IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS

Analysis and Design of Fly Over

To cite this article: G Harsha Vardhan and A. Venkateswara Rao 2021 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 1197 012048

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 199.244.57.150 on 26/11/2021 at 04:20

International Conference on Advances in Civil Engineering (ICACE 2021) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1197 (2021) 012048 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1197/1/012048

ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLY OVER

Harsha Vardhan.G1, A. Venkateswara Rao2
1
Post Graduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Koneru Lakshmaiah Education
Foundation, Vaddeswaram, A.P, India.
2
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation,
Vaddeswaram, A.P, India.
ABSTRACT: Bridges remain the key components in any road network for infrastructure
development. For use of prestress girder type bridges become popular for the reason that of its
stability, economy, serviceability, aesthetic appearance and structural competence. The
grillage analysis method for analysing bridge structures has been in use. In this work, an
attempt is made to provide advise on grillage idealisation of the structure, as well as
background information. The mesh layout is explained in detail. Analysis of proposal of
prestressed concrete bridges are carried out using relevant IRC codes and IS codes. The bridge
deck is analysed by grillage analysis. The present work was accepted out to exterior girder of
span 28.2 m, width 12.5 m and with thickness of slab as 0.225m. The members are designed
for maximum shear forces & bending moment. Losses of stress due to friction, anchorage slip,
elastic shortening concrete & relaxation of stress in steel are also considered. The analysis
has analysed by STAAD PRO software
Key word: Prestressed girder, Grillage analysis, Bridge deck, super structure, STAAD PRO
INTRODUCTION
Our nation being primarily an agricultural country, 90% of population is depending upon it and 10%
of population depending upon industrial activities. For conveying the product materials such as food
grains, industrial goods the roads are essential. The roads and bridges was very essential for growth of
economy of the country. The cost of waiting for the signal to change, as well as the loss of fuel for
combustion, are both calculated and determined to be considerable. When it rains, not only the
highways become flooded; all other streets become flooded as well, making it convenient to go by
flyover to avoid flooding.[1]. Many methods was charity for analysis of bridges such as grillage &
finite element methods etc. Grillage analysis is the maximum mutual and broadly used method for
analysis and design of bridge. [2]
For the construction of bridges with medium and long spans Concrete that has been pre-stressed is the
best option. Since Freyssinet's invention of prestressed concrete, the material has found widespread
use in the construction of long-span bridges, gradually replacing steel, which has a high maintenance
cost due to its inherent disadvantage of corrosion in extreme conditions.[3] Precast girders with cast-
in-situ slabs are one of the most common types of superstructure in concrete bridges. For spans of 20
to 40 metres, this form of superstructure is used. The most prevalent type of bridge in this category is
the T or I-girder bridge, which are particularly popular due to its simple geometry, ease of erection or
casting, decreased dead loads, and inexpensive fabrication costs.[4]
Types of girders:
There are 3 types of girders, that is
1.Rolled steel girder bridge
2. Plate girder bridge
3. Box girder bridge
1.Rolled steel girder bridge:
A rolled steel girder was one that have been made by spinning an empty steel cylinder across a series
of dies to achieve the desired form. These produce 100-foot-long standardized I-beam and wide-
flange beam shapes.[5]
2. Plate girder bridge:
A plate girder was a type of girder that is made by welding plates together to produce a desired shape.
Plate girders can be taller than rolled steel girders and do not have to conform to uniform shapes. Plate
girders can span distances ranging from 10 meter to more than 100 m. [6]
3. Box girder bridge:
Box girder is a one type of girder it is in the shape of box. They are ready up of two perpendicular
webs, short top flanges from each, and a large bottom flange that connects the webs. [7]

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
International Conference on Advances in Civil Engineering (ICACE 2021) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1197 (2021) 012048 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1197/1/012048

The main objectives of the paper are:

1. To analyse the bridge structure using STAAD PRO in an effective manner.
2. To analyse the extreme shear forces and bending moments within deck.
3. To proposal appropriate bridge deck, applying loads using IS codes to determining the
behaviour of bridge under these loads. [8]

LITERATURE REVIEW
Payoshni Mali et al (2015) compared rectangular and trapezoidal sections of post tensioned box
girder. According to their analysis the trapezoidal section of box girder is subjected to less shear force
& bending moment than that of rectangular section for same loading, span and dimensional properties
due to its geometry. Torsional moment developed in trapezoidal section is also less as compared to
that of rectangular section. [9]. R. Shreedhar (2013) concentrated his research on modelling to
determine the explanation for the discrepancies in results between the two models (Grillage and Finite
Element), with the goal of simulating the behaviour of a bridge structure in terms of bending moment
value. Staad-Pro software is used for modelling and analysis. [10] When compared to grilla, the
results for finite element yield a lower value in terms of bending moment. As a result, it may be
argued that a finite element analysis produces a more cost-effective design than a grillage analysis.
Grillage analysis, on the other hand, has the advantage of being simple to apply and comprehend. [11]
Khalid Abdel Naser Abdel Rahim (2019) used LUSAS Bridge Plus to solve an issue involving a
cantilever bridge. The goal was to discover the worst load combination/envelope case of the deck in
terms of maximum shear force and bending moment. The grillage analysis was carried out utilising
computer-aided software because it is regarded one of the most reliable and effective methods. As a
result, the grillage analysis was carried out efficiently in order to provide reliable results. The deck
was loaded with two types of loads: dead load and traffic load. In addition, two design combinations
(Max and Min) and two actual load envelopes were included in the analysis (Max and Min). It was
discovered that the maximum bending moments experienced by the deck vary from one deck to the
next Furthermore, the maximum shear forces were modulus, indicating that the magnitudes have an
absolute value relationship. As a result, regardless of the sign, the values at different combinations
and envelopes were the same. [12]
Khaled M. Sennah and John B. Kennedy (2002) conducted Elastic analysis and experimental studies
on the elastic response of box girder bridges. Elastic analysis, they represent the orthotropic method of
the theory of the plate, the roasting method of analogy, the method of bent plate, finite element
method, the theory of the curved beam to thin wall, etc. The curvilinear nature of box girder bridges
with their complex patterns of deformation and stress fields have led designers to adopt conservative
and estimated procedures for their investigation of design. Current literature was straight box bridges
and curves dealt with analytical preparations to improved recognize the performance of these complex
structural systems. Few authors have undertaken experimental studies to investigate the accurateness
of existing method. [13]
Kenneth W. Shushkewich (1998) conducted approximate Concrete Box Girder Bridges analysis. The
actual behaviour in three dimensions of a bridge girders box as predicted by it is possible to
approximate a bent plate, finished strip, or finite element analysis. using simple membrane equations
in conjunction with planar frame analysis. This method is useful because almost structural engineers
have access to a plan under computer program, while many have neither access nor the desire to use
more sophisticated programs. In particular, the method allows strengthening and prestressing be
proportionate to transverse bending, and brackets to be assayed for the longitudinal shear and
torsional simple unicellular prefabricated concrete segmental box girder bridges. [14]
INTRODUCTION ABOUT GIRDER
GIRDER:
A girder is a type of construction support beam. It is a structure's main horizontal support that
supports smaller beams. Girders usually have an I-beam cross section with two load-bearing flanges
separated by a stabilizing web, nonetheless they will likewise need a box, Z, or other shape. Bridges
are mostly constructed with girders.
In this present study

2
International Conference on Advances in Civil Engineering (ICACE 2021) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1197 (2021) 012048 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1197/1/012048

Materials used:
Details of Grades of concrete & Steel:
Grades of Concrete:
PSC I Girder = M 45
Deck Slab = M 45
Abutment / Pier = M 35
Foundation = M 35
Grades of Steel:
Un-tensioned Reinforcing Steel = Fe 500
Prestressing Steel = 19 T 13 & 12 T 13
Sheathing = Corrugated HDPE Sheathing [μ=0.17 & k= 0.002 / m]
Design Inputs
1.1 Span Details
Centre to centre of EJ = 30 m
Distance between C/L of EJ to C/L of Bearing on Left side = 0.55 m
Distance between C/L of EJ to C/L of Bearing on Right side = 0.55 m
Effective span Length (Centre to centre of Bearings) = 28.9 m
Projection of Girder beyond Diaphragm = 0.225 m
Length of Girder = 28.2 m
Distance of jacking point from face of girder = 0.15 m
Distance of C/L of bearing from face of girder = 0.4 m
Centre to centre of Jacking Points = 28.2 m
Distance of Temporary Support from face of Girder = 0 m
Type of girder = Precast Girder
1.2 Structural Details
Total width of deck slab = 12.5 m
Thickness of deck slab = 0.225 m
No of Girders = 4 Nos.
Spacing between girders = 3.1 m
End cantilever on left side = 1.6 m
End cantilever on right side = 1.6 m
Depth of girder = 1.9 m
Depth of composite girder = 2.125 m
Total no of Diaphragms = 3 Nos.
No of end diaphragms = 2 Nos.
No of intermediate diaphragms = 1 Nos.
Distance between diaphragms = 14.450 m
Depth of end diaphragm = 2 m
Width of end diaphragm = 0.8 m
Length of end diaphragm = 9.3 m
Length of end diaphragm excluding girder portion = 6.1 m
Depth of intermediate diaphragm = 1.45 m
Width of intermediate diaphragm = 0.3 m
Length of intermediate diaphragm = 9.3 m
Length of intermediate diaphragm excluding girder portion = 8.1 m
Details of girder:

3
International Conference on Advances in Civil Engineering (ICACE 2021) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1197 (2021) 012048 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1197/1/012048

Sectional Properties:
1. Outer Girder
At Mid-Section

Girder Section Property Composite Section Property

4
International Conference on Advances in Civil Engineering (ICACE 2021) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1197 (2021) 012048 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1197/1/012048

Girder Section Property Composite Section Property

WIDTH DEPTH WIDTH DEPTH
S.NO ELEMENT SECTION (mm) (mm) Y (mm) Ibase,X X (mm) Ibase,y (mm) (mm) Y (mm) Ibase,X X (mm) Ibase,y
1 WEB RECTANGLE 300 1900 950 1.72E+11 500 4.28E+09 300 1900 950 1.72E+11 500 4.28E+09
2 TOP FLANGE(L) RECTANGLE 350 150 1825 9.84E+07 175 5.36E+08 350 150 1825 9.84E+07 175 5.36E+08
3 TOP HAUNCH(L) TRIANGLE 350 100 1717 9.72E+06 233 1.19E+08 350 100 1717 9.72E+06 233 1.19E+08
4 TOP FLANGE (R) RECTANGLE 350 150 1825 9.84E+07 825 5.36E+08 350 150 1825 9.84E+07 825 5.36E+08
5 TOP HAUNCH(R) TRIANGLE 350 100 1717 9.72E+06 767 1.19E+08 350 100 1717 9.72E+06 767 1.19E+08
6 BOTTOM FLANGE (L) RECTANGLE 250 250 125 3.26E+08 255 3.26E+08 250 250 125 3.26E+08 255 3.26E+08
7 BOTTOM HAUNCH (L) TRIANGLE 250 200 317 5.56E+07 267 8.68E+07 250 200 317 5.56E+07 267 8.68E+07
8 BOTTOM FLANGE (R) RECTANGLE 250 250 125 3.26E+08 775 3.26E+08 250 250 125 3.26E+08 775 3.26E+08
9 BOTTOM HAUNCH (R) TRIANGLE 250 200 317 5.56E+07 733 8.68E+07 250 200 317 5.56E+07 733 8.68E+07
10 DECK SLAB (L) RECTANGLE 1600 225 2013 1.52E+09 800 7.68E+10
11 DECK SLAB (R) RECTANGLE 1550 225 2013 1.42E+09 2375 6.98E+10
At End Section

Girder Section Property Composite Section Property

Girder Section Property Composite Section Property

WIDTH DEPTH WIDTH DEPTH
S.NO ELEMENT SECTION (mm) (mm) Y (mm) Ibase,X X (mm) Ibase,y (mm) (mm) Y (mm) Ibase,X X (mm) Ibase,y
1 WEB RECTANGLE 800 1900 950 4.57E+11 500 8.11E+10 800 1900 950 4.57E+11 1575 8.11E+10
2 TOP FLANGE(L) RECTANGLE 100 150 1825 2.81E+07 50 1.25E+07 100 150 1825 2.81E+07 1125 1.25E+07
3 TOP HAUNCH(L) TRIANGLE 100 29 1740 6.78E+05 67 8.06E+05 100 29 1740 6.78E+04 1142 8.06E+05
4 TOP FLANGE (R) RECTANGLE 100 150 1825 2.81E+07 950 1.25E+07 100 150 1825 2.81E+07 2025 1.25E+07
5 TOP HAUNCH(R) TRIANGLE 100 29 1740 6.78E+05 933 8.06E+05 100 29 1740 6.78E+04 2008 8.06E+05
6 BOTTOM FLANGE (L) RECTANGLE 0 250 125 0.00E+00 100 0.00E+00 0 250 125 0.00E+00 1175 0.00E+00
7 BOTTOM HAUNCH (L) TRIANGLE 0 200 317 0.00E+00 100 0.00E+00 0 200 317 0.00E+00 1175 0.00E+00
8 BOTTOM FLANGE (R) RECTANGLE 0 250 125 0.00E+00 900 0.00E+00 0 250 125 0.00E+00 1975 0.00E+00
9 BOTTOM HAUNCH (R) TRIANGLE 0 200 317 0.00E+00 900 0.00E+00 0 200 317 0.00E+00 1975 0.00E+00
10 DECK SLAB (L) RECTANGLE 1600 225 2013 1.52E+09 800 7.68E+10
11 DECK SLAB (R) RECTANGLE 1550 225 2013 1.42E+09 2375 6.98E+10

2. Internal girder
At mid-section

5
International Conference on Advances in Civil Engineering (ICACE 2021) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1197 (2021) 012048 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1197/1/012048

Girder Section Property Composite Section Property

At End Section

Girder Section Property Composite Section Property

3. Diaphragm

End Diaphragm Intermediate Diaphragm

CABLES:

6
International Conference on Advances in Civil Engineering (ICACE 2021) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1197 (2021) 012048 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1197/1/012048

Elevation of a cable profile Cable profile on site

CABLE PROFILE DETAILS:

UNITS 1 2 3 4
Height at mid span mm 135 135 135 315
Height at jack end mm 450 450 900 1350
End straight mm 1000 1000 1000 1000
Start of vertical mm 8000 8000 1000 500
parabola from centre
Horz. Dist. from mm 195 195 400 400
outside face of girder
@ mid span
End of horz. Parabola mm 1000 1000 1000 1000
from C/L of span
No of Strands No’s 18 18 18 11
Jacking Force Tonnes 252.77 252.77 252.77 154.47
Co-efficient - 0.955 0.955 0.949 0.945
Length between jacks mm 28221 28221 28259 28304
Cut length of cable m 28225 28225 28260 28305
Exit angle (vertical) Deg. 5.086 5.086 6.221 8.08

FORCE & MOMENTS:

In this the deck is represented by an equivalent grillage of beams. It is found that results
obtained from grillage analysis compared with experiments and more precise methods are accurate
enough for design purposes. The orientation of the longitudinal members should be always parallel to
the free edges while the orientation of transverse members can be either similar to ropes or orthogonal
to longitudinal beams. The other method used in modelling the bridges is the finite element method.
Finite element method was a well-known tool to the solution of complicated structural engineering
problems, as it was accomplished of accommodating many complexities in the solution.
BM and SF due to Self-Weight of Girder

7
 International Conference on Advances in Civil Engineering (ICACE 2021) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1197 (2021) 012048 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1197/1/012048

RA + RB = 737.47 ----------(1)
hence, RA = 368.73 KN, RB= 368.73 KN
load at end section = 38.82 KN/m
load at varying section = 30.47 KN/m
load at mid-section = 22.13 KN/m
weight of girder =73.75 tonnes

SF due to Self-Weight of Girder BM due to Self-Weight of Girder

Section no 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Distance from jack end
(m) 0 0.25 2.25 3.25 4.25 5.892 7.533 9.175 10.817 12.458
Distance from face of
girder (m) 0.15 0.4 2.4 3.4 4.4 6.042 7.683 9.325 10.967 12.608
Shear Force (KN) 362 324 286 256 227 189 151 113 75 38
Bending Moment (KN-
m) 0 344 650 922 1164 1527 1824 2056 2221 2320
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
14.1 15.742 17.383 19.025 20.667 22.308 23.95 24.95 25.95 27.95 28.2
14.25 15.892 17.533 19.175 20.817 22.458 24.1 25.1 26.1 28.1 28.35
0 38 75 113 151 189 227 256 286 324 362
2350 2320 1112 2056 1824 1527 1164 922 650 344 0

BM and SF due to Deck slab + Diaphragm

8
International Conference on Advances in Civil Engineering (ICACE 2021) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1197 (2021) 012048 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1197/1/012048

SF due to Deck slab + Diaphragm + Shuttering BM due to Deck slab + Diaphragm + Shuttering

Section no 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Distance from 0 0.25 2.25 3.25 4.25 5.892 7.533 9.175 10.817 12.458
jack end (m)
Distance from 0.15 0.4 2.4 3.4 4.4 6.042 7.683 9.325 10.967 12.608
face of girder
(m)
Shear Force 102 102 90 78 66 50 29 11 31 51
(KN)
Bending 1 102 190 267 331 417 466 481 462 408
Moment (KN-m)

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
14.1 15.742 17.383 19.025 20.667 22.308 23.95 24.95 25.95 27.95 28.2
14.25 15.892 17.533 19.175 20.817 22.458 24.1 25.1 26.1 28.1 28.35
51 51 31 11 29 50 66 78 90 102 102
319 408 462 481 466 417 331 267 190 102 1
SIDL – CB

SF due to SIDL BM due to SIDL

SIDL – WC

9
International Conference on Advances in Civil Engineering (ICACE 2021) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1197 (2021) 012048 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1197/1/012048

SF due to SIDL BM due to SIDL

Section no 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Distance from jack 0 0.25 2.25 3.25 4.25 5.89 7.53 9.17 10.81 12.45
end (m) 2 3 5 7 8
Distance from face of 0.15 0.4 2.4 3.4 4.4 6.04 7.68 9.32 10.96 12.60
girder (m) 2 3 5 7 8
Shear Force (KN) 88 88 81 75 68 59 48 37 25 14
Bending Moment 0 88 169 244 312 415 499 562 607 631
(KN-m)

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
14.1 15.742 17.383 19.025 20.667 22.308 23.95 24.95 25.95 27.95 28.2
14.25 15.892 17.533 19.175 20.817 22.458 24.1 25.1 26.1 28.1 28.35
3 14 25 37 48 59 68 75 81 88 88
636 631 607 562 499 415 312 244 169 88 0

Live Load with impact factor

Sagging BM due to Live Load Hogging BM due to Live Load

Section no 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Distance from jack 0 0.25 2.25 3.25 4.25 5.89 7.53 9.17 10.8 12.4
end (m) 2 3 5 17 58
Distance from face of 0.15 0.4 2.4 3.4 4.4 6.04 7.68 9.32 10.9 12.6
girder (m) 2 3 5 67 08
maximum Shear Force 434 434 420 406 390 358 331 297 268 234
(KN)

10
International Conference on Advances in Civil Engineering (ICACE 2021) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1197 (2021) 012048 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1197/1/012048

Hogging Bending 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Moment (KN-m)
Sagging Bending 0 434 837 1211 1551 2079 2530 2877 3199 3442
Moment (KN-m)

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
14.1 15.742 17.383 19.025 20.667 22.308 23.95 24.95 25.95 27.95 28.2
14.25 15.892 17.533 19.175 20.817 22.458 24.1 25.1 26.1 28.1 28.35
205 209 242 273 303 333 357 372 386 405 405
1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3566 3344 3127 2816 2443 1981 1443 1123 774 405 0

SV Loading

Sagging BM due to Live Load Hogging BM due to Live Load

Losses due to prestress in cable:

Loss in prestress due to friction and slip:
In the time for stressing, maximum force was at the jack end and it will be progressively reducing
towards the remote end based on the angle of deviation of cable and friction factors. Immediately after
locking, due to 6 mm slip, the forces in the cable will be declining from jack end checkout a point
called zero slip. Beyond that point there is no loss in forces due to slip. Considering the forces at
appropriate places on the modified parabola further design is carried out.
Loss due to Elastic shortening of concrete=2.145
First stage stressing
Stress at C.G of cables = 6.14 N/mm2
Loss due to elastic shortening = 0.5 x modular ratio x stress at c.g of strands = 0.5*6.094*6.14 =
18.71 N/mm2
= 18.71*29*98.7/1000 = 54 KN
% Loss due to elastic shortening = 54/3551*100 = 1.52 %
Second stage stressing
Stress at C.G of cables = 11.17 N/mm2
Loss due to elastic shortening = 0.5 x modular ratio x stress at c.g of strands = 0.5*5.735*11.17 =
32.03 N/mm2
=32.03*36*98.7/1000 = = 114 KN
% Loss due to elastic shortening = 114/4492*100 = 2.54 %
Time Dependent losses:

11
International Conference on Advances in Civil Engineering (ICACE 2021) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1197 (2021) 012048 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1197/1/012048

Loss due to relaxation of stress in steel:

initial losses up to 1000 hrs (approx. 35 days) from the time of casting
Average pre-stressing force applied = 8098 KN
Avg. Initial stress in strands = 8098*1000/6415.5 = 1262 N/mm2
% of initial stress to yield strength = 1262/1861 = 68%
% of loss for an initial stress of 68% of yield strength = 2.30%
Loss in stress = 0.023*1262 = 29.03 N/mm2
Loss in force = 29.03*6415.5/1000 = 186 KN
Final losses after casting of deck till end of life
Long term loss due to relaxation of the steel = 3 times loss for 1000 hrs = 3*29.03 = 87.09 N/mm2
Loss occurred in the initial stage = 29.03 N/mm2
Loss in stress in final stage = 87.09-29.03 = 58.06 N/mm2
Loss in force = 58.06*6415.5/1000 = 372 KN
Loss due to shrinkage of concrete:
(i) Autogenous shrinkage:
Final loss in force due to autogenous shrinkage = 0.00001989*195000*6415.5/1000 = 25 KN
(ii) Drying shrinkage:
Final loss in force due to autogenous shrinkage = 0.000326*195000*6415.5/1000 = 408 KN
Loss due to creep of concrete:
Total loss due to creep of concrete = 66+228 = 294 KN
Initial loss in force due to creep = 0.382*294 = 112 KN
Final loss in force due to creep = 294-112 = 182 KN
Summary of Losses:
Total initial losses up to 35days outstanding to relaxation of steel, shrinkage and creep =
186+56+16+112 =370 KN
Total final losses after casting of deck outstanding to relaxation of steel, shrinkage and creep =
372+25+408+182 =987 KN
Differential Shrinkage:
Since the girder is Precast PSC type, differential shrinkage between Precast PSC Girder and Cast-
insitu Deck slab
Mcs = εdiff EcfAcF αcentφ
Where,
εdif = Differential shrinkage strain = 0.0002
Ecf = Modulus of elasticity for flange concrete = 34000 N/mm2
Acf= Area of effective concrete flange
αcent = Distance of the centroid to the concrete flange from the centroid of composite section =0.604 m
φ = Reduction coeff to allow for creep = 0.43
Moment due to differential shrinkage, (Negative means sagging) Mcs = -2039*0.604 = -1232 KN-m

CONCLUSIONS
1. For self-weight of girder condition: The maximum shear force is found as 362 KN at section 1,
which is placed at the distance of 0.15m from face of girder. The maximum bending moment is
found as 2350 KN-m at section 11, which is placed at a distance of 14.25m from the face of the
girder.
2. For Condition deck slab+ diaphragms: The maximum shear force is attained at section 11& 21,
which is present at the distance of 0.15m and 28.35m and it is 102 KN. The supreme bending
moment of 481 KN-mis attained at section 8, which is placed at a distance of 9.325m from the
face of the girder.
3. For Condition SIDL-CB: The maximum shear force of 102 KN is found at sections 1,2, 20 and
21, which is placed at a distance of 0.15, 0.4, 28.1 and 28.35m respectively. The maximum
bending moment of 481 KN-m is found at sections 8 and 14 which is placed at a distance of
9.325m and 19.175m respectively from the face of the girder.

12
International Conference on Advances in Civil Engineering (ICACE 2021) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1197 (2021) 012048 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1197/1/012048

4. For Condition SIDL-WC: The maximum shear force is found as 88 KN at sections 1,2, 20 and 21,
which is placed at a distance of 0.15, 0.4, 28.1m and 28.35m respectively. The maximum bending
moment of 636 KN-m is attained at section11which is placed at a distance of 14.25m from the
face of the girder.
5. For Condition live load with impact factor: The maximum shear force of 434 KN is found at
sections 1,2which is placed at the distance of 0.15m, 0.4m respectively. The maximum Bending
moment was 3566 KN-m is found at section 11 which was placed at a distance of 14.25m from
the face of the girder.
REFERENCES
[1].Payoshni Mali, Shilpa Kewate, SavitaLokare, “Comparison of Rectangular and Trapezoidal
sections of Post Tensioned Box Girder” International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research,
Volume 6, Issue 12, December-2015 ISSN 2229-5518.
[2] R. Shreedhar “Comparative study of Grillage method and Finite Element Method of RCC Bridge
Deck” International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 4, Issue 2, February-2013
1ISSN 2229-5518.
[3] Khalid Abdel Naser Abdel Rahim “Bridge Grillage Analysis using Finite Element Methods”,
Nigerian Journal of Technological DevelopmentVolume:16, Issue 4, Pages:141-152, 2019.
[4] Khaled M. Sennah, John B. Kennedy (March-2002), “Literature Review in Analysis of Box
Girder Bridges, ASCE, Journal of Bridge Engineering”, Vol 7, No.2, Pg 134-143.
[5] Kenneth W. Shushkewich (July-1998), “Approximate Analysis of Concrete Box Girder Bridges,
ASCE, Journal of Bridge Engineering”, Vol.114, No.7, Pg. 1644-1657.
[6] M. P. Choudhary and S. S. Sanghai “Pre – Stressed Concrete Bridge Girder Analysis and Design”,
Global Journal for Research Analysis, Volume-8, Issue-5, May-2019, Print Issn No. 2277-8160.
[7] IRC: 112-2011, “Code of practice for concrete road bridges, Indian Road Congress”, 2011.
[8] IRC: 6-2000, “Standard specifications and code of practice for Road bridges”, The Indian
Road Congress”, New Delhi.
[9] IRC :18-2000, “Design criteria for Prestressed concrete road bridges (Post tension concrete)”, The
Indian Road Congress, 2000.
[10] IRC :21-2000, “Standard specifications and code of practice for Road bridges”, The Indian
Road Congress, 2000.
[11] IS :1343- 1980, “Prestressed concrete- code of practice”, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[12] IS 456 (2000): “Plain and Reinforced concrete – Code of Practice”, Bureau of Indian Standards,
New Delhi.
[13] IS 1343-2012, “Indian standard Prestressed concrete- code of practice”, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi.
[14] Kumar, Rajamoori Arun, and B. Vamsi Krishna. " Design of Pre-Stressed Concrete T-
Beams." International Journal of Scientific Engineering and Research (IJSER) 2.8 (2014).

13