DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF BRIDGE GIRDERS USING

DIFFERENT CODES

RAVIKANT,
PG Student, Department of Civil Engineering,
Chandigarh University, Mohali, Punjab, India.

JAGDISH CHAND,
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,
Chandigarh University, Mohali, Punjab, India.

Abstract
The bridges are the super passage or a pathway over the obstacle without changing the
alignment of the way beneath. The present study considers the design of bridge girders both
longitudinal girders and cross girders. The span of the bridge is taken as 25m in which girders
are constructed. The size of longitudinal girders is taken as2000x500 mm and cross girders is
1500x250 mm. There are three longitudinal girders are considered having spacing 2600 mm c/c
and cross girders are considered as 5000mm c/c. The design of girders is carried out using the
software STAAD Pro. In this study of bridge girder design, three same models are prepared in
the STAAD pro and then there loadings are changed according to IRC codes, Euro codes and
AASHTO specificationsrespectively. According to these different loading we found the shear
force, bending moment and area of steel in longitudinal girder as well as cross girder. The
analysis is conducted in STAAD Pro and analysis results are compared with tables and graphs.

Keywords: Bridge Girder, Longitudinal Girders,Cross Girder, STAAD Pro, etc.

I. INTRODUCTION

Bridge is a structure constructed to provide a passage over the obstacle such as road crossing,
river crossing, railway crossing, valley etc. Design of bridge structure is depends upon the use of
bridge or function of the bridge. It also depends upon the nature of the region where bridge to be
constructed. It depends upon the site conditions, construction material used in the bridge
construction, construction methods and financial conditions etc. Due to so speedy growth and
development of the technology, the traditional bridges are replaced by the cost effective and new
designer bridges. There structure designs are designed so that they has a new look or appearance
and there cost of the structure is also economical. For the solution of this problem, structural
engineers found these two structural systems of reinforced cement concrete. These are

 Girder bridges
 Prestressed Bridges
  Arc Bridges
 Rigid Frame Bridges

Because we are comparing Girders, so we talk about Girders. The geometry of girders is very
simple and also easy in construction. Design of bridge structure is very important task for a
structural engineer. It is also a complex task of structural engineers. There are some important
factors in case of bridge designing such as span, live load, dead load, length and height. These
factors affect the whole concept of the design and selection of the system of structure is always
important and the scope of research. In this study we select the span of length 25 m. Therefore,
these two factors are important i.e. codal provision and the design details.

The design of the girders is carried out with IRC codes, Euro codes and AASHTO specifications
using STAAD Pro. This study compares the shear force, bending moment and area of steel in the
design of bridge girders i.e. longitudinal girders and cross girders due to the application of
different loading according to IRC codes, Euro codes and AASHTO specifications

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

The study of different journals, thesis and design aspects were done. They consider IS codes,
IRC codes, Euro codes, AASHTO specifications and ACI codes.

An important research paper on “Analysis of Bridge girder -2 way Beams” has been published
by Vijay Kumar, S.P. & Mohan K. (2017) found that when we are using cross beams or girders
the deflection, bending moment & shear force will reduced as compare to the design of girder
bridge without cross beams or girders.

Saxena A. & Dr. Maru S. (2013) publish an important research paper on “Comparative Study of
the Analysis and Design o T-Beam Girder and Box Girder Super Structure” describe that the T-
beam girder is economical than the box girder but box girder is more suitable for long span
bridges. Because of their close box sections they have high torsional rigidity.

Chu, K.H. (1971) published “Simply Supported Curved Box Girder Bridge” with the help of
finite element method. A study of “Dynamic & Impact Characteristics of Continuous Steel Beam
Bridge Decks and Slant-legged Rigid Frame Bridges” was carried out by Wang & Herang
(1992). In 2011, N.K. Paul published “Three Dimensional Finite Element Model and Test Them
with Loading System of Two Point” to check their behavior of structure of the longitudinal
girders of RCC T-beam bridges.

III. METHODOLOGY

i. Description of Bridge Super Structure

The bridge structure considered in this case study has a length of 25 m simply supported over the
piers or abutments of the bridge substructure. The thickness of deck slab is 250 mm in all
respects. Sizes of longitudinal girders and cross girders are considered as 2000x500 mm &
1500x250 mm respectively.

Fig. 1 Cross Section of Super Structure assumed

ii. Design Analysis

The design of bridge girders has been performed for dead and live laods. Dead load of the slab is
assumed as 7.5 KN/m² where as dead load of members are considerd in STAAD Pro. For live
loads IRC codes, Euro codes and AASHTO Specifications has been prefred and model has been
created in STAAD Pro. Schematic diagrams and loadings followed from IRC codes, Euro codes
and AASHTO Specifications are shown below

Loadings
 Fig. 2 IRC Class A Loading (Extracted from IRC 6-2010)

Fig. 3HL-93Loadingfrom AASHTOLRFD Bridgedesign specification

 Fig. 4 Model 1 and 2 Loadings from Euro Codes

IV. RESULT ANALYSIS

i. Live Load
Bending moments, shear forces and deflections due to live load of vehicle loading of all codes
i.e. IRC Codes, Euro codes and AASHTO Specifications has been calculated and presented
graphicaly as shown below

LIVE LOAD SHEAR FORCES COMPARISON

OF LONGITUDINAL GIRDER
700
SHEAR FORCE (KN)

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100
0.0L 0.1L 0.2L 0.3L 0.4L 0.5L
IRC Codes 378.89 378.89 304.12 153.08 4.77 3.87
AASHTO Specifications 342.56 319.31 309.06 216.66 193.41 -63.23
Euro Codes 601.41 601.41 601.41 536.95 536.95 658.5

Fig.5 Live load shear forces comparison of longitudinal girder

Shear forces due to live loads on longitudinal girder has been calculated and compared with
graph. This analysis shows, at the edges longitudinal girder produced more shear force due to
IRC loadings as compare to the shear force produced due to AASHTO Specification loadings but
near mid span longitudinal girder produced less shear force due to IRC loadings as compare to
the shear force produced due to AASHTO Specification loadings. Other side from this,
longitudinal girder produced much more shear force due to Euro codes loadings as compare to
both of them.

LIVE LOAD SHEAR FORCES COMPARISON OF

CROSS GIRDER
SHEAR FORCE (KN) 140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.0L 0.1L 0.2L 0.3L 0.4L 0.5L
IRC Codes 3.09 3.09 3.09 3.09 3.09 3.09
AASHTO Specifications 52.99 48.15 43.31 38.48 33.64 28.81
Euro Codes 119.27 119.27 119.27 119.27 119.27 119.27

Fig.6 Live load shear forces comparison of cross girder

Shear force on cross girder due to vehicle loadings of different codes i.e IRC codes, Euro codes
and AASHTO specifications has been calculated and graphicaly represented. The analysis of this
comparison shows shear force on the cross girder is more due loadings of Euro codes as compare
to others.

LIVE LOAD BENDING MOMENTS

COMPARISON OF LONGITUDINAL GIRDER
BENDING MOMENT (KN-m)

8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0.0L 0.1L 0.2L 0.3L 0.4L 0.5L
IRC Codes 0 947.06 1793.34 2554.73 2716.44 2726.18
AASHTO Specifications 0 826.42 1594.43 2224.65 2737.24 2654.06
Euro Codes 0 1502.12 3005.66 4053.18 5395.56 6744.28

Fig.7 Live load bending moment comparison of longitudinal girder

Bending moment on longitudinal girder is calculated and analysis is shown with graph. Bending
moment produced due to different loadings are compared and analyzed. The analysis shows that
the bending moment produced due to IRC Code loading and AASHTO Specifications increases
gradually with respect to length of girder but in other hand bending moment produced due to the
Euro code loading increases rapidly with respect to length.

LIVE LOAD BENDING MOMENTS

COMPARISON OF CROSS GIRDER
BENDING MOMENT (KN-m)

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
0.0L 0.1L 0.2L 0.3L 0.4L 0.5L
IRC Codes 0 1.61 3.22 4.82 6.43 8.03
AASHTO Specifications -6.82 19.47 43.25 64.52 83.27 99.51
Euro Codes -19.99 42.03 104.05 166.07 228.10 290.12

Fig.8 Live load bending moment comparison of cross girder

Bending moment on cross girder is calculated and analysis is shown with graph. Bending
moment produced due to different loadings are compared and analyzed. The analysis shows that
as we change the loadings from IRC codes, AASHTO Specifications and Euro codes the rate of
increment in bending moment increases respectively.

LIVE LOAD DEFLECTION COMPARISON OF

LONGITUDINAL GIRDER
60
DEFLECTION (MM)

50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0L 0.1L 0.2L 0.3L 0.4L 0.5L
IRC Codes 0 7.95 15.09 20.62 24.02 25.00
AASHTO Specifications 0 7.54 14.37 19.8 23.31 24.45
Euro Codes 0 14.34 27.39 38.14 45.40 48.09

Fig.9 Live load deflection comparison of longitudinal girder

 LIVE LOAD DEFLECTION COMPARISON OF
CROSS GIRDER
50

DEFLECTION (MM)
40
30
20
10
0
0.0L 0.1L 0.2L 0.3L 0.4L 0.5L
IRC Codes 23.99 24.00 24.01 24.01 24.02 24.02
AASHTO Specifications 23.12 23.18 23.22 23.27 23.30 23.31
Euro Codes 44.88 45.02 45.15 45.26 45.35 45.4

Fig.10 Live load deflection comparison of cross girder

The deflection produces in longitudinal and as well as cross girder due to IRC codes and
AASHTO Specifications are some what same but deflection due to Euro codes are almost double
as compare to the other two codes. The behaviour and pattran of deflection is same in all results
of deflection.

ii. Area of Steel

Design of bridge girders is conducted in STAAD Pro using different vehicle loadings of IRC
Codes, AASHTO Specifications and Euro Codes. Maximum value of steel area required is
considered in longitudinal girder as well as cross girder.

COMPARISON OF STEEL IN LONGITUDINAL

GIRDER

Euro Codes

AASHTO Specifications

IRC Codes

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

AASHTO
IRC Codes Euro Codes
Specifications
AREA OF STEEL (mm2) 3928.57 3771.43 9654.86

Fig.11 Comparison of steel in longitudinal girder

 COMPARISON OF STEEL IN CROSS GIRDER

Euro Codes

AASHTO Specifications

IRC Codes

0 500 1000 1500

AASHTO
IRC Codes Euro Codes
Specifications
AREA OF STEEL (mm2) 471.42 452.57 1206.86

Fig.12 Comparison of steel in cross girder

The graphs presented above shows the comparison of area of steel required in the girders due to
different loadings applied as shown above. The analysis results that design of Euro codes
provides very much steel as compare to the other two design codes i.e. IRC codes and AASHTO
specifications.

V. CONCLUSION

Different loadings are taken from IRC codes, AASHTO specifications and Euro codes. The
conclusion of above analysis is as follows

1. In comparison of all three codes, Euro code designs are over reinforced as compare to the
other two i.e. IRC codes and AASHTO specifications.
2. In design of bridge girders with Euro codes shear forces, bending moment and deflection
are almost double as compare to the other two i.e. IRC codes and AASHTO
specifications.
3. Design of bridge girders (up to 25m) using IRC codes are most economical and safer as
compare to the other two i.e. AASHTO specifications and Euro codes.
4. IRC codes have the best combination of loading and design methods as compare to the
other two i.e. AASHTO specifications and Euro codes.
5. Since the design of bridge girder using IRC codes acquire minimum value of deflection
and bending moment so therefore IRC Class A loading is the most economical and
optimum loading for the design of bridge girder in INDIA.
REFERENCES

[1] Kumar R Ajith. , Dr. J. K. Dattatreya (2015):- "Study on the Structural Behavior and Design
of a Typical Single Cell Post Tensioned Concrete Box Girder Bridge". Journal of Civil
Engineering and Environmental Technology, Volume 2, Number 11; April – June, 2015

[2] Saxena Amit, Dr. Savita Maru (2013):- "Comparative Study of the Analysis and Design of T-
Beam Girder and Box Girder Superstructure". IJREAT International Journal of Research in
Engineering & Advanced Technology, Volume 1, and Issue 2, April-May, 2013.

[3] B. Paval (2015):- "Analysis of Multi-Cell Prestressed Concrete Box-Girder Bridge".

International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research IJETSR, ISSN 2394 –
3386 Volume 3,

[4] Bhadauria D. S. and Dr. Rakesh Patel (2017):- “Comparative Study of RCC Bridge for
Central Zone of India for Different Sections of Girder”. International Journal for Scientific
Research & Development, Volume 5, and Issue 4, 2017.

[5] Eurocode 1(EN 1991-2(2)) Action on structures part 2: Traffic loads on bridges.

[6] Eurocode 2(EN 1992-2) Design of concrete structures part 2: Concrete bridges design and
detailing rules.

[7] AASHTO (2010), "AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications", 5th Edition, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington DC.

[8] Chu, K. H. and Pinjarkar, S. G. (1971) “Analysis of Horizontally Curved Box-Girder

Bridges,” Journal of the Structural Division, Vol. 97, No. 10.

[9] Schlaich, J., and Scheef, H. (1982) “Concrete BoxGirder Bridges”, International Association
for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland

[10] Sami M. Fereig (1994),”Preliminary Design of Precast Prestressed Concrete Box Girder
Bridge.” PCI Journal

[11] 25. M. Qaqish, Al-Balqa Applied University, JORDAN (2008), “Comparison between One
Dimensional and Three Dimensional Models of Two Continuous Spans of Box Girder Bridges”
ICCBT 2008 - C - (42) – pp463-482

[12] Chan, T.H.T., and O’Connor, C. (1990a). “Wheel Loads from Highway Bridge Strains:
Field Studies.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 116, No. 7.

[13]. Chan, T.H.T., and O’Connor, C. (1990b). “Vehicle Model for Highway Bridge Impact.”
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 116, No. 7.
[14] Wang, T.L., and Huang, D.Z. (1992). “Computer Modeling Analysis in Bridge Evaluation.”
Report No. FL/DOT/RMC/0542(2)-4108, Structural Research Centre, Florida Department of
Transportation, Tallahassee.

[15] Dr.Maher Qaqish, Dr.Eyad Fadda and Dr.Emad Akawwi (2008), “Design of T-Beam Bridge
by Finite Element Method and AASHTO Specification” KMITL Sci. J. Vol.8 No.1.

[16] N. K. Paul, S. Saha (2011), “Improvement of Load Carrying Capacity of a RCC T-Beam
Bridge Longitudinal Girder by Replacing Steel Bars with S.M.A Bars” World
Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 51

[17] D Johnson Victor (2007), “Essential of Bridge Engineering”6th edition

[18] V. K. Raina, (2007)“Concrete Bridge practice analysis, Design and Economics”, 2nd edition

[19] N. Krishna Raju, (2010), “Design of Bridges”, 4thedition

[20] T. R. Jagadeesh & M. A. Jayaram, (2010), “Design of Bridge Structures”, 2nd edition

[21] IRC 6-2010, “Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges”, Section II,
loads and stresses, The Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi, India, 2010.

[22] IRC: 21-2000, “Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section III,
Cement Concrete (Plain and Reinforced)”, The Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi, India, 2000.

[23] IRC:SP: 54-2000 “Project Preparation Manual for Bridge”, The Indian Roads Congress,
New Delhi, India, 2000.