See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304395832

Behaviour of Skew Bridge Using Grillage

Anology Method
Conference Paper March 2016

CITATIONS

READS

13

3 authors, including:
Hardik Solanki
PARUL UNIVERSITY
2 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SELF SENSING CONCRETE View project

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Hardik Solanki

Retrieved on: 06 October 2016

Behaviour of Skew Bridge Using Grillage

Anology Method
Punit Patel
P.G. Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering

Parul Institute of Engineering & Technology

Wagodia - 391760, Vadodara, Gujarat, India
E-mail ID

punitrpatel06@gmail.com

Asst. Prof. Hardik Solanki

Bhanuprasad N Kadia

Asst. Prof., Dept. of Civil Engineering

Dy. Executive Engineer

Design R & B Circle, Gandhinagar
E-mail ID
bnkadia@gmail.com

Parul Institute of Engineering & Technology

Wagodia - 391760, Vadodara, Gujarat, India
E-mail ID

hardil.solanki@paruluniversity.ac.in

ABSTRACT HEADING
In this study summarizes the analysis of skew bridge with the different skew angle consists of 0, 15, 30, 45, 60. In the present
study an attempt has been made to study a single-span T-Beam Reinforced Concrete Girder under Indian Road Congress (IRC)
loading. For this study, Dead Load, Vehicular Live Load, along with live load combination is considered. T-Beam girder of 20 m
span length with 2 lane of carriage way width is 7.5 m considered. Analysis is done using Staad Pro Software. To determine effect of
skew ness on the general behavior of bridge. The analysis result show maximum bending moment, torsional moment and shear force
compared with different skew angle.

referred for load considerations while designing and

analysis of bridge. The main objective of this study is
to finding the similarities and differences between
skew bridge and normal bridge under IRC live load.

KEY WORDS: Skew Bridges; Skew angle; T-beam;

bridge decks; span length.

INTRODUCTION
Newly designed bridge are often skew. This is
due to space construction in congested urban area.
Skew bridge allow a large variety of solution in
roadway alignments. This contribution to a small
environments impact for new road construction project.
It can also be needed due to geographical constraints
such as mountainous terrains. However, the force flow
in skew bridge is much more complicated than right
bridge. In addition skew bridges are common at
highway interchange, river crossing and other extreme
grade changes where skew geometry is necessary due
to space limitations. One of the most important steps in
the process of analysis and designing a bridge is to
determine the most appropriate live load representing
to a high certainty, the expected normal traffic loads
that might go over the bridge. These expected live
loads vary from a country to country, depending upon
many parameters such as degree of locality, the volume
of traffic, the nature of the expected major traffic
passing over the bridge. In India, IRC: 6 standards is

DEAD LOAD CONSIDERATION

A

As Per IRC: 6 (2014) Clause 203

The dead load carried by a girder or member

shall consist of the portion of the weight of the
superstructure which is supported wholly or in part by
the girder or member including its own weight. The
following unit weights of materials shall be used to
determining loads, unless the unit weights have been
determined by actual weighing of representative
samples of the materials in question, in which case the
actual weights as thus determined shall be used.

TABLE I.

Sr.
No.

UNIT WEIGHT AS P ER I RC

Concrete (Asphalt)

Weight
(t/m)
2.2

Concrete (Breeze)

1.4

2.5

Concrete (Cement-Plain)
Concrete (Cement-Plain with
Plums)
Concrete (Cement-Reinforced)

Concrete (Cement-Prestressed)

2.5

Concrete (Lime-Brick Aggregate)

1.9

Concrete (Lime-Stone Aggregate)

2.1

Materials

2.5
2.5

Fig. 2. Cross Section of Minimum Clearance For Multilane Bridges

5. The minimum Clearance, f, between outer edge of

wheel and the roadway face of the kerb and the
minimum clearance, g, between the outer edged of
passing or crossing vehicles on multi-lane bridges
shall be;

LIVE LOAD CONSIDERATION

TABLE III.

A.

Clear
Width
5.3 to 6.1
m
Above 6.1
m

AS PER IRC: 6 (2014) CLAUSE 204

I.

IRC Class A Loading

This loading is to be normally adopted on all

roads on which permanent bridges and culverts are
constructed.

6.

MINIMUM C LEARANCE FOR MULTILANE B RIDGES

g
Varies from 0.4 m
to 1.2 m
1.2 m

f
150 mm for all
carriageway width

Axle loads in tonne. Linear Dimensions in metre.

II.

IRC Class 70R Loading

This loading is to be normally adopted on all

roads on which permanent bridges and culverts are
constructed. Bridges designed for Class 70 R loading
should be checked for Class A Loading also as under
certain conditions, heavier stresses may occur under
class A loading.
Fig. 1. Elevation Of Irc Class A Wheeled Loading

Notes:
1. The nose to tail distance between successive trains
shall not be less than 18.5 m.
2. For single lane bridges having carriage way width
less than 5.3 m, one lane of class A shall be
considered to occupy 2.3 m. Remaining width of
carriageway shall be loaded with 500 kg/m.
3. For multi-lane brides each class a loading shall be
considered to occupy single lane for design
purpose.
4. The ground contact area of wheels shall be as
under:
TABLE II.

GROUND CONTACT AREA FOR IRC CLASS A

WHEELED LOADING

Axle Load (Tonne)

11.4
6.5
2.7

Fig. 3. Elevation of IRC Class 70R Loading

Ground Contact Area

B (mm)
W (mm)
250
500
200
280
150
200

Notes:
1. The nose to tail spacing between two successive
vehicles shall not be less than 90 m for tracked
vehicle and 30 m for wheeled vehicle.

Vehicles

2. For multi-lane bridges and culverts, each Class 70R

loading shall be considered to occupy two lanes and
no other vehicle shall be allowed in these two lanes.
The passing or crossing vehicle can only be allowed
on lanes other than these two lanes.
3. The maximum loads for the wheeled vehicle shall
be 20 tonne for a single axle or 40 tonne for a bogie
of two axles spaced not more than 1.22 m centres.
4. Class 70R loading is applicable only for bridges
having carriageway width of 5.3 m and above.
5. The minimum clearance between the road face to
the kerb and the outer edge of the wheel or tracked,
C, shall be 1.2 m.
6. Axle load in tonnes. Linear dimension in meters.

accordance with the curve in Fig. 5 for spans

in excess of 12 m.

Steel Bridge
3.
4.

For Tracked
Vehicles

10 Percent for all span

For Wheeled
Vehicles

25 percent up to a span of 23 m and in

accordance with the curve in Fig. 5 for spans
in excess of 23 m.

LOAD COMBINATIONS
A.

As Per IRC: 6 (2014) Table 1

For this case study, following load combination is

taken: Service I: 1.0 DL + 1.0 (LL + IM)

IMPACT LOAD
GENERAL DESIGN DATA
A

As Per IRC: 6 (2014) Clause 208

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

I. For Class A Loading

The impact fraction shall be determined from
the following equations which are applicable for spans
between 3 m and 45 m, for beyond 45 m refer Fig. 4.

10
11
12
13
14
15

16

Effective Span of Bridge

20.000 m
Clear Carriage Way Width
7.50 m
Total Width
8.250 m
Depth of Slab
0.250 m
Depth of Girder
2.000 m
Width of Girder
0.325 m
Width of Kerb
0.375 m
Depth of Kerb
0.550 m
Centre to Centre Distance Between
2.500 m
Longitudinal Girders
Centre to Centre Distance Between
5.000 m
Cross Girders
Numbers of Longitudinal Girders
3 Nos.
Numbers of Cross Girders
5 Nos.
Grade of Concrete
M 30
Grade of Steel
Fe 415
Live Load Considered
IRC Class A Wheeled Loading For 2 Lanes
IRC Class 70R Wheeled Loading For 1 Lane
Impact Factor
For IRC Class A Wheeled Loading
1.173
For IRC Class 70R Wheeled Loading
1.250

Fig. 4. Impact Fraction Graph As Per IRC

II. For Class 70R Loading

A.

For Span Less than 9 m

1. Tracked

25 Percent for spans up to 5 m linearly

reducing to 10 Percent for span up to 9 m

2. Wheeled
B.

25 Percent
For Span 9 m or more

Reinforced Concrete Bridges

Fig. 5. Cross Section Of T-Beam Bridge

1.

For Tracked
Vehicles

2.

For Wheeled

10 percent up to a span of 40 m and in

accordance with the curve in Fig. 5 for spans
in excess of 40 m.
25 percent up to a span of 12 m and in

Fig. 9. Screenshot of 45 Skew Bridge Generating Model

Fig. 6. Screenshot of 0 Skew Bridge Generating Model

Fig. 10. Screenshot of 60 Skew Bridge Generating Model

ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Analysis is done manually for IRC Live Load STAAD
PRO Software is use for analysis purpose. The
following are analysis summary including load
combinations defined as per each code.
A

Results for IRC Live Load

Fig. 7. Screenshot of 15 Skew Bridge Generating Model

I. Class A Loading

TABLE IV.

SKEW
ANGLE
0
15
30
45
60

Fig. 8. Screenshot of 30 Skew Bridge Generating Model

TABLE V.

SKEW
ANGLE
0
15
30
45
60

SUMMARY OF OUTER GIRDER AS PER I RC DESIGN

LOAD COMBINATION

B.M
( KN.m )
3600.13
3497.55
3204.56
2687.36
2189.56

OUTER GIRDER
S.F
( KN )
831.427
861.896
921.152
1081.895
1071.484

T.M
( KN.m )
219.105
542.14
927.868
1150.451
1089.345

SUMMARY OF INNER GIRDER AS P ER IRC DESIGN

LOAD COMBINATION

B.M
( KN.m )
3565.634
3451.848
3145.805
2599.931
2076.844

INNER GIRDER
S.F
( KN )
740.299
732.758
757.598
790.392
912.940

T.M
( KN.m )
94.174
508.195
909.62
1158.112
1144.614

II. Class 70 WHEEL Loading

TABLE VI.

SKEW
ANGLE

SUMMARY OF O UTER GIRDER AS PER I RC DESIGN

LOAD COMBINATION

B.M
( KN.m )

OUTER GIRDER
S.F
( KN )

T.M
( KN.m )

3851.10

905.18

226.87

15

3759.26

984.86

595.54

30

3440.21

1075.03

1006.77

45

2891.10

1127.87

1241.19

60

2396.03

1163.21

1182.39

TABLE VII.

SKEW
ANGLE

Fig. 12. Comparision Of S.F For Class A Loading

SUMMARY OF O UTER GIRDER AS PER I RC DESIGN

LOAD COMBINATION

B.M
( KN.m )

INNER GIRDER
S.F
( KN )

T.M
( KN.m )

3771.871

827.679

204.146

15

3684.574

814.138

645.056

30

3379.90

843.742

1017.291

45

2832.120

876.582

1280.763

60

2415.570

1017.337

1273.15
Fig. 13. Comparision Of T.M For Class A Loading

Fig. 11. Comparision Of B.M For Class A Loading

Fig. 14. Comparision Of B.M For Class 70 Wheel Loading

REFERENCES

Fig. 15. Comparision Of S.F For Class 70 Wheel Loading

Fig. 16. Comparision Of T.M For Class 70 Wheel Loading

CONCLUSION
I.

II
III

IV
V

VI

Bending moment decreases with increasing skew

angle, it decreased around 40.47 % as compared to
right bridge in case of class A loading.
Bending moment decreases with increasing skew
angle, it decreased around 36.86 % as compared to
right bridge in case of class 70 Wheel loading.
Shear Force increase with increasing skew angle, it
increase around 20.657% as compared to right bridge
in case of class A loading.
Shear Force increase with increasing skew angle, it
increase around 20.417 % as compared to right bridge
in case of class 70 Wheel loading.
Torsion moment increase with increasing skew angle
up to 45 around 86.405 % and it decrease after 45
around 6.47 % in class A Loading.
Torsion moment increase with increasing skew angle
up to 45 around 82.89 % and it decrease after 45
around 5.32 % in class 70 Wheel Loading.

[1]

IRC 6 2014 Standard Specifications and

Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section
II, Loads and Stresses, Indian Roads
Congress, New Delhi, India, 2014.

[2]

N. Krishna Raju, Design of Bridges.

[3]

V. K. Raina, Concrete Bridges Handbook.

[4]

V. K. Raina, Concrete Bridge Practices

Analysis, Design and Economics.

[5]

C. S .Surana and R. S. Aggrawal Grillage

Analogy in Bridge Deck Analysis.

[6]

Bridge Design using the STAAD.Pro/Beava,

IEG Group, Bentley Systems, Bentley
Systems Inc., March 2008.

[7]

Ali R. Khaloo And H. Mirzabozorg Load

Distribution Factors In Simply Supported
Skew Bridges Journal Of Bridge Engineering
Asce / Jul/Aug 2003