INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING Volume1,No 3,2010

Copyright2010AllrightsreservedIntegratedPublishingservices

Researcharticle

ISSN0976 4399

1 2 Mohankar.R.H ,Ronghe.G.N 1Lecturer,CivilEngineeringDept.,G.HRaisoniCollegeofEngineering,Nagpur,India. 2Professor,AppliedMechanicsDept.,VisvesvarayaNationalInstituteofTechnology, Nagpur,India roshanmohankar@gmail.com

AnalysisandDesignofUnderpassRCC Bridge

ABSTRACT TheUnderpassRCCBridgeisveryrarelyadoptedinbridgeconstructionbutrecentlythe UnderpassRCCBridgeisbeingusedfortrafficmovement.Inthispaper,theanalysisof the underpass RCC bridge is carried out.The analysis of this underpass RCC bridge is done by considering fixed end condition. Finite Element Method (FEM) analysis is performedandresultsarepresented.Comparisonofdifferentforcesbetween2Dand3D models for fixed end condition is provided. In this study we show a 2D model can be effectively used for analysis purpose for all the loading condition mentioned in IRC: 6, Standard Specifications and Code of Practice Road Bridges The Indian Roads CongressandDirectorateofbridges&structures(2004),Codeofpracticeforthedesign ofsubstructuresandfoundationsofbridgesIndianRailwayStandard. Keywords:RCCUnderpassbridge,FEManalysis. 1. Introduction TheUnderpassRCCBridgeisveryrarelyadoptedinbridgeconstructionbutrecentlythe UnderpassRCCBridgeisbeingusedfortrafficmovement.ThisunderpassRCCbridgeis pushed insidetheembankmentby meansofhydraulic jacksystemSincetheavailability of land in the city is less, such type of bridge utilizes less space for its construction. Hence constructing Underpass Bridge is a better option where there is a constraint of spaceorland.DetailedanalysisanddesignofunderpassRCCbridgehasnotbeencarried outtilldate.RongheG.N.andGatfaneY.M(20042005)haveworkedontheanalysis anddesignof2DunderpassRCCbridgemodel. In this paper 2D along with 3D analysis of underpass RCC bridge is carried out considering six different loading conditions and eight different loading combinations whichareconsideringfromIRC:62000,StandardSpecificationsAndCodeOfPractice Road Bridges The Indian Roads Congress and Directorate of bridges & structures (2004), Code of practice for the design of substructures and foundations of bridges IndianRailwayStandard.Theendconditionisconsideredtobefixedforboth2Dand3D underpassRCCbridgemodel. 1.1 Modelingofsystem ForthestudyofUnderpassRCCbridge,earthpressureactingonsidewallsofunderpass RCCbridgebecausestructureembeddedaswellasverticalloadingduetoimposedload

558

INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING Volume1,No 3,2010

Copyright2010AllrightsreservedIntegratedPublishingservices

Researcharticle

ISSN0976 4399

and live load from Bridge rules, Rules specifying the loads for designing the super structureandsubstructureofbridgesand forassessingthestrengthofexistingbridges (Indian Railway Standard code) on the top of underpass RCC bridge is considered. As there is a top loading, there is reaction at bottom also. This underpass RCC bridge is provided for city traffic also. For that purpose live load from IRC: 62000 inside the underpassRCCbridgeisconsidered. Vertical

Earth Pressuredue tobackfill

Earth Pressuredue tobackfill

Reactionatbottom Figure1: 2DModelofRCCUnderpassBridge 2DunderpassRCCbridgemodelshowninFigure1isanalyzedconsideringwithoutsoil structureinteraction.

Figure2:3DModelofRCCUnderpassBridge 3DunderpassRCCbridgemodelshowninfigure2isanalyzedconsideringwithoutsoil structureinteraction.

559

INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING Volume1,No 3,2010

Copyright2010AllrightsreservedIntegratedPublishingservices

Researcharticle

ISSN0976 4399

2.Formulation 2.1Loadsonthetopofslab Total load for bending moment and shear force is considered from IRS code rules specifyingtheloadsfordesigningthesuperstructureandsubstructureofbridgesandfor assessingthestrengthofexistingbridges.Forspanof8mtotalloadforbendingmoment 981kNandtotalloadforshearforceis1154kNisconsidered. Deadloadofearthfilloverthebox=Areaxdepthxdensity 1.1 Totalverticalpressureontopslab =Imposedload+Deadload+Liveload 1.2 2.2Loadsonsidewalls The coefficient of active earth pressure of the soil is given by the equation cos 2 (f - a )
Ka = cos a cos (a + d ) 1+
2

1.3 where, =Densityofsoil,=Angleofinternalfriction, d =angleoffrictionbetweenwalland earthfill Wherevalueof d isnotdeterminedbyactualtests,thefollowingvaluesmaybeassumed. (i) d =1/3forconcretestructures. (ii) d =2/3formasonrystructures. = Angle which the earth surface makes with the horizontal behind the earth retaining i structure 0 ( i =0 forembeddedstructure). Since this concrete structure is embedded in soil, the value of d s considered as 1/3 i (forconcretestructures)consideredforcalculationofcoefficientofactiveearthpressure ofthesoil. 2.3 Earthpressureactingonthesidewalls: 2.3.a)Earthpressureduetobackfill Earthpressurecenteroftopslab= Ka
g H

sin (f + d ) - sin (f - i) cos (a - d ) - cos (a - i)

Earthpressurecenterofbottomslab=

Ka g H

1.4 1.5

2.3.b)Earthpressureduetodeadloadsurcharge Earthpressureactingonsidewalls: AtTop=Imposedloadoftrack+Earthpressureonthetopofslab+Liveload 1.6 ATBottom =Horizontaleffectofsurcharge+Earthpressurecenterofbottomslab 1.7

560

INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING Volume1,No 3,2010

Copyright2010AllrightsreservedIntegratedPublishingservices

Researcharticle

ISSN0976 4399

2.4 Reactionatthebottomofbox Selfweightof box=Weightoftopslab+Weightofbottomslab +Weightofsidewalls Totalreactionatbottom=Selfweightof box +Weightof imposedload +Weightof liveload Theboundaryconditionconsideredisfixed. 3.Analysisof2DunderpassRCCbridgemodel A 2D underpass RCC bridge (Figure 1) is modeled considering 1m length for the following details shown below. Box dimensions: 1mx7.5mx4.1m (LxWxH) (Center to center). In addition to the dimensions mentioned in Figure 3, following parameters are considered forthe2Danalysis. Keepingalltheparameterssame,theanalysis iscarried out using two methods viz. conventional slope deflection method (manual calculations) and other by using SAP2000 (programming software). The manually calculated values forthebendingmomentatcornerAis205kNmandcornerCis302kNmfordeadload case.ForthesamecornersA&C,theSAPresultsarefoundtobe203kNmand298kN mrespectively.
7.5 m A 4.1 4.7 C D 3.5 m 0.6 m 0. 0.5 (a)(b) 5 m 7m B 8 m 0. 6

1.8 1.9

Figure3:(a)CentertocenterDimensionsofRCCUnderpassBridge (b)DimensionsofRCCUnderpassBridge DimensionsofunderpassRCCbridge Clearhorizontalopening 7m Clearverticalopening 3.5m Slabthickness 0.6m Wall thickness 0.5m Outertoouterhorizontalwidth 8m Outertoouterverticalheight 4.7m LengthunderpassRCCbridge1m o Angleof internalfriction() 25 3 Densityofsoil()19kN/m Gradeofconcrete M40 561

INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING Volume1,No 3,2010

Copyright2010AllrightsreservedIntegratedPublishingservices

Researcharticle

ISSN0976 4399

Gradeofsteel Fe415 ThemaxBMandSFobtainedfor2DunderpassRCCbridgemodelconsideringwithout soil stiffness are shown in Table 1. Shear force and bending moment diagram after analysisisshowninFigure4(a)&(b)

(a)

(b)

Figure4:(a)SFdiagramfor2DAnalysis 3.1Validationofresults

(b)BMDFor2DAnalysis

ThebendingmomentresultsobtainedbyslopedeflectionmethodandSAP2000program for 2 dimensional model of underpass RCC bridge are approximately same. The slight variationofresultsmaybeduetothevariationofmomentofinertiavalues.Basedonthis validityofresultsfurtheranalysisofsame2Dmodelforvariouscombinationsofloading caseswascarriedout.Also itwasobservedthatwasthesamecornersofthe3D model thebending momentresultsobtainedweresame and hence3Danalysiswascarriedout usingSAP2000. Table1:MaxBMandMaxSFof2D Member Top Slab Results MaxBM&MaxSFof2Dmodel withoutsoilstiffness(kNm) 456.33 572.72 339.94 259.92 372.73 147.11 79.68 204.67 339.94

MaxSF BMMidSpan BMCorner MaxSF Bottom BMMidSpan Slab BMCorner MaxSF Side BMMidSpan Walls BMCorner

562

INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING Volume1,No 3,2010

Copyright2010AllrightsreservedIntegratedPublishingservices

Researcharticle

ISSN0976 4399

3.2Analysisof3DunderpassRCCbridgemodel A3DunderpassRCCbridgeismodeledconsideringtotallength13mwithdetailsshown aboveandthereisnochangeindetailsexceptlength.Boxdimensions:13mx7.5mx4.1m (LxWxH)(Centertocenter).ThemaxBMandSFobtainedfor3DunderpassRCCbridge modelconsideringwithoutsoilstiffnessareshowninTable2.

Table2:MaxBMandMaxSFof3D Member Results MaxBM&MaxSFof3Dmodel withoutsoilstiffness(kNm) 458.85 530.49 413.63 282.49 377.87 154.14 78.93 220.74 413.63

MaxSF TopSlab BMMidSpan BMCorner MaxSF Bottom BMMidSpan Slab BMCorner MaxSF Side BMMidSpan Walls BMCorner

4.Comparisonof Resultof 2d&3dUnderpassRccBridgeModel The comparison of the maximum bending moment and shear force values obtained for 2Dand3DunderpassRCCbridgemodelswhichareconsideredwithoutsoilstiffnessare compared.Thecomparisonbetweenthesetworesults(Table3)showsthatthevaluesof bending momentandshear forcefor2Dand3D model forall loadingcasesconsidered for the analysis purpose from IRC: 62000, Standard Specifications and Code of PracticeRoadBridgesTheIndianRoadsCongressandcombinations,areapproximately same. Table3:ComparisonofMaxBMandMaxSFof2Dmodeland3Dmodelofthebox ComparisonofMaxBMof2D&3Dmodelwithoutsoilstiffness MaxBMof 2D MaxBMof3D % modelwithoutsoil modelwithoutsoil Member Results Difference stiffness(kNm) stiffness(kNm) MaxSF 456.33 458.85 0.55 TopSlab BMMidSpan 572.72 530.49 7.96 BMCorner 339.94 413.63 17.82

563

INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING Volume1,No 3,2010

Copyright2010AllrightsreservedIntegratedPublishingservices

Researcharticle

ISSN0976 4399

MaxSF Bottom BMMidSpan Slab BMCorner MaxSF Side BMMidSpan Walls BMCorner

259.92 372.73 147.11 79.68 204.67 339.94

282.49 377.87 154.14 78.93 220.74 413.63

7.99 1.36 4.56 0.95 7.28 17.82

5.Conclusions Fromtheanalysis itcan beobservedthatbending momentandshear forceobtained for 2D and 3D model are approximately same. A 2D model can be effectively used for analysis purpose for all the loading condition mentioned in IRC: 6 and Directorate of bridges & structures (2004),Code of practice for the design of substructures and foundationsofbridgesIndianRailwayStandard.Furtherresearchisneededtoverifythe use of 2D model for different parameters such as dynamic analysis, soil structure interactionetc. 6.REFERENCES 1.RongheG.N.AndGatfaneY.M."AnalysisAndDesign OfABridgeByAPushBack System.ADissertationof M.techInstructuralEngineering.20042005. 2.Directorateofbridges&structures(2004),Codeofpracticeforthedesignof substructuresandfoundationsofbridgesIndianRailwayStandard. 3.IRC:212000,StandardSpecificationsAndCodeOfPracticeRoadBridgesThe Indian RoadCongress. 4.IS456:2000,PlainandReinforcedconcretecodeforpracticeBureauofIndian Standards. 5.IRC:62000,StandardSpecificationsAndCodeOfPracticeRoadBridgesThe IndianRoadCongress. 6.IRC:82000,Designcriteriaforprestressedconcreteroadbridges(PostTension concrete)TheIndianRoadsCongress.

564