39 1034.39 3109.16
40 1034.39 2130.18
41 1123.56 1123.54
42 1123.6 0

BM and SF due to Self weight

27290.91 kNm

Fig 5.3 Bending Moment

2605.05 kN

Fig 5.4 Shear Force

BM and SF due to 70R loading

44
 9576.31 kNm

Fig 5.5 Bending Moment

944.6 kN

Fig 5.6 Shear Force

B. M and SF due to Class A loading

11490.2 kNm
Fig 5.7 Bending Moment

45
 1123.6 kN

Fig 5.8 Shear Force

Results:
Manual Grillage Analogy FEM
calculations Software
Maximum Bending moment due to 25432.94 kN-m 26273.704 kN-m 27290.91
dead load kN-m
Maximum shear force due to dead load 2635.82 kN 2690.3 kN 2605.05 kN
Maximum Bending moment due to 70R 10085.73 kN-m 11246.3 kN-m 9576.31
loading kN-m
Maximum shear force due to 70R 1032.72 kN 1124.62 kN 944.6 kN
loading
Maximum Bending moment due to 10442.71 kN-m 11635.5 kN-m 11490.2
Class A loading kN-m
Maximum shear force due to Class A 1025.72 kN 1165.3 kN 1123.6 kN
loading

Conclusion
In this work, box girder bridge is modelled for a span length of 42 m. This box girder bridge
is modelled in MIDAS using FEM. At the same time FEM based grillage modelling is also
carried out. Also, manual calculations using Excel sheet is prepared. The results are
compared. The concluding points are as follows:

46
  Maximum bending moment occurs when the center of the span is mid-way between
C.G. of the load system and the load under which maximum bending moment is
produced.
 Comparisons are made regarding bending moments and shear forces obtained from
the analysis all the above three methods for different loads applied such self-weight,
70R loading and Class A loading.
 Differences between values obtained from the three methos are found to differ by less
than 10%.
 Hence the developed FEM model was justified &verified.

References

1. A.J.M. Ferreira “MATLAB Code for Finite Element Analysis” Solids and structures
Springer volume 157 series edition: G.M.L. GLADWELL department of Civil
Engineering university of waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3GI.
2. Abbu M., Ekmekyapar T, Özakça M. (2013), 3D FE modelling of composite box
Girder Bridge, International Balkans Conference on Challenges of Civil Engineering.
3. Abrar Ahmed, Prof. R.B. Lokhande Comparative Analysis and Design of T-beam and
box girders, International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology
(IRJET),Vol 4, July 2017.
4. Adamakos, T., Vayas I, PetridisS. and IliopoulosA. (2011). Modeling of curved
composite I-girder bridges using spatial systems of beam elements, Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 67: 462-470.
5. Amit Saxena and Dr. Savita Maru, Comparative Study of the Analysis and Design of
T-beam and box girder Superstructure, International Journal of Research in
Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJREAT), Vol 1, Issue 2, April-May, 2013

47
6. BAKHT, B. And JAEGER, L. G., “Bridge Analysis Simplified”, McGraw Hill, New
York, 1985
7. Berthellemy Jacques (1992), Advanced calculation methods for box girder bridges,
European Design Education Program.
8. Bridge Design using the STAAD.Pro/Beav, IEG Group, Bentley Systems, Bentley
Systems Inc., March 2008.
9. Brien and Keogh et al. (1998), Recommendations on the use of a 3-D grillage model
for bridge deck analysis, Computers & Structures 69(6).
10. C.S. Surana R. Agrawal “Grillage analogy in bridge deck analysis”.
11. Chithra J, Nagarajan P and Sajith A.S. (2017), Simplified method for the transverse
bending analysis of twin celled concrete box girder bridges, IOP Conference Series:
Materials Science and Engineering.
12. D.Johnson Victor “Essentials of Bridge Engineering”.
13. Esmerald Filaj, Transverse design of rc hollow box bridge girder, 2nd International
Congress on Roads, September 2015.
14. Halkude S.A., Akim C.Y. (2012), Stress Distribution in Continuous Thin-Walled
Multi-Cell Box Girder Bridges, Nigerian Journal of Technology.
15. HAMBLY, E.C., “Bridge Deck Behaviour”, Chapman and Hall, London, 1976.
16. IRC 40-2002, “Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges,
Section IV (Brick, Stone and Cement Concrete Block Masonry), (Second Revision)
Indian Road Congress, New Delhi, India-2002”.
17. IRC: 112-2011, “Standard specifications and code of practice for concrete Road
Bridges (pre-stressed concrete and reinforced concrete), Indian Road Congress, New
Delhi, India-2011.” [11]
18. IRC: 18 – 2000, “Design Criteria for Pre-stressed Concrete Road Bridges (Post
Tensioned Concrete), Indian Road Congress, New Delhi, India-2000”
19. IRC:6-2017, “Standard Specifications and code of practice for road bridges.”
20. IS 1343 – 1980, “Indian Standard Code of Practice for Pre-Stressed Concrete”.
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.”
21. Jawanjal V. S. and Manoj Kumar (2006), ‘Finite Element Analysis of Skew-Curved
RC Box Girder Bridges’, Proceedings of National Conference on Advances in Bridge
Engineering, IIT Roorkee, March 24-25, 2006, pp 183-190.

48
22. Karthika Santhosh, Asha Varma P. (2017), Parametric Study on Behaviour of Box
Girder Bridges with Different Shape Based on Torsion, International Journal for
Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology.
23. KhalidNaser Abdel Rahin 2019 “’ Bridge grillage analysis using finite element
method:
24. Kirsch U. and Moses, F. (1998), An improved reanalysis method for grillage-type
structures, Computers & Structures 68: 79-88.
25. Kwasniewski, L.; LiH.; Wekezer J. and MalachowskiJ. (2006), Finite element
analysis of vehicle-bridge interaction, Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 42:
950-959.
26. Leslie G. Jaeger and Baibar Bakht 1982 “The grillage analogy in bridge analysis”.
27. Linzell, D. G. and Shura, J. F. (2010). Erection behavior and grillage model accuracy
for a large radius curved bridge, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 66: 342-
350.
28. Lu P., Xie X. and Shao C. (2012), Experimental study and numerical analysis of a
composite bridge structure, Construction and Building Materials, 30: 695-705.
29. Manohar R(2018), B Suresh Chandra Finite Element Analysis of slabs, cross girders
and main girders in RC T-Beam Deck Slab Bridge, International Research Journal of
Engineering and Technology (IRJET), Vol 5, Issue 08,.
30. MarcelloArici, Michele Fabio (2013), Hamiltonian structural analysis of
curvedbeamswith or without generalized two-parameter foundation, Arch Appl Mech
(2013) 83:1695–1714.
31. N.Krishna Raju, “Prestressed Concrete”. December 2006
32. P. V. Ramana (2013), “FSM Analysis for Box Girder Bridges”, International Journal
of Advanced Electrical and Electronics Engineering (IJAEEE), ISSN (Print) : 2278-
8948, Volume-2, Issue-6.
33. P.K. Gupta, (2010), "Parametric Study on Behaviour Of Box-Girder Bridges Using
Finite Element Method", Asian Journal Of Civil Engineering (Building And
Housing), Issue 1, PP 1-14.
34. Patel Dhiraj, Kumbhar Popat (2016), Influence of Moving Load on the Behavior of
Skewed and Curved Rectangular Box Girder Bridges, International Journal of
Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology.

49
35. Pavan D.Tikate and S.N. Tande , Design Based Parametric Study of Box Culvert
using Finite Element Method, Journal of Basic and Applied Engineering Research,
Vol 2, Sept 2015.
36. Pavan D.Tikate and S.N. Tande , Design Based Parametric Study of Box Culvert
using Finite Element Method, Journal of Basic and Applied Engineering Research,
Vol 2, Sept 2015.
37. Praveen Nagarajan (1998), “Design of concrete bridges” as per latest IRC code,
Willey publication, New Delhi, Madras, Bombay, Calcutta, London.
38. Pulmano V.A., Analysis of multicell box-girder bridges using fully compatible finite
elements, 8th Conference of the Australian Road Research Board, Perth, Australia,
August 23-27, 1976.
39. S Ponnuswamy “Bridge engineering” third edition Mc Grow Hill education.
40. Sandesh Upadhyaya K and F Sahaya Sachin, A Comparative Study of T- Beam
Bridges for varying span lengths, International Journal of Research in Engineering
Technology, Vol 5, Jun 2016.
41. Schlaich Jorg (1982), Concrete box-girder bridges, International Association for
Bridge and Structural.
42. Shuskewich W.K., Membrane Forces Acting on a Box Girder Bridge, Journal of
Structural Engineering,Volume 114, Issue 4, 1988
43. Soumya S and Umadevi R, Comparative Study of Courbons Method and Finite
Element Method of RC T-Beam and Deck Slab Bridge, International Journal of
Engineering and Management Research, (IJEMR) Vol 5 Issue 6, Dec 2015.
44. Srinivasan Chandrasekaran,” Dynamic Analysis and Design of Offshore Structures”,
2015
45. StallingsJ.M. and YooC.H (1992)., Analysis of slab-on-girder bridges, Computers &
Structures, Vol. 45, No. 5/6, pp. 875-880, 1992
46. T.R.Jagadeesh and M.A.Jayaram (2011), “Design of Bridge Structures”, July 2011.
47. Tangupalli Mahesh Kumar and J Sudhamani (2017), Analysis of T-Beam Deck Slab
Bridge in Different Methods,International Journal for Technological Research in
Engineering, (IJTRE), Vol 4, Issue 12, Aug 2017.
48. Viranjan Verma, Nallasivam K. (2010),"Static response of curved steel thin-walled
box-girder bridge subjected to Indian railway loading", Journal of Achievements in
Materials and Manufacturing Engineering.

50
49. Yadu Priya and T Sujatha, Comparative Analysis of Post Tensioned T-Beam Bridge
Deck by Rational Method and Finite Element Method, International Journal of
Research in IT, Management and Engineering, Vol 6, Issue 7, Sept 2016.

51