Thesis

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF RCC & STEEL PILE FOUNDATION FOR AN INTEGRAL BRIDGE
A Dissertation Work Submitted in Partial Fulfillment for the Requirements for the award of Degree of Master of Engineering in CIVIL - Computer Aided Structural Analysis and Design To Gujarat University
Prepared by: Viral B Panchal Guided by: Prof C S Sanghvi
Applied Mechanics Department L. D. College of Engineering Ahmedabad-380 015 August 2011
GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT L. D. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AHMEDABAD 380015
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the work presented in the Dissertation Entitled A Comparative Study Of RCC & Steel Pile Foundation For An Integral Bridge has been carried out by Panchal Viral Bipinchandra Registration No: ME 45 Date: 31/8/06 Seat No: 3006 Year: June 2008 in a manner sufficiently satisfactory to warrant its acceptance as a partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the Degree of
Master of Engineering in CIVIL-CASAD

This is a bonafide work done by the student and has not been submitted to any other University / Institute for the award of any other Degree / Diploma. Prof. C. S. Sanghvi Guide Prof (Dr) H S Patel P.G. In-charge Prof. M. N. Patel Principal Applied Mechanics Department L. D. College of Engineering, Ahmedabad 380015 Gujarat, India August 2011 Prof (Dr) R K Gajjar Prof. & Head of Dept.
DISSERTATION APPROVAL SHEET

Dissertation entitled A Comparative Study Of RCC & Steel Pile Foundation For An Integral Bridge is submitted by Panchal Viral Bipinchandra of L. D. College of Engineering, Ahmedabad is approved for the Award of the Degree of Master of Engineering (Civil) in the field of Computer Aided Structural Analysis and Design by Gujarat University.
INTERNAL EXAMINER (S): (Prof. C. S. SANGHVI)
EXTERNAL EXAMINER (S): ( )
II
INDEX
Chapter No. Abstract Acknowledgement 1 Introduction
Content
Page No. (i) (iii) 1 1 10 17 20 24 24 43 61 73 73 83 89 97
1.1 Introduction To Integral Bridges 1.2 Bridge Substructure 2 3 4 Literature Review Project Description Analysis 4.1 Load Description 4.2 Load Calculation 4.3 Pile Analysis 5 Pile Design 5.1 Geotechnical Design Of RCC Piles 5.2 Structural Design Of RCC Piles 5.3 Geotechnical Design Of Steel Piles 5.4 Structural Design Of Steel Piles
6 7 8
Comparison Of Results Conclusion And Future Scope References
108 113 115 117
Appendix A - Wave Force Calculation Charts
Appendix B - Super structure Analysis & Design
129
Appendix C - General Arrangement Drawing
Appendix D - Construction Sequence Drawing
Appendix E - RCC Pile Detail Drawing
Appendix F - Steel Pile Detail Drawing
Appendix G - Pile Cap Reinforcement Detail Drawing
Appendix H - Longitudinal Beam Reinforcement Detail Drawing
Appendix I - Diaphragm Reinforcement Detail Drawing
Appendix J - Deck Slab Reinforcement Detail Drawing Papers For Publication 1). A Comparative Study Of RCC & Steel Pile Foundation For An Integral Bridge 2). Integral Bridges
LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 A.1 A.2 A.3 A.4 A.5 A.6 A.7 A.8 Description Sketch Of A Typical 3 Span Integral Bridge Transfer Of Movements In Integral Bridges Different Types Of End Supports For Integral Bridge IRC Class AA Loading IRC Class 70R Loading IRC Class A Loading IRC Class B Loading Curves For Impact Factor Enveloping Cylinders Pressure Distribution Definition Sketch Of Wave Forces On A Vertical Cylinder. Breaking Wave Height & Regions Of Validity Of Various Wave Theories Application Of Wave Force Operating & Extreme Application Of Current Force Operating Application Of Current Force Extreme Cross Section Of Staad Model 3D View Of Staad Model RCC Pile Bending Moment Mz Envelop RCC Pile Bending Moment My Envelop RCC Pile Axial Force Envelope RCC Pile Shear Force Envelope Steel Pile Bending Moment Mz Envelope Steel Pile Bending Moment My Envelope Steel Pile Axial Force Envelope Steel Pile Shear Force Envelope Parabolic variation of subgrade modulus Neutral axis Shear key details Concrete plug neutral axis Values Of Kim Values Of KDm Values Of Sim Values Of SDm Values Of m For W=0.05 Values Of m For W=0.1 Values Of m For W=0.5 Values Of m For W=1 Page No. 1 3 4 25 26 26 26 28 34 35 36 41 56 57 58 61 62 63 63 64 64 67 68 68 69 76 87 101 107 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124
A.9 A.10 A.11 A.12 B.1 B.2
Values Of m For W=0.05 Values Of m For W=0.1 Values Of m For W=0.5 Values Of m For W=0.5 Longitudinal & Pile Cap Beam Arrangement Precast deck plank arrangement LIST OF TABLES
125 126 127 128 129 134
Table No. 1 2 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 5 6 7.1 7.2 8.1 8.2 9 10.1 10.2 11.1 11.2 12 13 14 15.1-15.2 16 17 18.1-18.2 19 20.1-20.2 21
Description Values Of Ce Pressure Distribution Co-efficient Grid A Design forces Grid A Service forces Grid B Design forces Grid B Service forces Axial Forces Deflection Steel Pile Grid A Forces- Axial compression with bending (operating) Steel Pile Grid A Forces- Axial compression with bending (extreme) Steel Pile Grid B Forces- Axial compression with bending (operating) Steel Pile Grid B Forces- Axial compression with bending (extreme) Steel pile Axial Forces Steel pile grid A -Concrete Plug Design Forces Steel pile grid A -Concrete Plug Service Forces Steel pile grid B -Concrete Plug Design Forces Steel pile grid B -Concrete Plug Service Forces Deflection Range of Modulus of Subgrade Reaction ks Values of Cm Spring Constant Calculation Soil Properties Reinforcement Summary Crack Width Check Summary Rate Of Corrosion For Structural Steel Steel Pile Design Summary Concrete Plug Reinforcement Summary
Page No. 34 35 65 65 66 66 67 67 69 70 70 71 71 71 72 72 72 72 75 76 78 80 85 87-88 98 99-100 104
22.1-22.2 B.1.1 B.1.2 B.2.1-B.2.2 B.3.1-B.3.2
Concrete Plug Crack Width Check Summary Pilecap Beam Design Forces Pilecap Beam Service Forces L-beam Design And Service Forces End Diaphragm Forces
107 129 130 131 134
ABSTRACT
The twentieth century heralded a new era in bridge building concepts with large improvements in material and methods. Rapid developments in the theory of structures along with the advent of the computer made it possible to pioneer innovative designs. The design of bridge structures has become intricate with the changeover from the conventional simply supported girder slab bridges to complex forms such as bridges without joints, cable stayed and suspension bridges. The analysis of such structures, having different forms and shapes, requires ingenuity of a high order as research may lag behind practical possibilities. Bridge design and construction all over the world has undergone remarkable changes in the past two decades. The increase in demand for complex roadway alignments, advances in construction technology and availability of computing power for bridges design, are some of the factors for these developments. Concept of Integral Bridges is one of these developments. Such bridges are the answer for short and medium length bridges where bearings and expansion joints can either be eliminated altogether or reduced to a minimum. By incorporation of intermediate expansion joints the integral bridge concept can be extended to long bridges and viaducts too. This concept is already in practice in countries like US, UK, Australia etc. Due to ease & economy in construction and maintenance, It is also getting popular in India. This concept is widely used in recent projects of Delhi Metro. Integral bridge concept is widely adopted in marine structures. This concept is used as a approach bridge to connect berthing structure to the shore. Their function is to provide supporting structure material handling system like conveyors in addition to providing carriageway for vehicular traffic like in case of road bridges. Main reasons for increasing popularity of integral concept in marine structures are efforts of minimizing use of bearings and to resist large lateral forces. Bearings are difficult to maintain and more difficult to replace. Also it is a vulnerable point in structure at time of extreme events like earthquake and cyclones. Also integral bridge requires flexible foundation to accommodate thermal stresses and stresses produced from lateral forces like waves, current, wind, seismic etc. As pile foundation is a flexible foundation as compared to piers or caissons and because of ease of construction it is generally adopted in marine approach bridges. However there can be variations in pile foundations for integral bridges like bored cast in situ RCC piles, driven precast piles, driven precast prestress piles, driven steel piles etc. This study is based on integral bridge concept with two different pile types. This study deals with the introduction, behavior, analysis, design, conclusion and future scope. The
analysis and design of one integral approach bridge which is constructed at Dahej is done using Staad Pro 2007 software. The necessary data related to site conditions and loadings is obtained from PMC Projects (India) Private Limited, Ahmedabad. Analysis and design of two alternatives are carried out here. One alternative is analyzed and designed using RCC bored cast in situ piles. Design of a typical integral piled approach (superstructure and substructure) is presented in this alternative. In second alternative, foundation is changed to driven vertical steel pile keeping superstructure system same as in first alternative. Structural comparison is made between these two alternatives. Assuming all the data regarding length, site conditions and loading to be constant, a comparison between results obtained from analysis and design of two alternatives (bored RCC piles and driven steel piles) of bridge is made.
ii
ACKNOLEDGEMENT
I grab this opportunity to express my profound gratitude to all the individuals who helped me and guided me at different stages of my dissertation work. To begin with, I would like to thank my guide Prof. C.S.Sanghvi, Applied Mechanics Dept., L.D.C.E., who has given immense contribution at every stage of this research work. I will remain grateful to Mr. Munish Kotwal (Stup Consultants) for their support and PMC Projects (I) Pvt. Ltd providing me training at design office. I am indebted to Mr. Nirav Shah (PMC Projects (I) Pvt. Ltd) and Mr. Tushar Pandya (Stup Consultants) for providing me all the necessary data for formulating thesis topic and thesis content. I am very much thankful to both of them for their invaluable guidance and support throught the tenure of this dissertation work. I wish to express my sincere thanks to my classmates and friends Dhyan, Rajmayur, Dhruva, Jignesh for their motivation. I am very much thankful to my friends Khyati and Dharmesh for their continuous support during this course work.
iii
CHAPTER1 INTRODUCTION
Chapter-1
Introduction
1.1 Introduction To Integral Bridges

1.1.1 Integral Bridge Concept: Integral bridges are bridges where the superstructure is continuous and connected monolithically with the substructure with a moment-resisting connection. As an effect we obtain a structure acting as one unit. The terminology varies in different sources, so sometimes the bridges which just do not have dilatations are called jointless bridges. These structures still have bearings, so the structure still can move in the horizontal plane (but these movements are limited).In polish literature, there are many definitions used with regard to discussed structures: bridges with spans connected with supports with no hinged connection (with regard to the way of supporting spans on supports), frame bridges (with regard to static scheme of construction), bridges supported on piles (with regard to the type of foundation), etc. However, there is no definition which describes all the features of integral structures (a material, foundation type, static scheme and cooperation with surrounding soil). Here in this thesis, integral bridge supported on piles is taken for study. Integral bridges accommodate superstructure movements without conventional expansion joints. With the superstructure rigidly connected to the substructure and with flexible substructure piling, the superstructure is permitted to expand and contract. The integral abutment bridge concept is based on the theory that due to the flexibility of the piling, thermal stresses are transferred to the substructure by way of a rigid connection between the superstructure and substructure. Such bridges are the answer for small and medium length bridges where bearings and expansion joints can be either eliminated altogether or reduced to a minimum. By incorporation of intermediate expansion joints, the integral bridge concept can be extended to long bridges and viaducts too. Integral bridges are designed to provide resistance to thermal movements, breaking forces, seismic forces and winds by the stiffness of the soil abutting the end supports and the intermediate supports. A typical three span integral abutment bridge is shown in Fig. 1.
Fig.1 Sketch Of A Typical 3 Span Integral Bridge
A Comparative Study Of RCC & Steel Pile Foundation For An Integral Bridge
Chapter-1
Introduction
The principle difference between the integral bridge and conventional bridge is in the design of sub structure and end supports. In a conventional bridge, thermal movements, structural flexure, shrinkage etc. are accommodated by a designed and clearly delineated movement joint. In an integral bridge, reliance is placed upon compliance of the soil behind abutment with imposed movements of the bridge structure. Any required provision for movement in the carriageway is then placed outside the structure length where it will cause less deterioration to the structure. Fig. 2 shows three principle methods by which an integral bridge can accommodate movements of the super structure. Fig. 3 shows different types of end supports used for integral bridges. The main types of the end supports can be categorized and described as: a). Frame abutment:- Full height frame abutments are suitable for short single-span bridges. The horizontal movements will only be small, so the earth pressures should not be very high. b). Embedded wall abutment:- Embedded wall abutments are also suitable for short single-span integral bridges. c). Piled abutment with reinforced soil wall :- A piled abutment with reinforced soil abutment wall and wing walls is a form of construction that should have a wide application. d). End screen (semi integral) :- Semi-integral construction with bearings on top of a rigid retaining wall is a design method that can be used for full-height abutments for bridges of any length. Jacking of the deck can result in soil movement under the abutment soffit. This can obstruct the deck from returning to its original level. e). Piled bank seat :- Piled bank seats are recommended for widespread use. The piles prevent settlement while allowing horizontal movement and rotation. f). Piled bank seat with end screen (semi integral):- Bank seats can be designed as semi-integral abutments. The footing is not required to move horizontally and piled or spread footings can be used. g). Bank pad abutment :- Shallow abutments on spread footings are only considered to be suitable for situations where the foundation is very stiff and there can be no settlement problems. A granular fill layer should be placed below the footing to allow sliding.
Chapter-1
Introduction
Fig. 2 Transfer Of Movements In Integral Bridges
Chapter-1
Introduction
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g) Fig. 3 Different Types Of End Supports For Integral Bridges A Comparative Study Of RCC & Steel Pile Foundation For An Integral Bridge 4
Chapter-1 1.1.2 Background:
Introduction
Joints and bearings are expensive to buy, install, maintain and repair and more costly to replace. The most frequently encountered corrosion problem involves leaking expansion joints that permit salt laden runoff water from the roadway surface to attack girder ends, bearings and supporting RCC substructure. Also bridge deck joints are subjected to continual wear and heavy impact from repeated live loads as well as continual stages of movement from expansion and contraction caused by temperature changes, creep and shrinkage or long term movement effects such as settlement and soil pressure. It is necessary to detail these joints so that adequate space is available for maintenance and replacement of bearings. The problems arising from provision of bearings and expansion joints can be summarized as: Increased incidence of inspection and maintenance required, bridge durability is often impaired. Necessity of replacement during the service life of the bridge since their design life is lesser than that of the rest of the bridge elements. Decrease in redundancy and difficulties in providing adequate ductility for resisting earthquake effects, leading to larger earthquake design forces.
Surajbari new bridge superstructure shifted in the transverse direction
Chapter-1
Introduction
Bridge between Surajbari & Bhachau Violent shaking has resulted in pier head being damaged due to pounding of deck Possibilities of dislodgement of superstructure during accidental loads, especially those due to earthquakes, is a clear danger requiring expensive and clumsy attachments. The latest amendments to the Indian Road Congress codes require the positive measures such as restrainers be provided so that girders do not get dislodged during earthquake. Bridges presents soft target for terrorists who could put them out of service with little difficulty. Because of above mentioned problems, use of integral or integral abutment bridge is being increased all over the world. Simply supported bridges are still popular in India. The main reason for their popularity is that these structures are simple to design and execute. The sub-structural design is also greatly simplified because of the determinate nature of the structure. Sometimes there are situations where bearings/simply supported spans/expansion joints can not be altogether avoided because of the length of the bridge. In such cases intermediate joints will be provided with bearings to allow horizontal movements. But these joints will be lesser in numbers as compared to simply supported bridges. On the other hand, monolithic joints and redundancy of the structural system do result in savings in the cost of the construction and maintenance. Elimination of bearings improves the structural performance during earthquakes. Finally, integral form of construction will require lesser inspection and maintenance efforts. Several urban structures in India have been built with this concept. However no national standards or A Comparative Study Of RCC & Steel Pile Foundation For An Integral Bridge 6
Chapter-1
Introduction
uniform policy regarding the permissible bridge length, skews and design procedures have been clearly established, although certain general concepts become common in practice. The advisory note BA 42/96 recommends that all bridges need to be integral if overall length exceeds 60 m and skews less than 30 deg. The longitudinal movement in the bridge abutment is limited to 20mm from the position at time of restraint during construction. Integral bridges are designed for same range of temperatures as other bridges. According to IAJB 2005, the range of design criteria for selection of integral bridge is summarized in Table below. Steel girders Maximum span (ft) Total length (ft) Maximum skew (degree) Maximum curvature 65-300 150-650 15-70 0-10 Concrete 60-200 150-1175 15-70 0-10
Length of the bridge taken for study in this thesis is more than above mentioned range. However it is still designed with integral concept with provision of intermediate expansion joints to cater for horizontal movements. It is still considered integral because of the monolithic moment connection of the superstructure with foundation (piles). Some of the common features of monolithic bridge construction include: i) Elimination of the pier cap which improves bridge aesthetics. ii) Heavily reinforced slender piers iii) Change in the structural system. 1.1.3 Benefits of Integral Bridges: Some of the advantages of adopting Integral bridges over that of the conventional bridges are summarized below: i. Simplified Construction- The simple characteristics of integral bridges make for rapid and economical construction. For example, there is no need to construct cofferdams, make footing excavations, place backfill, remove cofferdams, and prepare bridge seats, place bearings, back walls, and deck joints. Instead, integral construction generally results in just four concrete placement days. After the embankments, piles and pile caps have been placed and deck stringers erected, deck slabs, continuity connections, and approach slabs can follow in rapid succession.
Chapter-1 ii.
Introduction
No bearings and Joints- Integral bridges can be built without bearings and deck joints. Not only will this result in savings in initial costs, the absence of joints and bearings will reduce maintenance efforts. This is an important benefit because presently available deck joint sealing devices have such short effective service lives.
iii.
Improved Design efficiency- Tangible efficiencies are achieved in substructure design due to an increase in the number of supports over which longitudinal and transverse superstructure loads may be distributed. Built-in abutments can be designed to accommodate some bending moment capacity, reducing end span bending moments with possible savings in end span girders. Due to rigid connection between superstructure and substructure, bending moments are considerably less thus resulting in smaller sections and economy in reinforcement and concrete.
iv.
Enhanced load distribution- One of the most important attributes of integral bridges is their substantial reserve strength capacity. The integrity of their unified structural system makes them extremely resistant to the potentially damaging effects of illegal super imposed loads, pressures generated by the restrained growth of jointed rigid pavements, earthquakes, and debris laden flood flows. A joint less bridge with integral abutments will have a higher degree or redundancy that may be beneficial in earthquake zones. The problem of retaining the superstructure on its bearing during seismic events is eliminated and the inherent damping of the integral bridge structural system allows it to better absorb energy and limit damage. The reasons for adopting integral bridges in India and elsewhere could be quite
different. When earthquake forces like predominant or when considerations like increased resistance to blast are to be reckoned with or there is a strong need of incorporating reduced cost of inspection & maintenance integral bridge concept is an excellent option. Application of Integral bridge concept is also widely seen in pile supported marine structures. In such water front structures, it is very difficult and costly to replace bearings. Also due to the equipments on the deck level, movement of the deck is limited in horizontal directions. So, less numbers of joints are required to reduce these longitudinal and lateral movements. Also many a times, marine structures are supported on piles or sheet piles which are easier to construct as compared to other deep foundations in ocean water with aggressive environmental conditions. And super structure is rigidly connected to piles. So lateral A Comparative Study Of RCC & Steel Pile Foundation For An Integral Bridge 8
Chapter-1
Introduction
movements induced due to temperature produced stresses and environmental loadings such as waves, current and wind are effectively sustained by piles and transferred to the ground. As piles are slender flexible members, it can sustain more bending and deflections.
1.1.4 Problems and uncertainities:Despite the significant advantages of integral abutment bridges, there are some problems and uncertainties associated with them. Many articles, mentioned that the main problem connected with integral bridges are consequences of temperature variations and traffic loads, which cause horizontal bridge movements. Horizontal movements and rotations of the abutment cause settlement of the approach fill, resulting in a void near abutment if the bridge has approach slabs. Effects of lateral movements of integral abutments under cyclic loadings are obvious problem which demands solving, but positive aspect in this case is that temperature induced displacements in the traditional bridge is over twice bigger than displacement at the end of (considering objects with the same span length) integrated structure because of symmetrical nature of the thermal effects as illustrated in the Figure..
The other uncertainties connected with designing and performance of integral abutment bridges are: The elimination of intermediate joints in multiple spans results in a structural continuity that may induce secondary stresses in the superstructure. These forces due to shrinkage, creep, thermal gradients, differential settlement, differential deflections, and earth pressure can cause cracks in concrete bridge abutments. Wingwalls can crack due to rotation and contraction of the superstructure. Also, differential settlement of the substructure can cause more damage in case of integral bridges as compared to traditional briges. Integral bridges should be provided with approach slabs to prevent vehicular traffic from consolidating backfill adjacent to abutments, to eliminate live load surcharging of backfill, and to minimize the adverse effect of consolidating backfill and approach embankments on movement of vehicular traffic. For bridges with closed decks (curbs, barriers, etc.), approach slabs should be provided with curbs to confine and carry deck
Chapter-1
Introduction
drainage across backfill to the approaches and prevent erosion, or saturation and freezing of the backfill. The piles that support the abutments may be subjected to high stresses as a result of cyclic elongation and contraction of the bridge structure. These stresses can cause formation of plastic hinges in the piles and may reduce their axial load capacities. The application of integral bridge concept has few other limitations. Integral bridges can not be used with weak embankments or subsoil, and they can only be used for limited lengths, although the maximum length is still somewhat unclear. Integral bridges are suitable if the expected temperature induced moment at each abutment is certain value specified by suitable authorities in every country, and somewhat larger moments can be tolerable.
1.2 Bridge Substructure:

Usually substructure of a bridge refers to that part of it which supports the structure that carries the roadway (called superstructure). Thus the substructure covers pier and abutment bodies together with their foundations, and also the arrangements above the piers and abutments through which the superstructure sits, i.e. bears on the substructure. The latter are called the bearings. The more usual types of foundation for substructure are briefly discussed below: Shallow Type:These are foundations generally placed after open excavation, and are called open foundations. Examples of such foundations are isolated footing, combined footing, strip footing, raft etc. Deep Type:These are constructed by various special means. Deep foundations are piles and caissons (or wells). Piles are essentially giant-sized nails (of concrete, steel or timber) that are either driven into the subsoil (in which case they displace the soil in their place) or are placed-in after boring holes in subsoil (in which case they replace the soil in their place). These giant-sized- 'nails' can be square, rectangular, H-shaped or circular in section (20 to 200 cm or more in diameter), and can range in length from about 4 to 40 m or more. A group of piles is capped together at top (usually by a reinforced concrete cap) to support the pier or abutment body above. Caisson is basically constructed at the open surface level in portions and sunk downwards by essentially mechanically excavating soil from within its dredge-hole all the way till its cutting edge reaches the desired founding level, after which the well is effectively sealed (i.e.. plugged) at
10
Chapter-1
Introduction
bottom, then filled by sand (at least partly), and then capped at or near the surface level. The pier or abutment body is then constructed on the cap. Pile Foundations:Piles are columnar elements in a foundation which have the function of transferring load from the superstructure through weak compressible strata or through water, onto stiffer or more compact and less compressible soils or onto rock. They may be required to carry uplift loads when used to support tall structures subjected to overturning forces from winds or waves. Piles used in marine structures are subjected to lateral loads from the impact of berthing ships and from waves. Combinations of vertical and horizontal loads are carried where piles are used to support retaining walls, bridge piers and abutments, and machinery foundations. The British Standard Code of Practice for Foundations (BS 8004) places piles in three categories. These are as follows: Large displacement piles comprise solid-section piles or hollow-section piles with a closed end, which are driven or jacked into the ground and thus displace the soil. All types of driven and cast-in-place piles come into this category. Small-displacement piles are also driven or jacked into the ground but have a relatively small cross-sectional area. They include rolled steel H- or I-sections, and pipe or box sections driven with an open end such that the soil enters the hollow section. Where these pile types plug with soil during driving they become large displacement types. Replacement piles are formed by first removing the soil by boring using a wide range of drilling techniques. Concrete may be placed into an unlined or lined hole, or the lining may be withdrawn as the concrete is placed. Preformed elements of timber, concrete, or steel may be placed in drilled holes. Types of piles in each of these categories can be listed as follows. Large displacement piles (driven types) 1. Timber (round or square section, jointed or continuous). 2. Precast concrete (solid or tubular section in continuous or jointed units). 3. Prestressed concrete (solid or tubular section). 4. Steel tube (driven with closed end). 5. Steel box (driven with closed end). 6. Fluted and tapered steel tube. 7. Jacked-down steel tube with closed end. 8. Jacked-down solid concrete cylinder. A Comparative Study Of RCC & Steel Pile Foundation For An Integral Bridge 11
Chapter-1 Large displacement piles (driven and cast-in-place types) 1. Steel tube driven and withdrawn after placing concrete. 2. Precast concrete shell filled with concrete.
Introduction
3. Thin-walled steel shell driven by withdrawable mandrel and then filled with concrete. Small-displacement piles 1. Precast concrete (tubular section driven with open end). 2. Prestressed concrete (tubular section driven with open end). 3. Steel H-section. 4. Steel tube section (driven with open end and soil removed as required). 5. Steel box section (driven with open end and soil removed as required). Replacement piles 1. Concrete placed in hole drilled by rotary auger, baling, grabbing, airlift or reversecirculation methods (bored and cast in place). 2. Tubes placed in hole drilled as above and filled with concrete as necessary. 3. Precast concrete units placed in drilled hole. 4. Cement mortar or concrete injected into drilled hole. 5. Steel sections placed in drilled hole. 6. Steel tube drilled down. Composite piles Numerous types of piles of composite construction may be formed by combining units in each of the above categories, or by adopting combinations of piles in more than one category. Thus composite piles of a displacement type can be formed by jointing a timber section to a precast concrete section, or a precast concrete pile can have an H-section jointed to its lower extremity. Composite piles consisting of more than one type can be formed by driving a steel or precast concrete unit at the base of a drilled hole, or by driving a tube and then drilling out the soil and extending the drill hole to form a bored and cast in place pile. 1.2.1 Selection of pile type The selection of the appropriate type of pile from any of the above categories depends on the following three principal factors: The location and type of structure The ground conditions Durability Considering the first factor, some form of displacement pile is the first choice for a marine structure. A solid precast or prestressed concrete pile can be used in fairly shallow water, but A Comparative Study Of RCC & Steel Pile Foundation For An Integral Bridge 12
Chapter-1
Introduction
in deep water a solid pile becomes too heavy to handle and either a steel tubular pile or a circular cast in place RCC pile is used. Steel tubular piles are preferred to H-sections for exposed marine conditions because of the smaller drag forces from waves and currents. Piling for a structure on land is open to a wide choice in any of the three categories. Bored and cast-in-place piles are the cheapest type where unlined or only partly-lined holes can be drilled by rotary auger. These piles can be drilled in very large diameters and provided with enlarged or grout-injected bases, and thus are suitable to withstand high working loads. Augered piles are also suitable where it is desired to avoid ground heave, noise and vibration, i.e. for piling in urban areas, particularly where stringent noise regulations are enforced. Driven and cast-inplace piles are economical for land structures where light or moderate loads are to be carried, but the ground heave, noise and vibration associated with these types may make them unsuitable for some environments. Timber piles are suitable for light to moderate loadings in countries where timber is easily obtainable. Steel or precast concrete driven piles are not as economical as driven or bored and cast-in-place piles for land structures. Jacked-down steel tubes or concrete units are used for underpinning work. The second factor, ground conditions, influences both the material forming the pile and the method of installation. Firm to stiff cohesive soils favour the augered bored pile, but augering without support of the borehole by a bentonite slurry, cannot be performed in very soft clays, or in loose or water-bearing granular soils, for which driven or driven-and-cast-in-place piles would be suitable. Piles with enlarged bases formed by auger drilling can be installed only in firm to stiff or hard cohesive soils or in weak rocks. Driven and driven-and-cast-in-place piles cannot be used in ground containing boulders or other massive obstructions, nor can they be used in soils subject to ground heave, in situations where this phenomenon must be prevented. Driven-and-cast-in-place piles which employ a withdrawable tube cannot be used for very deep penetrations because of the limitations of jointing and pulling out the driving tube. For such conditions either a driven pile or a mandrel-driven thin walled shell pile would be suitable. For hard driving conditions, e.g., boulder clays or gravelly soils, a thick-walled steel tubular pile or a steel H-section can withstand heavier driving than a precast concrete pile of solid or tubular section. Thin steel shell piles are liable to tearing when being driven through soils containing boulders or similar obstructions. Some form of drilled pile, such as a drilledin steel tube, would be used for piles taken down into a rock for the purpose of mobilizing resistance to uplift or lateral loads.
13
Chapter-1
Introduction
The factor of durability affects the choice of material for a pile. Although timber piles are cheap in some countries they are liable to decay above ground-water level, and in marine structures they suffer damage by destructive mollusc-type organisms. Precast concrete piles do not suffer corrosion in saline water below the splash zone, and rich well-compacted concrete can withstand attack from quite high concentrations of sulphates in soils and ground waters. Cast-in-place concrete piles are not so resistant to aggressive substances because of difficulties in ensuring complete compaction of the concrete, but protection can be provided against attack by placing the concrete in permanent linings of coated light-gauge metal or plastics. Steel piles can have a long life in ordinary soil conditions if they are completely embedded in undisturbed soil but the portions of a pile exposed to sea water or to disturbed soil must be protected against corrosion by suitable means if a long life is required. Bored And Cast In Place Piles: In stable ground an unlined hole can be drilled by hand or mechanical auger. If reinforcement is required, a reinforcement cage is then placed in the hole, followed by the concrete. In loose or water-bearing soils and in broken rocks casing is needed to support the sides of the borehole, this casing may be withdrawn during or after placing the concrete. In stiff to hard clays and in weak rocks an enlarged base can be formed to increase the endbearing resistance of the piles The enlargement is formed by a rotating expanding tool, or by hand excavation in piles having a large shaft diameter. A sufficient cover of stable cohesive soil must be left over the top of the enlargement in order to avoid a run of loose or weak soil into the unlined cavity. Bored piles drilled by mechanical spiral-plate or bucket augers or by grabbing rigs can drill piles with a shaft diameter up to 7.3m, but it is usual to limit the maximum size to 2.13m diameter to suit the auger plant generally available. Boreholes up to 120m deep are possible with the larger rotary auger machines. For reasons of economy and the need to develop skin friction on the shaft, it is the normal practice to withdraw the casing during or after placing the concrete. As in the case of drivenand-cast-in-place piles, this procedure requires care and conscientious workmanship by the operatives in order to prevent the concrete being lifted by the casing and thus resulting in voids in the shaft or inclusions of collapsed soil. The shafts or bored-and-cast-in-place piles are liable to necking or waisting in soft clays or peats. Sometimes a permanent casing of light spirally-welded metal may provided over the portion of the shaft within these soil types.
14
Chapter-1 Steel Piles:
Introduction
Steel piles have the advantages of being robust, light to handle, capable of carrying high compressive loads when driven on to a hard stratum, and capable of being driven hard to a deep penetration to reach a bearing stratum or to develop a high skin frictional resistance, although their cost per metre run is high compared with precast concrete piles. They can be designed as small displacement piles, which is advantageous in situations where ground heave and lateral displacement must be avoided. They can be readily cut down and extended where the level of the bearing stratum varies; also the head of a pile which buckles during driving can be cut down and re-trimmed for further driving. They have a good resilience and high resistance to buckling and bending forces. Types of steel piles include plain tubes, box-sections, H-sections, and tapered and fluted tubes (Monotubes). Hollow-section piles can be driven with open ends. If the base resistance must be eliminated when driving hollow-section piles to a deep penetration, the soil within the pile can be cleaned out by grabbing, by augers, by reverse water-circulation drilling, or by airlift. It is not always necessary to fill hollow-section piles with concrete. In normal undisturbed soil conditions they should have an adequate resistance to corrosion during the working life of a structure, and the portion of the pile above the sea bed in marine structures or in disturbed ground can be protected by cathodic means, supplemented by bituminous or resin coatings or by any other suitable means. Concrete filling may be undesirable in marine structures where resilience, rather than rigidity, is required to deal with bending and impact forces. Piles are driven open ended to increase the ease of penetration, particularly when dense sand layers exist in the soil stratum. This enables the pile to be installed to the full design length and thus the design capacity of the pile to be obtained. This is especially relevant to long piles which are often designed for friction, with the end bearing component making little contribution to the final capacity. In this mode of penetration a plug of soil forms up the middle of the pile. Generally a concrete plug is formed at junction of pile with superstructure for transferring forces to piles. Geotechnical and structural design of bored cast in situ RCC pile as well as driven steel pile is described in proceeding chapters.
15
CHAPTER2 LITERATUREREVIEW
Chapter-2
Literature Review
2.1 Literature Review:

1. Tomlinson M.J., Pile Design And Construction Practice, E & FN Spon, Fourth Edition This book provides all the basic details about pile foundations. It covers almost every aspects of piling including analysis for vertical as well as lateral loading, design, construction of different types of piles. Also topics covered in the book such as piling for marine and offshore structures helped in carrying out research work. Problems related to lateral loadings have been given detailed treatment in this book. 2. Poulos H.G. and Davis E.H., Pile Foundation Analysis and Design, John Willey And Sons Publications. This book provides detail information about various methods for analysis of different types of piles and pile groups for vertical and lateral loadings. Settlement analysis of piles and pile groups is also presented in detail in the book. Special topics such as pile-raft systems, piles in swelling-shrinking soils, piles in soil undergoing lateral movements are also covered in the book. 3. Bowles Joseph E., Foundation Analysis and Design, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., Fifth Edition. This book provides basic knowledge regarding soil mechanics and foundation analysis in general. Non-linear behavior of piles is explained here with methods like FEM, FDM and closed form solution approach. Use of modulus of subgrade reaction in analyzing pile for lateral loading is also explained in detail. Modelling of soil-pile interaction in the form of providing spring stiffness is shown in the book. 4. Raina V.K., Concrete Bridge Practice, The McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited, Second Edition. This book covers almost all the aspects of concrete bridges. Topics such as structural analysis and design of superstructure and substructure of different types of concrete bridges, distribution of thermal stresses, bearings etc. are covered in book which are partly applicable to marine structures also. 5. Dawson Thomas H., Offshore Structural Engineering, United Status Naval Academy Detailed information regarding calculation of environmental loads and effect of these loading on offshore structures is provided in this book. 6. Hambly E.C., Bridge Deck Behavior, E & F N Spon Publications, Second Edition
17
Chapter-2
Literature Review
Different methods of analysis of different types of bridge deck systems are given in the book. 7. Obrien Eugene J. and Keogh Damien L., Design Details Of Integral Bridges. Integral bridge concept is discussed in this book in detail. Topics such as modeling of expansion and contraction of integral bridges, connection in integral bridges, time dependent effects in composite integral bridges are covered in this book. 8. Tandon Mahesh, Recent Integral Bridges In this paper author has provided conceptual information of integral bridges. Advantages and disadvantages of integral bridges versus conventional bridges are presented in this paper. It also provides details of integral bridges built in India. 9. Roman Eugenia, Khodair Yasser and Sophia Hassiotis, Design Details Of Integral Bridges Details of connections of approach slab with bridge deck, abutment with bridge decks for integral bridge systems are studied in this paper. 10. API Recommended Practice 2A-WSD This standard of American Petroleum Institute gives specifications for design of superstructure as well as sub structure of fixed offshore platform. It is also widely used in field for geotechnical and structural design of driven steel piles. In this thesis also , this standard is referred for steel pile design. 11. Coastal Engineering Manual 2006 - US Army Corps Of Engineers This excellent publication from US Army Corps Of Engineers gives extensively detailed information regarding almost all aspects of coastal structures. Manual is widely used as a standard for assessing the effects of environmental loads such as waves, current etc. Planning, design and re-strengthening of coastal structures, effects of environmental forces on coastal structures, case studies etc. are covered in detail in this manual. Theoretical background of waves and assessment of wave forces are discussed in detail in it. In thesis, this manual has been referred for calculation of wave forces on piles.
18
CHAPTER3 PROJECTDESCRIPTION
Chapter-3
Project Description
3.1 Project Description:

Piled approach connects offshore berth to the rock bund which is connected to shore. Offshore berth is a free standing structure on piles and connected to shore by 2410 m long approach. The approach has an 1167.9 m bridge portion supported on piles apart from a rubble bund portion of about 1240 m long. The approach bridge and bund will provide access to back up yard. The general arrangement drawings are shown in Appendix C. Approach bridge carries 7.5 m wide carriageway with provision for steel trestle for conveyor galleries. The structure consists of bored cast in situ piles with pilecap beams spanning across pile bents. Entire approach is divided into 7 unit each unit consisting of approximately 125 m length. Each unit consists of approximately 13 pile bents at a spacing of 12m. Each unit is separated from adjacent unit by expansion gaps. Site Information: 1. Wind: Basic wind speed : 19 m/s for operating condition; 44 m/s for storm condition. 2. Tidal Data: Principal levels with reference to chart datum (0.0m ) are given below: HAT MHWS MHWN MSL MLWN MLWS LAT : : : : : : : 10.1 9.1 7.1 5.1 3.0 1.0 0.0 m m m m m m m
3. Wave Data: Description Wave Height (m) Direction Of Approach Time Period (sec) 4. Current Data: The design current parameters to be considered are as below: Current velocity at surface : 3.85 m/s 2.25 m/s Operating Condition 2.2 180-270 N 6.0 Survival Condition 6.5 210 N 10.0
Current velocity at mid depth :
20
Chapter-3 Current velocity at bottom : 1.80 m/s
Project Description
Direction of current is NNE during flood and SSW during ebb. 5. Levels: Design dredged level for approach varies from (+) 3.15 m to (-) 15.0 m. The deck elevation of the approach shall be (+) 15.0 m for units 1 to 6. Deck level shall be gradually increased from (+)15.0m to (+)17.0 m CD in last unit. 6. Earthquake: Seismic loading will be considered in accordance with IS: 1893 (part 1): 2000. 50 % live load shall be considered during earthquake. 7. Design Life: Design life will be considered as 50 years for approach. 8. Deflection: Horizontal deflection will be checked under serviceability load combinations and will be limited to 50mm at top of deck to suit proper functioning of material handling system installed over deck. 9. Scour: General Scour- A scour of 4m in deep water and 1.0 m in shallow water from sea bed level will be considered in design. Sea bed level upto (+)1.0m CD will be considered as shallow water and greater than that will be considered as deep water. Local Scour In addition to the general scour, a local scour of 1.0 m around pile will also be considered. 10. Crack width: Crack width will be checked under serviceability load combinations and will be limited to 0.004 times clear cover to main reinforcement. 11. Parameters for materials: Grade of concrete: M40 for piles and M30 for beams and slab of superstructure. Grade of reinforcement: Fe500 conforming to IS 1786 12. Load Combinations: Load combinations for analysis and design are considered in accordance with IS: 4651(part 4) and IS 456:2000. Analysis and Design: The 3-D modeling and analysis of the structure is carried out with Staadpro 2007 package. Structural design of RCC elements is done for Limit state of collapse and checked for limit state of serviceability as per IS:456-2000. The geotechnical design of bored cast in situ RCC A Comparative Study Of RCC & Steel Pile Foundation For An Integral Bridge 21
Chapter-3
Project Description
piles is also carried out as per the IS:2911 (part 1/sec 2)-1979. Structural as well as geotechnical design of steel piles is done in accordance with API RP 2A-WSD. Analysis and design is carried out keeping in view construction stages. Design of superstructure member is checked for each of the following construction stages (refer Appendix D): Initially piles will be constructed. Precast pile muffs will be placed over piles and then concreting will be done for pile muff hole. Precast pliecap beams will be placed over precast pilemuff and stage-I concreting will be done over pile muff upto top of precast pilecap beam. As stage-I concrete integrates with the precast pilecap beam, pilecap beam will start behaving as a continuous member. After achieving required strength, precast longitudinal beams will be placed over precast pilecap beams. Precast deck planks will be placed over precast longitudinal beams then and stage-II concreting upto top of deck will be done. Three types of models are used in analysis. Model-1 is used for analysis of the structure for moving loads. All possible moving load combinations loads in accordance with IRC:62000 are generated to attain any position on the carriageway portion. Different worst possible positions of vehicles were identified from this model for producing maximum stresses in piles and superstructure components like pilecap beams, longitudinal girder and slab. Results of this model are used for generating moving load in main analysis model i.e. model-2. Model-2 is used for analysis of piles and superstructure for all possible loads and load combination. Model-3 is used for analysis of structure for stage-II loads. Stage-II loads are dead loads imposed on pilecap beam after stage-I concreting and remaining live loads as well as environmental loads. Results of this model are used for crack width check. In all staad models, soil is modeled in the form of springs providing stiffness to piles in all the three directions. In model, pilecap beams are modeled as inverted U shape beam and longitudinal T beams are modeled as rectangular beams ignoring haunch portion. Load combinations are in accordance with relevant IS codes. Description of loads and load combinations is presented in proceeding chapters. Structural design of piles is done using spreadsheets RCC PILE DESIGN, STEEL PILE DESIGN. Geotechnical design of piles is done using spreadsheets RCC PILE CAPACITY and STEEL PILE CAPACITY Structural design of super-structural elements is done using spreadsheets BEAM DESIGN and BEAM DESIGN. Soil
22
Chapter-3
Project Description
stiffness is calculated using spreadsheet SPRING CONSTANT. However sample calculation is presented for each of the above mentioned calculations.
23
CHAPTER4 PILEANALYSIS
Chapter-4
Pile Analysis
4.1 Load Description:

Loads are differentiated between static and dynamic. The static loads on the structure come from gravity loads, deck loads, hydrostatic loads and current loads. The dynamic loads originate from the variable wind and waves. Following is the list of main loads whose effects should be analyzed to estimate the forces (shear, moments etc.) at all critical sections of the structure. Only then the structure should be designed for those forces to decide section size, reinforcement, prestress etc., so as to resist these forces at the specified stress levels and serviceability criteria (crack width, deflections etc.) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Dead load of the structure Construction, erection and handling loads Vehicular and other possible live load Impact load of moving live load Braking force Wind load Seismic force Wave force Water current force Buoyancy Thermal effect Secondary effects (creep, shrinkage etc.)
All above mentioned loads are briefly discussed here: 1. Dead Load : It includes weight of all permanent portions of the entire structure and includes weights of the anticipated future additions. a). Structural Dead Loads- Structural dead loads are the loads imposed on a member by its own weight and the weight of the other structural elements that it supports including rails, side walks, slabs, beams etc. This dead load may come in stages in case of stage construction b). Super Imposed Dead Loads- In addition to the structural dead loads, member should be designed to support the weight of the super imposed dead loads including footpath, earth fill, wearing course, kerbs , pipes, cables and any other immovable appurtenances installed on the structure. 2. Construction, Erection and Handling Loads: Consideration should be given to the effect of temporary imposed by sequence of construction stages, forming, false work and construction equipment and the stresses created A Comparative Study Of RCC & Steel Pile Foundation For An Integral Bridge 24
Chapter-4
Pile Analysis
by lifting or placing precast members. The stability of the precast members during and after construction should be investigated. 3. Live Load: Bridge design standards specify the design loads, which are meant to reflect the worst loading that can be caused on the bridge by traffic, permitted and expected to pass over it. For the highway bridges, the Indian Road Congress has specified standard design loadings in IRC section II. IRC: 6 - 2000 section II gives the specifications for the various loads and stresses to be considered in bridge design. There are three types of standard loadings for which the bridges are designed namely, IRC class AA loading, IRC class A loading and IRC class B loading. Within kerb to kerb width of roadway, the standard vehicle or train of standard vehicle shall be assumed to travel parallel to the length of the bridge and shall be assumed to occupy any position which will produce maximum stresses provided that the specified minimum clear distance between a vehicle and the roadway face of the kerb and between two passing or crossing vehicles is not encroached upon. For each of the standard vehicle or train, all axle of a unit of vehicles shall be considered as acting simultaneously in a position causing maximum stresses. Brief description of these standard loadings is given here.
Fig.4 IRC Class AA Loading IRC class AA loading consists of either a tracked vehicle of 70 tonnes or a wheeled vehicle of 40 tonnes with dimensions as shown in Fig. 4. The units in the figure are mm for length and tonnes for load. Normally, bridges on national highways and state highways are designed for A Comparative Study Of RCC & Steel Pile Foundation For An Integral Bridge 25
Chapter-4
Pile Analysis
these loadings. Bridges designed for class AA should be checked for IRC class A loading also, since under certain conditions, larger stresses may be obtained under class A loading. Sometimes class 70 R loading given in the Appendix - I of IRC: 6 - 2000 - Section II can be used for IRC class AA loading. IRC classs 70R loading also consists of either a tracked vehicle of 70 tonnes or a wheeled vehicle of 100 tonnes as shown in Figure 5. Tracked vehicle of class AA and class 70R are same in terms of loading with the difference in their dimension as shown in figures.
Fig.5 IRC Class 70R Loading
Fig.6 IRC Class A Loading
Fig.7 IRC Class B Loading Class A loading consists of a wheel load train composed of a driving vehicle and two trailers of specified axle spacing. This loading is normally adopted on all roads on which permanent bridges are constructed. Class B loading is adopted for temporary structures and for bridges in specified areas. Nominal pedestrian live load is considered on portion adjacent to carriage way A Comparative Study Of RCC & Steel Pile Foundation For An Integral Bridge 26
Chapter-4
Pile Analysis
and conveyor area. Live load due to operation of conveyor which includes belt pull, material live load, belt and idler weight is also considered. 4. Impact Load On Moving Live Load: The dynamic force induced by vehicle-bridge interaction resulting from the passage of vehicles plays a significant role in bridge design. In practice to allow for such a dynamic effect, it is required that static vehicle force be increased by a dynamic allowance factor, called the impact factor in design. However, it has been observed that dynamic vehicle load on bridge depends on dynamic properties of vehicle, dynamic properties of bridge, vehicle speed and bridge surface roughness. This dynamic force is an important parameter in bridge design and evaluation. In addition to the importance in design, dynamic vehicle load causes subtle problems and contributes to fatigue, surface wear and cracking of concrete that leads to corrosion. It continually degrades bridges and increases the necessity of regular maintenance. The need to develop an approach and derive a simple closed form solution to predict the dynamic vehicle load for applications of bridge design is apparent. More detailed analysis is required to reach such a closed form solution which is out of scope of this study. While the actual modeling of this effect can be a complex affair, the impact factor used by IRC allows for a conservative solution of the problem. As per Cl. 211 of IRC:6-2000, impact factor for standard vehicles is given as under: For class A & B loading: a). Impact factor for RCC bridges = 4.5/(6+L) b). Impact factor for steel bridges = 9/(13.5+L), where L is span in meters. For class AA & 70R loading: a). For spans less than 9 m: i). For tracked vehicles- 25% for spans upto 5m linearly reducing to 10% for spans of 9m ii). For wheeled vehicles- 25% b). For spans of 9 m or more: i). RCC bridgesFor tracked vehicles- 10% for spans up to 40 m and in accordance with given in figure 5 for span in excess of 40 m. For wheeled vehicles- 25% for spans up to 12 m and in accordance with the curve given in figure 5 for span in excess of 12 m. ii). Steel bridgesFor tracked vehicles- 10% for all spans the curve
27
Chapter-4
Pile Analysis
For wheeled vehicles- 25% for spans up to 23 m and in accordance with the curve given in Figure 8 for span in excess of 23 m.
Fig.8 Curves For Impact Factor As per Cl. 211.7 of IRC:6-2000, for calculating pressure on the bearings and on the top surface of the bed blocks, full value of the appropriate impact factor is allowed. But for the design of piers, abutment and structures, generally below the level of top of bed block, the appropriate impact factor shall be multiplied by factor given by below: a). for calculating pressure at the bottom surface of bed block - 0.5 b). for calculating pressure on top 3m of the structure below the bottom surface of bed block 0.5 c). for calculating pressure on the portion of the structure more than 3m below the bed block 0 5. Braking Force: Braking force comes under the category of longitudinal forces. These longitudinal forces arise from one or more of the following causes: a). b). c). Tractive effort caused through acceleration of the driving wheels; Braking effect resulting from the application of the brakes to braked wheels; and Frictional resistance offered to the movement of free bearings due to change of temperature or any other cause. However, generally braking effect is invariably greater than the tractive effort.
28
Chapter-4
Pile Analysis
As per IRC, the braking effect on a simply supported span or a continuous span or any other type of bridge unit shall be assumed to have the following value: a). In case of single lane or a two lane bridge: 20% of the first train load plus 10% of load of succeeding train or part thereof, the train load in one lane only being considered at a time. Where the first train is not entirely covering the full span, the braking force shall be taken as equal to 20% of the loads actually on the span. b). In case of bridge having more than two lanes: as in a). above for the first two lanes plus 5% of the loads on the lanes in excess of two. This braking force is assumed to act at a height of 1.2 m above the roadway surface. The distribution of longitudinal horizontal forces among bridge supports is affected by horizontal deformation of bridges, flexing of supports and rotation of foundations. IRC:6 gives procedure for the distribution of horizontal forces for spans resting on stiff and flexible supports. As present case is of flexible supports, only later case is presented here. In simple and continuous decks with flexible supports, distribution of horizontal forces can estimated after taking into account of deformation of bearings, flexing of piers and abutment and rotation of foundation as well as location of Zero Movement Point (Z.M.P.) of the deck. Shear rating of a support is the horizontal force required to move the top of the support through a unit distance taking into account horizontal deformation of the bridge, flexibility of the support and rotation of the foundation. The distribution of the horizontal forces depends solely on shear ratings of the supports and may be estimated in proportion of shear rating of individual support to the sum of shear ratings of all the supports. But here in this study, braking force to be distributed to each support is calculated as total braking forces divided by number of supports because there are other horizontal forces which are large in magnitude (wave, wind, satisfactory results. 6. Wind Load: Wind load on a bridge may act Horizontally, transverse to the direction of span. Horizontally, along the direction of span, Vertically upwards, causing uplifts. Wind load on vehicles. current, earthquake etc.) which are governing the design. So distribution of the braking force like above mentioned method gives quite
29
Chapter-4
Pile Analysis
Wind load may not generally significant in short span bridges. For medium span bridges, the design of substructure is affected by wind loading. The super structure design is affected by wind only in case of long span bridges. The bridge covered in this study project is not of long span but still effect of wind force on the structure is analyzed for because it is situated into the sea and flexibility and slenderness of the piles. Wind force is calculated in accordance with IS:875 part 3 -1987. A brief description of wind load is presented here. Wind means motion of air in atmosphere. The response of structure to wind depends upon characteristics of wind. From point of view of assessing wind load, it is convenient to divide the wind into two categories: rotating and non rotating. Rotating winds are caused by tropical cyclones and tornadoes. The wind speed caused by this may exceed 200 km/h. Non rotating winds are caused by differential pressures and thus move in the preferred direction. These are also called pressure system wind. Their speed can also exceed 200 km/h. A large number of structures those are being constructed at present tend to be wind sensitive because of their shapes, slenderness, flexibility, size and lightness. Tall and slender structures are flexible and exhibit a dynamic response to wind. Tall structure vibrate in the wind due to turbulence inherent in the wind as well as that generated by the structure itself due to separation of the flow. Thus there is a mean and fluctuating response to the wind. Besides this dynamic forces act not only in the direction of the wind flow but also in a direction perpendicular to it so that tall structures exhibit across wind response also. Along wind response has a mean component and fluctuating component. The latter is further expressed as a sum of background and resonant components. If the damping is small, which is usually the case, the bulk of the contribution is due to the resonant portion. Across wind response is on account of flow separation from cross section of the structure which results in vortices being shed at a given frequency. The pattern of this across wind phenomenon is comparatively more regular for circular sections such as those for chimneys and towers which can undergo resonant vibrations when the structural frequency matches with the forcing frequency. The response is affected significantly by the turbulence content of the wind. A theoretical treatment of tall slender structures in the along wind direction is better developed than for across wind direction and for this reason it may be advisable to undertake model studies in a wind tunnel for such structures. Clause 7.1 of IS:875 (part 3)-1987 contains methods of evaluating the dynamic effects of wind on flexible structures that can oscillate in wind. The wind on earths surface is turbulent in nature that gives rise to randomly varying wind pressures about a certain value associated A Comparative Study Of RCC & Steel Pile Foundation For An Integral Bridge 30
Chapter-4
Pile Analysis
with the mean wind speed. The dynamic part of the wind pressure would set up oscillations in a flexible structure which may be defined as one having the fundamental time period of vibration more than 1 second. Oscillations will thus be caused in the along wind direction. Flexible structures also respond to across wind direction on account of vortex shedding. In the cross wind direction, a flexible structure would tend to oscillate due to shedding of eddies alternately from either side of the structure at regular intervals, thus imposing a dynamic force that has a major component in a direction normal to that of wind(lift) and only a small component along the wind(drag). The frequency of eddy shedding is dependent on structural size, shape and wind speed, all grouped into a non dimensional parameter called Strouhal Number. The present code does not lay down any specific procedure for determining the design wind force related to the cross wind motion. Code gives for procedure for only determining along wind force using Gust Factor method. This method uses hourly mean wind speed concept instead of 3 second gust wind speed as in static method of calculating wind pressures. The static wind pressure thus obtained is then multiplied by Gust factor G. The structure is considered to vibrate in its fundamental mode of vibration. The gust factor G includes the effect of non correlation of the peak pressures by defining a size reduction factor S. It also accounts for the resonant and the nonresonant effects of the random wind pressures. The equation for G contains two terms one for the low frequency wind speed variations called the non resonant or background effects and other for resonance effects. The first term accounts for the natural frequency of vibration of the structure while the second term depends on the gust energy and aerodynamic admittance at the natural frequency of vibration as well as on damping of the system. The resonant response is insignificant for rigid structures (T>1.0 sec). For flexible structures, the background factor B may be small resulting in reduced wind forces obtained from dynamic analysis as compared to static analysis. The roughness factor r together with the peak factor gf is a measure of the turbulence intensity present in the wind. Thus gf.r is equivalent to twice the turbulence intensity. The integral piled approach which is covered in this study is a flexible structure having natural time period of more than 1.0 second. So wind force is applied to the exposed face of the elements (pile, beams and slab) of the structure as per Gust factor method described in IS:875(part 3)-1987 using force coefficient in both lateral directions (positive and negative). In addition to this, wind load on moving vehicles over bridge as per Cl.212.4 of IRC:6-2000. This clause states that the lateral wind force against any exposed moving live load shall be
31
Chapter-4
Pile Analysis
considered as acting at 1.5 m above the roadway and shall be assumed to have the following values: Highway bridges, ordinary Highway bridges, carrying tramway of vehicles shall not be omitted. Wind load is applied both for operating case and extreme (storm wind) case. Wind speed considered in each of these cases is obtained from site investigation report. 7. Seismic Force: In general, structures subjected to earthquake forces are to be designed to survive the strains resulting from the design earthquake motion. Factors that are considered when designing to resist earthquake motions are: 1. The proximity of the site to known active faults. 2. The seismic response of the soil at the site. 3. The dynamic response characteristics of the total structure. Bridge as a whole and every part of it shall be designed and constructed to resist stresses produced by lateral forces produced due to earthquake. The stresses shall be calculated as the effect of a force applied horizontally at the centre of mass of the elements of the structure into which it is conveniently divided for the purpose of design. The forces shall be assumed to come from any horizontal direction. All components of the bridge, that is, superstructure, substructure, bearing, foundation and soil are susceptible to damage in the event of strong ground shaking. The earthquake resistant design should consider the effect of earthquake motions on each component of the bridge. The design should ensure that seismic resistance of the bridge and its components is adequate to meet the general requirement so that emergency communication after the earthquake shall be maintained with appropriate reliability for the design basis earthquake. As per IRC:6-2000, all bridges in seismic zone V shall be designed for seismic forces. Major bridges i.e. with total lengths of more than 60m in zones III and IV shall be designed for seismic forces. Bridges in zones I and II need not be designed for seismic forces. The vertical seismic coefficient shall be considered in case of structures built in zone IV and V in which stability is criterion for design or for overall stability analysis of the structure. Following are the assumptions given in the draft version of IS:1893-1984 Criteria For Earthquake Resistant Design Of Structures (Part 3) Bridges and Retaining Walls for the earthquake analysis of bridges: 300 kg/linear meter. 450 kg/linear meter.
While calculating the wind force on live load, clear distance between the trailers of train
32
Chapter-4
Pile Analysis
a) The seismic forces due to design basis earthquake (DBE) should not be combined with design wind forces, b) The scour to be considered for design shall be based on mean design flood. In the absence of detailed data the scour to be considered for design shall be 0.9 times the maximum design scour depth, c) The earthquake accelerations should be applied to full mass in case of submerged structures and not on buoyant mass, d) The seismic force on live load in bridges should not be considered in longitudinal direction. The seismic force on live load should be considered in transverse direction as, e) The seismic force on flowing mass of water in the longitudinal direction in case of aqueducts should not be considered, however seismic force on this water mass be considered in transverse direction. The hydrodynamic action of water on the walls of water carrying trough be considered on liquid retaining structures, f) The earthquake accelerations on embedded portion of bridges foundation should be reduced as per provisions made in code , g) The value of elastic modulus of material, where required, may be taken as for static analysis unless a more definite value is available for use in seismic condition. As per IS:1893-1984 Criteria For Earthquake Resistant Design Of Structures, seismic force due to live load shall be ignored while acting in the direction of traffic but shall be taken into consideration while acting in the direction perpendicular to traffic. Seismic force due to live load shall be calculated for 50% of the design live load excluding impact for railway bridges and 25% of the design live load excluding impact for road bridges. For calculating stresses due to live load during earthquake, 100% design live load for railway bridges and 50% design live load for road bridge is considered. Horizontal as well as vertical seismic coefficient shall be calculated based on specifications given in IS:1893-2002. The super structure of the bridge shall have a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 against overturning in the transverse direction due to simultaneous action of horizontal and vertical accelerations. The seismic forces on the sub structure above the normal scour depth shall be as follows: 1). 2). Horizontal and vertical forces due to dead, live and seismic loads transferred from Horizontal and vertical seismic forces due to self-weight applied at the centre of mass superstructure to the substructure through the bearings. ignoring reduction due to buoyancy or uplift. A Comparative Study Of RCC & Steel Pile Foundation For An Integral Bridge 33
Chapter-4 3).
Pile Analysis
Hydrodynamic force acting on piers and modification in earth pressure due to
earthquake given in acting on abutments. The hydrodynamic force on submerged portion of pier is also assumed to act in a horizontal direction corresponding to that of earthquake motion. The total horizontal force is given by the following formula: F = Ce Ah We Where, Ce Ah We = = = a coefficient (see Table 1) design horizontal seismic coefficient weight of water in the enveloping cylinder. Table1- Values Of Ce Height Of Submerged Portion Of Pier (H) / Radius Of Enveloping Cylinder 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 following Figure 9. Ce 0.390 0.575 0.675 0.730
4.1
Some typical cases of submerged portion of piers and enveloping cylinders are illustrated in
Figure.9 Enveloping Cylinders A typical diagram showing distribution of hydrodynamic pressure is shown in the Figure 10 below. Values of coefficients C1,C2,C3 and C4 for use in figure are shown in Table 2.
34
Chapter-4
Pile Analysis
Figure.10 Pressure Distribution Table2- Pressure Distribution Co-efficient C1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 06 0.8 1.0 C2 0.410 0.673 0.832 0.922 0.970 0.990 0.999 1.000 C3 0.026 0.093 0184 0.289 0.403 0.521 0.760 1.000 C4 0.9345 0.8712 0.8103 0.7515 0.6945 0.6390 0.5320 0.4286
When relative movement between two adjacent units of a bridge are designed to occur at a separation/expansion joint, sufficient clearance shall be provided between them, to permit the calculated relative movement under design earthquake conditions to freely occur without inducing damage. Where the two units may be out of phase, the clearance to be provided may be estimated as the square root of the sum of squares of the calculated displacements of the two units under maximum elastic seismic forces. A Comparative Study Of RCC & Steel Pile Foundation For An Integral Bridge 35
Chapter-4 8. Wave Force:
Pile Analysis
Wave force on vertical cylindrical pile is calculated in accordance with Coastal Engineering Manual (Part 6)-2006. A brief description of the same is given here: Morison et al. (1950) suggested that the horizontal force per unit length of a vertical cylindrical pile subjected to waves is analogous to the mechanism by which fluid forces on bodies occur in unidirectional flow, and this force can be expressed by the formulation,
f = fi + f D = CM Where, fi fD D u CD CM
D 2 du
4 dt
+ CD
1 Du u 2
4.2
= inertial force per unit length of pile; = drag force per unit length of pile; = mass density of fluid; = pile diameter; = horizontal water particle velocity at the axis of the pile; = drag hydrodynamic force coefficient; = inertia or mass hydrodynamic coefficient;
du/dt = horizontal water particle acceleration;
Variables important in determining wave forces on circular pile subjected to wave motion are shown in Figure.11 below.
Figure.11 Definition Sketch Of Wave Forces On A Vertical Cylinder.
36
Chapter-4
Pile Analysis
The inertia force fi term is of the form obtained from an analysis of the force on a body in an accelerated flow of an ideal non viscous fluid. The drag force term fD is the drag force exerted on a cylinder in a steady flow of a real viscous fluid. Using linear wave theory, MacCamy and Fuchs (1954) analyzed theoretically the problem of waves passing a circular cylinder. Their analysis assumed an ideal non viscous fluid and led to an inertia force having the form given for fi under special conditions. Although their theoretical result is valid for all ratios of pile diameter to wavelength, D/L, the inertia force was found to be nearly proportional to the acceleration du/dt for small values of D/L (where L is wavelength calculated by linear theory). This theoretical result provides an indication of how small the pile should be for above equation to apply, and the restriction is given as:
D < 0.05 L Where L is calculated by linear wave theory. This restriction will seldom be violated for slender pile force calculations; however, the restriction may be important when applying above equation to larger structures such as cylindrical caissons. For application of above equation, it is necessary to choose an appropriate wave theory for estimating particle velocity and acceleration from values of wave height H, wave period T and water depth d and for that particular wave condition, appropriate values of coefficient CD & CM must be selected.
Calculation of forces and moments:
For structural design of a single vertical pile, it is often unnecessary to know in detail the distribution of forces over the height of the pile. Instead, the designer needs to know the total maximum force and the total maximum moment about the mud line (z = -d) acting on the pile. The total time-varying force and the time-varying moment acting about the mud line is found by integrating equation 4.2 between the bottom and the free surface, i.e.,
F=
f dz + f
i d n d
dz = Fi + FD
n
4.3
M = ( z + d ) f i dz + ( z + d ) f D dz = M i + M D
d
4.4
In general form these quantities may be written Fi = C M g
D 2
4
HK i
4.5
37
Chapter-4 FD = C D 1 gDH 2 K D 2
Pile Analysis
4.6
M i = C M g
D 2
4
HK i dS i
4.7
M D = CD
1 gDH 2 K D dS D 2
4.8
in which CM and CD may be assumed as constant and factors Ki,KD,Si and SD are dimensionless parameters that depends on the specific wave theory used in integrations.
Linear wave theory:
The force on a slender cylindrical pile can be estimated using linear wave theory, but the result is limited to situations where linear wave theory provides a reasonable approximation of the wave kinematics. This implies small amplitude waves and greater depths. With the pile center line located at x = 0, as shown in Figure 8, the equations for surface elevation, horizontal component of local fluid velocity and horizontal component of local fluid acceleration are respectively,
H 2t cos 2 T
H gT cosh[2 ( z + d ) / L] 2t cos 2 L cosh[2d / L] T
=
u=
4.9
4.10
Introducing above equations into basic equation of force gives following equations for inertia and drag force. f i = C M g
D 2
cosh[2 ( z + d ) / L] 2t H sin 4 L cosh[2d / L] T

2
4.11
gT 2 cosh[2 ( z + d ) / L ] 1 f D = C D gDH 2 2 2 4 L cosh[2d / L]
2t 2t cos cos T T
4.12
Above equations show that the two force components vary with elevation z on the pile and with time t. The inertia force fi is maximum for sin (-2t/T) = 1, which corresponds to t = -T/4 for linear wave theory. Thus, the maximum inertia force on the pile occurs T/4 seconds before the passage of the wave crest that occurs at t = 0. The maximum value of the drag force component fD coincides with passage of the wave crest at t = 0.
38
Chapter-4
Pile Analysis
The magnitude of the maximum inertia force per unit length of pile varies with depth the same as the horizontal acceleration component. The maximum value occurs at the swl (z = 0) and decreases with depth. The same trend is true for the maximum drag force per unit length of pile except the decrease with depth is more rapid because the depth attenuation factor (cosh[2(z+d)/L}/cosh[2d/L]) is squared in equation. The total time-varying force and the time-varying moment acting about the mudline is found for linear wave theory by integrating equations 4.11 & 4.12 between the bottom and the swl (z = 0) using the expressions for fi and fD given by equations respectively. The integration results in total force and moment components given by equations with values of the dimensionless parameters Ki , KD , Si , and SD given by, 1 2d 2t tanh sin 2 L T 1 4d / L 2t 2t tanh 1 + cos T cos T 8 sinh[4d / L]
Ki =
4.13
KD =
4.14
1 2t 2t n cos cos T 4 T 1 cosh[2d / L] (2d / L) sinh[2d / L]
Si = 1 +
4.15
SD =
1 1 1 1 cosh[4d / L] + 2 + (4d / L) sinh[4d / L] 2 2n 1 4d / L 1 + sinh[4d / L ] 2
4.16
Where, n= Cg C =
The maximum values for total inertia force and moment are found by taking t = -T/4 in equations. Likewise, the maximum values for total drag force and moment are found by taking t = 0 in equations. A conservative design approach would be to sum the individual maximum inertia and drag components that occur during a wave cycle to get total maximum force and
39
Chapter-4
Pile Analysis
moments. However, the individual maximums do not occur simultaneously, so the real maximum total force and moment will be somewhat less. The correct method is to calculate the time-varying sum of inertia and drag components, and then use the maximum sum that occurs over the wave cycle. The time at which the maximum occurs may vary depending on the selected values for CM and CD. Although linear wave theory provides a nice closed-form solution for forces and moments on slender cylindrical piles, in practice the hydrodynamics associated with the steeper design wave conditions will not be well predicted by linear wave theory. Even more critical is the fact that linear theory provides no estimate of the force caused by that portion of the wave above the swl, an area where the horizontal velocities and accelerations are the greatest. An adhoc adjustment is to assume a linear force distribution having a maximum value of force estimated at the still-water line and a value of zero at the crest location of the linear wave (H/2 above the swl). Most likely, the design wave will be nonlinear with steep wave crests and with much of the wave height above the swl, and it would be well advised to use an appropriate nonlinear wave theory in the force and moment calculation.
Non linear wave theory:
Design conditions for vertical cylindrical piles in coastal waters will most likely consist of nonlinear waves characterized by steep crests and shallow troughs. For accurate force and moment estimates, an appropriate nonlinear wave theory should be used to calculate values of u and du/dt corresponding to the design wave height, wave period, and water depth. The variation of fi and fD with time at any vertical location on the pile can be estimated using values of u and du/dt from as Stoke's fifth-order wave theory (Skjelbriea et al. 1960) or stream-function theory (Dean 1974). The separate total maximum inertia force and moment and total drag force and moment on a vertical cylindrical pile subjected to nonlinear waves can be estimated using equations 4.7 to 4.10. Values for Ki , KD , Si , and SD in these equations are given by Kim , KDm , Sim, and SDm , respectively, in the nomograms shown in Figures A.1 through A.4 of
Appendix A. These nomograms were constructed using stream-function theory (Dean 1974),
and they provide the maximum total force and total moment for the inertia and drag components considered separately rather than the combined total force and moment. The curves in these figures represent wave height as a fraction of the breaking wave height. Breaking wave height is obtained from Figure 12 for values of d /gT2 using the curve labeled Breaking Limit. Same figure can also be used for selecting appropriate wave theory for design wave. A Comparative Study Of RCC & Steel Pile Foundation For An Integral Bridge 40
Chapter-4
Pile Analysis
For linear waves, the maximum inertia force occurs at t = -T/4 and the maximum drag force occurs at t = 0. However, for nonlinear waves the times corresponding to maximum inertia and drag forces are phase dependent and not separated by a constant quarter wavelength as in linear wave theory. The total maximum force Fm, where the sum of the inertia and drag components is maximum can be estimated as,
Fm = m C D gH 2 D
Similarly maximum moment Mm can be estimated as,
4.17
M m = m C D gH 2 Dd
4.18
Values of m and m are estimated from Figure A.5 to A.6 of Appendix A. These figures are also constructed using stream function theory. Selection of figure depends upon non dimensional parameter W given as,
W = CM D CD H
4.19
41
Chapter-4
Pile Analysis
Figure.12 Breaking Wave Height & Regions Of Validity Of Various Wave Theories.
Wave force is calculated and applied for both operating and extreme (storm) cases.
9. Water Current Force:
For structures those are located in a place where there are strong currents such as a tidal currents or river flow, it is necessary to carry out investigations on the forces produced by the currents with largest velocity from the most unfavorable direction. Depending upon the type of the structures or members, it may also be necessary to consider vertical distribution of the current velocity. When waves coexist with currents, it is necessary to use the current velocity and direction in the state of coexistence. Type of currents in the sea area include ocean currents, tidal currents and wind driven drift currents along with density currents caused by density differences due to salinity or water temperature. In addition in the coastal area, there are longshore currents and rip currents caused by waves.
42
Chapter-4
Pile Analysis
Force due to water current is applied as per provisions given in IRC:6. As per Cl. 213 of IRC:6-2000, any part of a bridge which may be submerged in running water shall be designed to sustain safely the horizontal pressure due to the force of current. On piers parallel to the direction of water current, the intensity of pressure shall be calculated from the following equation: P = 52KV2 Where P = intensity of pressure in kg/m2; V = velocity of the current at the point where pressure is being calculated; K = a coefficient having following value for different shape of piers; a). square ended pier b). circular pier c). piers with triangular cut and ease waters, the angle included between faces being 30 degrees or less d). piers with triangular cut and ease waters, the angle included between faces being more than 30 degrees but less than 60 degrees e). piers with triangular cut and ease waters, the angle included between faces being more than 60 degrees but less than 90 degrees Current force is applied for operating and extreme cases. In operating case, mean sea level is considered as top water level and in extreme condition HAT level is considered as top water level.
10. Buoyancy:
4.20
= = = =
1.5 0.66 0.5 0.5 to 0.7
0.7 to 0.9
Effect of buoyancy is considered in calculating the weight of portion of foundation under water. Buoyancy effect is also considered in working out bearing capacity of pile foundation.
11. Thermal Effects:
There are two thermal effects which can induce stresses in bridges. The first is a uniform temperature change which results in an axial expansion or contraction. If restrained, such as in an arch or a frame bridge, this can generate significant axial force, bending moment and shear. The second effect is that due to differential changes in temperature. If the top of a beam heats up relative to the bottom, it tends to bend; if it is restrained from doing so, bending moment and shear force are generated. Integral bridges undergo repeated expansions and contractions due to daily or seasonal temperature fluctuations. For analysis, coefficient of thermal expansion is taken as 11.7x10-6 /degree centigrade for reinforced concrete and steel. A Comparative Study Of RCC & Steel Pile Foundation For An Integral Bridge 43
Chapter-4
12. Shrinkage And Creep:
Pile Analysis
These two effects need to be considered together they are interrelated. As concrete ages it shrinks slightly. The rate at which the concrete shrinks decreases approximately exponentially with time, with half of the total shrinkage normally occurring in the first one month and remaining 75% in six months from commencement of drying. Creep in concrete is response to long term stress; the concrete strain gradually increases to two or three times the elastic strain. The creep strain rate decreases with time, similar to the way the shrinkage rate decreases.
2.1.1 Load Combinations:
Load combinations are considered as per IS 456:2006, IS 4651 (Part 4):1989 and IRC 6:2000. Detailed load combinations are given in chapter of load calculations.
4.2 Load Calculation:

1. Dead Load :
Unit weight of concrete a). Self weight of pile = x 1.0 x 1.0 x 25/4
= =
25
kN/m3
19.635 kN/m
b). Self weight of pile muff = ((2.4 x 2.4 x 0.35) + (((2.4 x 2.4) + (1.5 x 1.5) + (sqrt (1.5 x 1.5 x 2.4 x 2.4))) x 0.35/3) ( x 1.0 x 1.0 x 0.7)) x 25 = 70.52 kN
44
Chapter-4
Pile Analysis
c). Self weight of precast pile cap = ((((0.2 + 0.275) x 0.2/2) + (0.4 x 0.9) + ((0.125 + 0.1) x 0.6/2))x2) x 25 = 23.75 kN/m
d). Self weight of precast longitudinal girders L-girder-1 & 8 = ((0.4 x 0.725) + ((0.2 + 0.15) x 0.25/2) + ((0.2 + 0.15) x 0.6 / 2)) x 25 = 10.97 kN/m
L-girder-2 to 5 = ((0.4 x 0.725) + ((0.2 + 0.15) x 0.25)) x 25 = 9.44 kN/m
45
Chapter-4
Pile Analysis
L-girder-6 & 7 = ((0.4 x 0.725) + ((0.2 + 0.15) x 0.25/2) + ((0.2 + 0.15) x 0.45/2)) x 25 /m = 10.34 kN
e). Self weight of insitu concrete over pilecap = ((16.4 x 2 x 1.005 x 25) (10.97 + (4 x 9.44) + (2 x 10.34))) / 16.4 /m f). Self weight of insitu concrete over pile muff = (2.4 x 1.5 x 0.9 x 25) (23.75 x 1.5) g). Self weight of cross diaphragm = 0.8 x 1.005 x 25 = 20.1 kN = 45.375 kN = 46.01 kN
h). Self weight of deck slab (precast+insitu) = 0.35 x 25 = 7 kN /m2
i). Self weight of wearing course
46
Chapter-4 = 0.112 x 22 = 2.464 kN /m2 = = = =
Pile Analysis
j). Self weight of kerb = 0.25 x 0.25 x 25 k). Dead load due to handrail (approx.) l). Dead load due to light pole On left side of carriage way On right side of carriage way j). Dead load due to pipelines
1.5625 KN/m 1 10 15 kN/m kN kN
Considering 2 steel pipes of 600mm diameter and 15 mm each. Weight of pipe = x (0.632-0.62) x 78.5 x 2 Weight of water in pipe = x 0.6 x 78.5 x 2 Total weight including 10% of wt. for pipe staging k). Dead load from conveyor pedestal
2. Construction, Erection and Handling Loads:
2
= = = =
4.56 5.82 15
kN/m kN/m kN
11.41 kN/m
Following value of load is considered as construction live load in design of precast elements. Precast pile cap beam Precast longitudinal girder Precast deck plank = = = 20 20 2 kN kN kN/m2
An impact factor of 1.25 is considered for checking design of precast members for handling.
3. Live Load: 3.1 Vehicular Live Load:
Width of carriageway = 7.5 m As per Cl. 207.4 of IRC:6-2000, 2 lanes are considered for design purpose. Following combination of vehicles are considered. 1. One lane of IRC Class 70R tracked vehicle. 2. One lane of IRC Class 70R wheeled vehicle. 3. Two lane of IRC class A. 4. In addition to above stated IRC specified live loads, a 100 T crane is also considered in analysis and design is considered as per user requirement. Configuration of 100T crane is same as that of IRC Class AA tracked with the difference is only that in 100T crane, total load will be 100 T instead of 70T as in case of Class AA tracked vehicle.
3.2 Conveyor Live Load:
Live load due to operation of the conveyor system is taken as 1.8 kN in longitudinal direction as received from material handling department.
47
Chapter-4
Pile Analysis
In addition to above mentioned live loads, live load of 150 kg/m2 is considered on the deck portion except at carriageway and at conveyor pedestals.
4. Impact Load Of Moving Live Load:
Impact factor are calculated as per Cl. 211 of IRC:6-2000. IRC Class 70R tracked vehicle IRC Class 70R wheeled vehicle IRC Class A vehicle 100 T crane = = = = 10 % 25 % 25 % 10%
Impact factor is considered only for design of super structure elements not for design of piles.
5. Braking Force:
Braking force is calculated as per Cl. 214.2 of IRC:6-2000.

IRC Class 70R tracked vehicle:
Nos. of trains of vehicles per unit of bridge Braking force per support =
5 = = 15 4 17.85 kN 4 9.892 kN 2 10.71 kN kN
((700x20%) + (4x700x10%)) / 28
IRC Class 70R wheeled vehicle:
Nos. of trains of vehicles per unit of bridge Braking force per support
IRC Class A vehicle:
((1000x20%) + (3x1000x10%)) / 28 = = = = =
100 T crane:
((554x20%) + (3x554x10%)) / 28
6. Wind Load:
((1000x20%) + (1000x10%)) / 28
Wind load is calculated as per Gust Factor method as per Cl. 8 of IS:875 (part3)-1987.
6.1. Operating Condition:
Basic wind speed Height of structure above mean sea level Terrain category Class of structure Terrain factor Topography factor k2, k3, 1 C 1 = = 0.78 1
19 m/s 10 m
Probability factor k1 =
Table1 of IS:875 (part3)-1987 ..Table33 of IS:875(part3)-1987 Cl.5.3.3.1 of IS:875(part3)-1987
Design wind speed, Vz = Vbx k1x k2x k3, A Comparative Study Of RCC & Steel Pile Foundation For An Integral Bridge 48
Chapter-4
Vz = 14.82m/s
Pile Analysis Cl.8.2.1 of IS:875 (part3)-1987 Cl.8.3 of IS:875 (part3)-1987
Wind Pressure Pz = 0.6 V2z,

Pz = 131.78 N/m2
Along wind load on the structure, Fz = Cf Ae Pz G Where, Cf Ae Pz G = force coefficient, = effective frontal area considered for the structure, = design wind pressure, = gust factor and is given by,
SE 2 G = 1 + g f r B(1 + ) + Where, gf r B SE/ = peak factor defined as the ration of the expected peak value to the root mean value of a fluctuating wind, = roughness factor which is dependent on the size of the structure in relation to the ground roughness, = background factor indicating measure of slowly varying component of fluctuating wind load, = a measure of the resonant component of the fluctuating wind Load. Now for category 1 and height of 14m, gf.r L(h) Cy Cz Cz h / L(h) = Cyb/Cyh = = = = = = 1.0 1000 10 12 0.17 160 9.52 0.6 0.67 Hz 14.82 m/s Figure 9 of IS:875 (part3)-1987 m Figure 8 of IS:875 (part3)-1987 Figure 8 of IS:875 (part3)-1987
Cl.8.3 of IS:875 (part3)-1987
Width of structure b = Background factor B = Natural frequency f0 = Vh =
Reduced natural frequency F0 = Cz f0 h / Vh = 7.64
49
Chapter-4 Size reduction factor S f0 L(h) / Vh = gust energy factor E =

Gust factor G =
Pile Analysis = 45.47 0.041

1.8
0.012
Wind load in transverse direction: Wind load on pile:
Length of member l Width of the member b l/b Force coefficient Cf Reduction factor k Force coefficient Wind load F = Cf Ae Pz G Where Cf = Ae = Pz = G = Wind load on pile Height of beam Width of beam Exposed area Ae Force coefficient Wind load on cross beam Height of beam Exposed area Ae Force coefficient Wind load on cross beam Height of beam Exposed area Ae
= = = = = =
14.0 1.0 14.0 0.8 0.845 0.675
m m m Figure 5 of IS:875 (part3)-1987 Table25 of IS:875 (part3)-1987
(for member of infinite length)
(for considering reduction factor k) force coefficient, effective area of the object normal to the wind direction, design wind pressure, gust factor, = = = = = = = = = = = = 160.168N/m 0.9 0.8 0.72 1 170.845N 0.725 m 0.725m2/m 1 172N 0.280 m 0.280 m2/m 50 m m m2
Wind load on exposed face of cross beam:
Wind load on front longitudinal beam:
Wind load on front exposed face of slab:
Chapter-4 Force coefficient Wind load on cross beam

Wind load on vehicle:
Pile Analysis = = 1 66N = = = = = 3.0 160 28 18 kN kN /m m
Wind force on moving vehilce Length Nos. of piles Wind load per pile
Wind load on conveyor pedestal:
Wind load on conveyor pedestal
0.335 kN
Wind load in longitudinal direction: Wind load on pile:
Wind load on pile Height of beam Exposed area Ae Force coefficient Wind load on cross beam
6.2. Extreme Condition:
= = = = = 0.9 0.9 1 214N
160.168N/m m m2/m
Basic wind speed Height of structure above mean sea level Terrain category Class of structure Probability factor Terrain factor Topography factor k1 k2, k3 , = = = 1 C 1 0.78 1
44 m/s 4.5 m
Table1 of IS:875 (part3)-1987 Table33 of IS:875 (part3)-1987 Cl.5.3.3.1 of IS:875 (part3)-1987 Cl.8.2.1 of IS:875 (part3)-1987 Cl.8.3 of IS:875 (part3)-1987
Design wind speed, Vz = Vbx k1x k2x k3,

Vz = 34.32 m/s
Wind Pressure Pz = 0.6 V2z,

Pz = 706.71 N/m2
Now for category 1 and height of 14m, gf.r L(h) Cy Cz = = = = 1.0 1000 10 12 51 Figure 8 of IS:875 (part3)-1987 Figure 8 of IS:875 (part3)-1987
Chapter-4 Cz h / L(h) = Cyb/Cyh = = 0.17 160 9.52 0.6 0.67 Hz 14.82 m/s 0.05 19.63 0.075
1.91
Pile Analysis
Width of structure b = Background factor B = Natural frequency f0 = Vh =
m Figure 9 of IS:875 (part3)-1987
Reduced natural frequency F0 = Cz f0 h / Vh = 3.29 Size reduction factor S= f0 L(h) / Vh = gust energy factor E =
Gust factor G Wind load on pile: =
Length of member l l/b Force coefficient Cf Reduction factor k Force coefficient
= = = = =
14.0 1.0 14.0 0.8 0.845 0.675
m m m Figure 5 of IS:875 (part3)-1987 Table25 of IS:875 (part3)-1987
Width of the member b=
(for member of infinite length)
(for considering reduction factor k) Wind load F = Cf Ae Pz G Where Cf = Ae = Pz = G = Wind load on pile Height of beam Width of beam Exposed area Ae Force coefficient Wind load on cross beam Height of beam force coefficient, effective area of the object normal to the wind direction, design wind pressure, gust factor, = 912.77N/m = = = = = = 0.9 0.8 0.72 1 973.629N 0.725 m 52 m m m2
Wind load on front longitudinal beam:
Chapter-4 Exposed area Ae Force coefficient Wind load on cross beam Height of beam Exposed area Ae Force coefficient Wind load on cross beam = = = = = = = 0.725 m2/m 1 978.75N 0.280 m 0.280 m2/m 1 378 N = 1.8 kN
Pile Analysis
Wind load on front exposed face of slab:
Wind load on conveyor pedestal:
Wind load on conveyor pedestal
Wind load in longitudinal direction: Wind load on pile:
Wind load on pile Height of beam Exposed area Ae Force coefficient Wind load on cross beam
7. Earthquake Force:
= = = = =
912.77N/m 0.9 0.9 1 1215 N m m2/m
7.1 Transverse and longitudinal seismic force:
Seismic force is applied on full dead load and 50% of live load including conveyor live load. Seismic force is calculated as per Cl.6.4.2 of IS:1893-2002. The design horizontal seismic co-efficient is given by, Ah = Z I (Sa/g) / 2R Zone factor z Importance factor I Response reduction factor R Time period T (from staad) Damping percentage Damping factor Sa/g Ah horizontal seismic coefficient is applied in both directions. A Comparative Study Of RCC & Steel Pile Foundation For An Integral Bridge 53 = = = = = = = = 0.16 1.5 3 1.59 5 1.00 0.855 0.034 sec %
As per analysis in staad, time period is almost same in both direction. So, same design
Chapter-4
7.2 Hydrodynamic force due to seismic action:
Pile Analysis
Horizontal force F = Ce Ah We Diameter of pile Marine growth Radius of enveloping cylinder R Height of submerged portion of pile H= H/R Ce Weight of enveloping cylinder We Total horizontal force F For C1 = 1 & C4 = 0.4286 CG of this horizontal force above bed level = C4H
7.3 Seismic force on vehicle in transverse direction:
= = = 5.1-1.15 = = = = = = = = = 0.034 x 2000 x 0.5 / 28 =
1.0 50 0.55 1.95 3.54 0.704
m mm m m
18.99 kN 0.454 kN 0.835 m 2000 kN 28 0.034 1.21 kN
Total vehicular live load on a unit of approach (two train of 100T vehicle) Nos. of supports over which load is to be distributed Seismic co-efficient Seismic force =
8. Wave Force:
8.1. Operating Condition (longitudinal & transverse direction):
Operating wave is considered in transverse as well as longitudinal direction consecutively in the analysis. Input: Wave height (H) Time period (T) Bed level Still water level Direction of wave Density of sea water () Diameter of pile (D) Marine growth Deep water wave length (Lo) = Still water depth (d) Dimensionless water depth = = gT2/2 5.1 3.15 d/gT2 = = = = = = = = = = = 2.2 6.0 m sec
(+)3.15 CD (+)5.10 CD 180-270N 10.25 kN /m3 1.0 50 1.95 0.01 54 m mm m
56.21 m
Chapter-4
4 2 Lo tanh 2 gT
Pile Analysis
Wave length (L)
= = = = = =
26.04 m 2.49 m/s
Max. horizontal wave velocity (Umax) = HgT/2L Viscosity () Reynolds number (Re) Drag coefficient (CD) Inertia coefficient (CM) Relative wave height = H/d = Umax D/v
9.29X10-7m2/s 2.94X106 0.7 1.5 1.13 0.78 1.07 1.0 0.0075. 2.649 m 0.831 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 11.72 kN 10.94 kN 22.65 kN 18.28 kN.m 19.20 kN.m 37.47 kN.m 1.65 m
= >
Hence it is a breaking wave. Non dimensional parameter (W) Dimensionless wave steepness Breaking wave height (Hb) Ratio H/Hb Kim KDm Sim SDm Maximum inertial force on pile, Fim = CM x x g x x D x H x Kim / 4 Maximum drag force on pile, FDm = CD x x D x H2 x KDm / 2 Total force F = Fim + FDm Maximum moment due to inertial force Mim = Fim x d x Sim Maximum moment due to drag force MDm = FDm x d x SDm Total moment M = Mim + MDm = M/F C.G. of this force about bed level = = = = = = = = = CM D/ CD H Hb/gT2 = > = = = = = = =
8.2. Extreme Condition(at angle of 210 deg.): Input:
Wave height (H)
6.5
55
Chapter-4 Time period (T) Bed level Still water level Direction of wave Density of sea water () Diameter of pile (D) Marine growth Deep water wave length (Lo) = Still water depth (d) Dimensionless water depth Wave length (L) = = gT2/2 10.5 3.15 d/gT =
2
Pile Analysis = = = = = = = = = =
4 2 Lo tanh 2 gT
10.0
sec
(+)3.15 CD (+)10.5 CD 210 1.0 50 7.35 0.01 83.71 m 3.81 m/s N m mm m 10.25 kN /m3
156.1 m
= = = = = =
Max. horizontal water particle velocity (Umax) = HgT/2L Viscosity () Reynolds number (Re) Drag coefficient (CD) Inertia coefficient (CM) Relative wave height = H/d = Umax D/v
9.29X10-7m2/s 4.51X106 0.7 1.5 0.88 0.78 0.36 1.0 0.007. 0.31 0.34 106.9 kN 92.62 KN 53.47 KN 833.3 kN.m 7.79 m
= >
Hence it is a breaking wave. Non dimensional parameter (W) Dimensionless wave steepness m m Maximum force on pile, Fm = m x CD x x H2 x D Transverse component of the force Longitudinal component of the force Maximum moment on pile, Mm = m x CD x x H2 x D x d C.G. of this force about bed level = M/F = = = = = = = CM D/ CD H H/gT
2
= < = = =
56
Chapter-4
Pile Analysis
Figure.13 Application Of Wave Force Operating & Extreme 9. Current Force: 9.1. Operating Condition: Input:
Bed level Scour level Still water level Diameter of pile Marine growth Velocity at surface Velocity at mid depth Velocity at scour level Direction of current Pressure due to current The current force on pile At surface At surface = = 0.52 x 0.66 x 3.852 x (1.0+(2x0.05) 0.52 x 0.66 x 2.252 x (1.0+(2x0.05) 0.52 x 0.66 x 1.802 x (1.0+(2x0.05) P = 0.52KV2 KN/m2 Where K = 0.66 for circular pile,
= = = = = = = = =
(+)3.15 m (+)1.15 m (+)5.1 m 1.0 50.0 3.85 2.25 1.80 1740N m mm m/s m/s ms
= = =
5.6 1.91 1.22
kN /m kN /m kN /m
At mid depth =
57
Chapter-4
Pile Analysis
Figure.14 Application Of Current Force Operating 9.2. Extreme Condition: Input:
Bed level Scour level Still water level Diameter of pile Marine growth Velocity at surface Velocity at mid depth Velocity at scour level Direction of current Pressure due to current The current force on pile At surface At surface = = 0.52 x 0.66 x 3.852 x (1.0+(2x0.05) 0.52 x 0.66 x 2.252 x (1.0+(2x0.05) 0.52 x 0.66 x 1.802 x (1.0+(2x0.05) P = 0.52KV2 KN/m2 Where K = 0.66 for circular pile,
= = = = = = = = =
(+)3.15 m (+)1.15 m (+)10.5 m 1.0 50.0 3.85 2.25 1.80 1740N m mm m/s m/s ms
= = =
5.6 1.91 1.22
kN /m kN /m kN /m
At mid depth =
58
Chapter-4
Pile Analysis
Figure.15 Application Of Current Force Extreme 10. Thermal Effects:
Temperature difference of 100 for axial elongation and contraction is applied to the pilecap beams, longitudinal beams and slab elements.
11. Shrinkage Effect:
Permissible shrinkage strain in concrete Coefficient of thermal expansion Temperature difference for above stated strain T
= = = =
0.0003 11.7x10-6/0C / 25.64

0
12. Detailed Load Combinations: Detailed load combinations considered in the analysis are as follows: CURRENT (X) EXTREME WAVE (+X) OPERATING WAVE (+Z) OPERATING TEMPERATURE (FALL) WIND (+X) OPERATING WIND (+Z) OPERATING TEMPERATURE ( RISE) WIND (-X) OPERATING WIND (+X) EXTREME WIND (+Z) EXTREME WIND (-X) EXTREME
WAVE EXTEME
CURRENT (X) OPERATING
SHRINKAGE
SEISMIC (X)
SEISMIC (Z)
BREAKING
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
LIMIT STATE OF SERVICEABILITY 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 59
VEHICLE
DEAD
LIVE
1 1 1 1
Chapter-4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Pile Analysis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 LIMITE STATE OF COLLAPSE (OPERATING) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1.2 1.2 1 1.2 1.2 1 -1.2 1.2 1.5 1 1 1.5 1 1
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
60
Chapter-4 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1.5 1 1 1.5 1 1 1.5 -1 1 1 1.2 1.2 1 1.2 1.2 1 -1.2 1.2 LIMITE STATE OF COLLAPSE (EXTREME) 1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 1.2 1.2 -1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 -1.2 1.2 1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.5
Pile Analysis 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
1.5 1.5 1.5
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.9 0.45 0.9 0.45 0.9 0.45 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.6
1.5 0.75 1.5 0.75 1.5 0.75 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.9 0.9 0.9
1.5 0.45 0.45 1.5 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 1.5 1.2 0.6 0.6 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.2 1.5 0.75 0.75 1.5 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
61
Chapter-4 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1 1 1 1 1.2 -1.2 1.2 -1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
Pile Analysis
4.3 Structural Idealization and Analysis Results:

4.3.1 Structural Model
A single approach bridge unit is analyzed using a structural analysis software program Staadpro 2007. Analysis has been carried out on the structural model considering all loads acting over the structure. P Delta analysis is carried out to achieve economy in design. RCC pile option is analyzed and designed for 1.0m diameter pile. For steel pile option, analysis and design is carried out for 4 different diameters i.e. 1016mm OD, 1118mm OD, 914mm OD and 813mm OD. Out of these diameters, optimum diameter is chosen for comparison with RCC pile. Analysis results and design procedure is presented here only for 1016mm OD. Please refer to Ch.6 Comparison Of Results for more details.
Figure.16 Cross Section Of Staad Model
62
Chapter-4
Pile Analysis
Figure.17 3D View Of Model 4.3.1.2 Analysis Results
Results of the Staad analysis for piles of the structure have been tabulated and given in the subsequent pages of this chapter. As per loading condition two types of piles have been designed. The resultant forces have been extracted by sorting upto the length of lower point of contraflexure as shown in bending moment envelope. Beyond this point the bending moment in the pile is very low and not considered for structural design. The typical envelope diagrams are shown below.
Envelope For RCC Piles:
63
Chapter-4
a. Envelope For Moment Mz
Pile Analysis
Figure.18 RCC Pile Bending Moment Mz Envelope
b. Envelope For Moment My
Figure.19 RCC Pile Bending Moment My Envelop
64
Chapter-4
Pile Analysis
c. Envelope For Axial Force Fx
Figure.20 RCC Pile Axial Force Envelope d. Envelope For Shear Force Fy
Figure.21 RCC Pile Shear Force Envelope
65
Chapter-4 Results are tabulated below for RCC piles:

GRID A-Table 3.1 Limit state of Collapse Level Beam L/C Fx (KN) My (KN.m) Mz (KN.m)
Pile Analysis
Mu (KN.m)
(+)14.246 (+)10.979 (+)7.6982 (+)4.4243 (+)0.15 (-)1.85 (-)3.85 (-)5.85
4482 4482 4482 4482 3563 4482 4483 4482 4532 4532 4534 4534 4536 4536 4538 4538
455 415 411 415 453 415 411 415 411 415 411 415 411 415 411 415
3112 184 1352 105 2040 108 1437 150 2905 512 1523 26 3303 117 1609 97 2406 215 1712 229 2453 149 1747 162 2501 72 1783 533 2548 25 1818 27 Table 3.2
Fx (KN) My (KN.m)
1931 1900 1362 1341 22 461 474 454 1500 1475 1087 1070 542 539 197 194
1940 1900 1366 1350 512 462 488 465 1516 1493 1097 1082 546 539 199 196
Limit state of serviceability Level Beam L/C Mz (KN.m) Mu (KN.m)
(+)14.246 (+)10.979 (+)7.6982 (+)4.4243 (+)0.15 (-)1.85 (-)3.85 (-)5.85
220 4774 220 4774 220 4774 4482 4774 4532 4824 4534 4826 4536 4828 480 4830
125 140 125 140 125 118 125 140 139 140 139 140 139 140 125 126
2099 554 2194 649 2289 1050 2945 840 2453.6 954 2492 994 2532 1033 2617 1072
1202 503 721.7 250 233 171.4 397 255 947.2 491 522 265 153 76 5 1
374 364 220 243 64.6 36.6 91 97 300 333 169 189 51 58 2 3
1258.840737 620.8904895 754.4871702 348.6387815 241.7894952 175.2641435 407.2959612 272.8259518 993.5732686 593.2705959 548.6756783 325.4934715 161.2761607 95.60334722 5.385164807 3.16227766
66
Chapter-4
GRID B Table 4.1 Limit state of Collapse Level Beam L/C Fx (KN) My (KN.m) Mz (KN.m)
Pile Analysis
Mu (KN.m)
(+)14.246 (+)10.979 (+)7.6982 (+)4.4243 (+)0.15 (-)1.85 (-)3.85 (-)5.85
3563 4483 4483 4483 3563 3563 4483 4483 4484 4484 4486 4486 4488 4488 4490 4490
453 468 411 415 453 424 411 415 411 415 411 415 411 415 411 415
2620 1893 1613 122 3074 86 2391 131 2905 512 1683 423 3303 117 2562 110 3441 222 2665 238 3488 153 2701 166 3535 73 2736 80 3582 24 2771 28 Table 4.2
Fx (KN) My (KN.m)
58 1723 1299 1295 23 10 474 463 1480 1461 1069 1056 531 525 193 191
1894 1728 1302 1301 513 424 488 475 1497 1480 1080 1069 536 531 194 193
Limit state of serviceability Level Beam L/C Mz (KN.m) Mu (KN.m)
(+)14.246 (+)10.979 (+)7.6982 (+)4.4243 (+)0.15 (-)1.85 (-)3.85 (-)5.85
221 4775 221 4775 221 4775 4483 4775 4484 4776 4486 4778 4488 4780 384 4782
127 142 127 120 127 120 127 142 141 142 141 140 141 140 127 120
2340 717 2435 1097 2530 1192 2528.7 1005 2575 1117 2614 1257 2653 1296 2858 1520
1189 501 712 430 227 179 396 255 939 490 517 263 151 75 6 4
379 233 749 454 241 186 404 259 968 503 533 296 156 86 6 5
1247.943108 552.5305421 1033.414244 625.3127218 331.0740099 258.1414341 565.7137085 363.4638909 1348.608542 702.2172029 742.5483149 395.9608567 217.1105709 114.1095964 8.485281374 6.403124237
67
Chapter-4
Pile Analysis
Table -5 Grid A - Maximum Axial Load On Top Of Pile Axial Load On Top Member L/C (KN) 2346 127 2836 2346 224 2465 Grid B - Maximum Axial Load On Top Of Pile Axial Load On Top Member L/C (KN) 2347 126 2520 221 303 2663 Table -6 Deflection Load Combination Deflection (mm) Operating 48 Seismic 44 Storm 60
Loading Condition
Operating Extreme
Loading Condition
Operating Extreme
Envelope For Steel Piles: a. Envelope For Moment Mz
Figure.22 Steel Pile Bending Moment Mz Envelope
68
Chapter-4
b. Envelope For Moment My
Pile Analysis
Figure.23 Steel Pile Bending Moment My Envelope c. Envelope For Axial Force Fx
Figure.24 Steel Pile Axial Force Envelope
69
Chapter-4
d. Envelope For Shear Force Fy
Pile Analysis
Figure.25 Steel Pile Shear Force Envelope
Results are tabulated below for steel piles:

Table 7.1 GRID A Axial Compression With Bending (Operating) R.L. (m CD) Member L/C Axial Force Fx (KN) Shear Force Fy (KN) Shear Force Fz (KN) 121.49 132.20 132.20 132.20 132.20 132.20 30.24 -28.80 137.34 137.34 137.34 137.34 137.34 29.58 -145.00 -136.32 -70.92 -12.74 Moment My (KN) Moment Mz (KN)
14.25 13.16 12.06 10.97 9.89 8.79 7.70 6.61 5.49 4.42 2.68 2.24 1.15 0.15 -1.85 -3.85 -5.85 -7.85
220 220 220 220 220 220 1738 4482 4482 4482 4482 4482 4482 4532 4534 4536 4538 1796
127 127 127 127 127 127 141 117 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 142
2272.98 2292.71 2312.44 2332.17 2351.91 2371.64 2804.15 2788.69 2836.27 2856.00 2875.74 2895.47 2915.20 2920.03 2924.86 2934.52 2944.18 3098.70
-5.62 -23.62 -23.66 -23.81 -23.97 -24.12 77.98 37.31 -15.01 -18.41 -21.98 -24.02 -25.56 -7.23 23.08 22.44 11.90 5.51
-1155.86 -1011.59 -867.32 -723.04 -578.77 -434.50 -40.81 75.74 162.66 312.54 462.42 612.31 762.19 791.77 700.60 401.57 160.10 15.33
-202.68 -176.91 -151.13 -125.23 -99.16 -72.92 176.78 83.03 29.58 47.20 69.48 94.66 121.75 128.98 115.45 67.33 27.42 6.58 70
Chapter-4
Pile Analysis
Table 7.2 GRID A Axial Compression With Bending (Extreme) Shear Axial Force Shear Force Moment My L/C Force Fz Fx (KN) Fy (KN) (KN) (KN) 1022 2150.281 11.265 219.024 -1961.14 1022 2170.013 11.265 231.58 -1708.56 1022 2189.746 11.265 235.415 -1453.28 1022 2209.479 11.265 235.83 -1196.15 1022 2229.212 11.265 236.246 -938.558 1022 2248.945 11.265 236.661 -680.517 1022 2268.678 11.265 262.156 -412.948 1016 1624.799 -1.28 215.391 -177.679 1022 2359.323 17.506 245.974 250.936 1022 2379.055 20.851 246.296 519.562 1022 2398.788 24.419 246.559 788.488 1025 2053.095 23.044 247.938 1057.686 1025 2072.828 24.583 248.201 1328.404 1025 2077 9 55 1383 1022 2401 15 253 971 1022 2411 15 240 460 1022 2420 8 124 152 2003 1635 42 16 3 Table 8.1 GRID B Axial Compression With Bending (Operating) Shear Axial Force Shear Force Moment My L/C Force Fz Fx (KN) Fy (KN) (KN) (KN) 127 2353.06 -26.33 118.11 -1119.18 127 2372.79 -44.33 128.82 -978.60 127 2392.52 -44.37 128.82 -838.02 127 2412.26 -44.52 128.82 -697.44 122 2498.45 -9.88 131.59 -568.75 122 2518.18 -9.88 131.74 -425.06 122 2537.92 -9.88 156.97 -272.14 141 2667.71 60.28 31.34 -9.25 126 2499.92 65.28 113.25 171.63 126 2519.65 68.69 113.25 295.21 122 2464.24 10.24 142.39 470.51 122 2636.58 -0.93 157.34 585.89 122 2656.31 0.61 157.34 757.59 127 2594.68 -19.81 44.02 785.12 122 2665.97 2.31 -143.59 718.39 122 2675.63 1.63 -139.59 418.96 126 2764.39 -27.30 -61.96 142.06 126 2774.05 -13.57 -30.40 35.42
R.L. (m CD)
Member
Moment Mz (KN)
14.25 13.16 12.06 10.97 9.89 8.79 7.70 6.61 5.49 4.42 2.68 2.24 1.15 0.15 -1.85 -3.85 -5.85 -7.85
220 220 220 220 220 220 220 3562 4482 4482 4482 4482 4482 4532 476 478 480 3620
94.491 82.198 69.904 57.611 45.318 33.025 20.732 3.56 8.716 -11.57 -36.514 -67.244 -93.27 102 65 31 11 4
R.L. (m CD)
Member
Moment Mz (KN)
14.25 13.16 12.06 10.97 9.89 8.79 7.70 6.61 5.49 4.42 2.68 2.24 1.15 0.15 -1.85 -3.85 -5.85 -7.85
221 221 221 221 221 221 221 1739 4483 4483 4483 221 221 378 380 382 384 386
-388.04 -339.67 -291.29 -242.78 -48.06 -37.28 -26.49 74.02 8.56 -63.92 9.99 11.66 11.80 246.38 8.25 3.89 -63.75 -16.64
71
Chapter-4
Pile Analysis
R.L. (m CD) 14.25 13.16 12.06 10.97 9.89 8.79 7.70 6.61 5.49 4.42 2.68 2.24 1.15 0.15 -1.85 -3.85 -5.85 -7.85
Table 8.2 GRID B Axial Compression With Bending (Extreme) Axial Force Shear Force Shear Force Moment My Moment Mz Member L/C Fx (KN) Fy (KN) Fz (KN) (KN) (KN) 221 1022 2399.997 -8.591 219.532 -1965.25 -82.746 221 1022 2419.73 -8.591 232.087 -1712.11 -73.37 221 1022 2439.463 -8.591 235.923 -1456.28 -63.995 221 1022 2459.196 -8.591 236.338 -1198.59 -54.62 221 1022 2478.929 -8.591 236.753 -940.449 -45.245 221 1022 2498.662 -8.591 237.169 -681.853 -35.87 3563 1016 1807.326 -1.692 218.162 -424.767 -10.842 3563 1016 1827.059 -1.692 218.577 -186.46 -8.996 4483 1022 2300.535 -0.984 248.016 247.574 7.851 4483 1022 2320.268 2.361 248.337 518.429 7.743 4483 1025 2279.391 1.094 249.111 789.741 -3.694 4483 1025 2299.124 3.139 249.375 1061.74 -6.087 4483 1025 2318.856 4.677 249.638 1334.026 -10.389 4484 1025 2323 2 55 1390 12 380 1022 2651 0 253 973 0 382 1022 2660 0 240 461 0 384 1022 2670 0 124 151 0 3572 1016 1969 1 47 5 0 Table 9 Grid A - Maximum Axial Load On Top Of Pile Axial Load On Top Loading Condition Member L/C (KN) Operating 1738 142 2823 Extreme 1738 1027 2667 Grid B - Maximum Axial Load On Top Of Pile Axial Load On Top Loading Condition Member L/C (KN) Operating 1739 141 2529 Extreme 221 1023 2719 Forces for concrete plug design Table 10.1 Grid A Limit state of Collapse Beam L/C Fx (KN) My (KN.m) Mz (KN.m) Mu (KN.m)
4482 4482
455 441
3013 1325
227 122
2267 2116
2278 2120
72
Chapter-4
Table 10.2 Limit state of Serviceability Beam L/C Fx (KN) My (KN.m) Mz (KN.m)
Pile Analysis
Mu (KN.m)
220 4774 4774
122 133 121
2206 848 998
1175 94 648 295 724 256 Table 11.1 Grid B

My (KN.m) Mz (KN.m)
1178 712 768
Limit state of Collapse Beam L/C Fx (KN) Mu (KN.m)
4483 4483
455 468
3743 1544
261 144 Table 11.2

My (KN.m)
2185 2037
2201 2042
Limit state of Serviceability Beam L/C Fx (KN) Mz (KN.m) Mu (KN.m)
221 4775
127 121
1119 388 743 252 Table 12 Deflection Load Combination Deflection (mm) Operating 48 Seismic 75.5 Storm 66
2353 1036
1184 785
73
CHAPTER5 PILEDESIGN
Chapter 5
Pile Design
5.1 Geotechnical Design Of RCC Piles:

A pile may be subjected to transverse force from a number of causes, such as wind, earthquake, water current, water waves, earth pressure, effect of moving vehicles or ships, plant and equipment, etc. The lateral load carrying capacity of a single pile depends not only on the horizontal subgrade modulus of the surrounding soil but also on the structural strength of the pile shaft against bending consequent upon application of a lateral load. While considering lateral load on piles, effect of other coexistent loads including the axial load on the pile should be taken into consideration for checking the structural capacity of the shaft. There are various methods available for analysis of laterally loaded piles such as Equivalent Fixity Depth Approach As per IS: 2911-1979, Subgrade Modulus Approach (FEM or Matrix method), Closed Form Solution, Non dimensional Method, p-y Curve Method, Broms Method, Poulos Method etc. A horizontal load on a vertical pile is transmitted to the subsoil primarily by horizontal subgrade reaction generated in the upper part of the shaft. A single pile is normally designed to carry load along its axis. Transverse load bearing capacity of a single pile depends on the soil reaction developed and the structural capacity of the shaft under bending. In case the horizontal loads are of higher magnitude, it is essential to investigate the phenomena using principles of horizontal subsoil reaction adopting appropriate values for horizontal modulus of the soil. In this study, piles are analyzed using modulus of subgrade reaction and lateral resistance offered by soil is modeled by providing springs having stiffness derived using modulus of subgrade reaction. The modulus of subgrade reaction is seldom measured in lateral pile load test. Node values of ks are required in FEM solution for lateral piles. However in absence of test results, this value may be approximated as per procedure given below: As per Vesic (1961), modulus of subgrade reaction can be computed using stress-strain modulus Es based on as,
Es B 4 Es k ' s = 0.6512 E f I f 1 2
5.1
Where Es, Ef = modulus of soil and footing respectively, in consistent units B, If = footing width and its moment of inertia based on cross section in consistent units One can obtain ks from ks as,
ks = k 's B
73
Chapter 5
Pile Design
Since the twelfth root of any value multiplied by 0.65 will be close to 1, for practical purposes the Vesics equation reduces to,
ks = Es B (1 2 )
Now, we know that immediate (elastic) settlement, 1 2 H = q 0 B If Es Where qo = foundation pressure B = width of foundation = poissons ratio If = influence factor Put E ' s = (1 2 ) in above equation, Es
H = q 0 BE ' s I f But we know ks = ratio of soil pressure to deflection

ks = 1 q = H BE ' s I f
But since one does not often have values of Es, other approximations are useful and quite satisfactory if the computed deflection is reasonable. It has been found that bending moments and computed soil pressure are not very sensitive to what is used for ks because the structural member stiffness is usually 10 or more as great as soil stiffness as defined by ks. Bowles has suggested the following for approximating ks from the allowable bearing capacity qa based on geotechnical data: ks = 40 (SF) qa kN/m3 Where, qa is in kPa. This equation is based on assumption that ultimate soil pressure occurs at a settlement of 0.0254 m. For other values of H = 6,12,20 mm etc., the factor 40 can be adjusted to 160,83,50 etc. 40 is reasonably conservative but smaller assumed displacement can always be used. The most general form for either horizontal or lateral modulus of subgrade reaction is, k s = As + Bs Z n Where A s Bs Z = constant for either horizontal or vertical members = coefficient based on depth variation = depth of interest below ground
74
5.2
Chapter 5 n = exponent to give ks the best fit.
Pile Design
We know that ultimate bearing capacity is given by,

qult = cN c S c + ZN q S q + 0.5BN S
5.3
Observing that,
As = C (cN c S c + 0.5 BN S ) and Bs Z n = C (N q S q ) Z n
The C factor is 40 for SI units and 12 for FPS, using the same reasoning that qult occurs at a 0.0254-m and 1-in. settlement but with no SF, since this equation directly gives qult.
Table-13 may be used to estimate a value of ks to determine the correct order of
magnitude of the subgrade modulus obtained using one of the approximations given here. Obviously if a computed value is two or three times larger than the table range indicates, the computations should be rechecked for a possible gross error. Note, however, if you use a reduced value of displacement (say, 6 mm or 12 mm) instead of 0.0254 m you may well exceed the table range other than this, if no computational error (or a poor assumption) is found then use judgment in what value to use.
Table-13 Range of modulus of subgrade reaction ks. Soil Ks ( kN/m3)
Loose sand Medium dense sand Dense sand Slity medium dense sand Clayey soil qa 200 kPa 200 < qa 800 kPa qa > 800 kPa
4800-6000 9600-80000 64000-128000 24000-48000 12000-24000 24000-48000 >48000
Clayey medium dense sand 32000-80000
In case of piles, as the soil surrounds pile, Bowles suggests to double the values of modulus to account for the side shear developed as the pile shaft moves laterally under load. For pile with smaller diameter or width, side shear would probably be close to face bearing (consisting of 1.0 for face + 2*0.5 for two sides). This statement however would not be true for larger values of D or B. The side shear has some limiting value after which the front provides the load resistance. Without substantiating data, let us assume this ratio, two side shears to one face, of 1:1 reaches its limit at B = D = 0.457 m (18 in.). If this is the case then the size factor
75
Chapter 5
Pile Design
multiplier (or ratio) Cm should for single piles be about as follows (the 1.0 is the face contribution):
Table-14 Values of Cm For Ratio Cm
B = D 0.457 m B = D > 0.457 m D > 1200 mm Now with Cm above equation becomes,
1.0 + 2*0.5 1.0 + (0.457/D)0.75 1.5 1.0 + 0.25
As = C m C (cN c + 0.5 BN ) and Bs Z n = C m C (N q ) Z n It is also suggested that the Bs term should use an exponent that is on the order of 0.4 to 0.6 so that ks does not increase without bound with depth. Now it is easy for one to find out subgrade modulus using soil properties for any depth. For modeling of soil stiffness, spring constants are required at nodes. Newmark assumed parabolic variation of subgrade modulus as shown in Figure.26 below.
Figure.26 Parabolic Variation Of Subgrade Modulus
76
Chapter 5
Pile Design
He gave the following formula for finding spring constants representing soil in the model.
K1 = BL (7 k S 1 + 6k S 2 k S 3 ) 24
Kn =
BL (7k Sn + 6k S ( n 1) k S ( n 2) ) 24 Any other K, BL Ki = (k S ( i 1) + 10k Si k S ( i +1) ) 12
5.1.1 Sample Calculation Of Soil Spring Constant : Input Data:
Design scour level Depth of consideration Diameter of pile
= = =
(+) 1.15 26.00 1.00
m m m
The horizontal modulus of subgrade reation,

k s = As + B s Z n
Where As = CmC (cN c + 0.5 BN ) and Bs Z n = CmC (N q ) Z n

Exponent Size factor n Cm = = 0.5 1.555824
Factor depending on displacement of pile C = 40

Soil data and calculation is as under: For layer 1,
Thickness of layer Angle of internal friction Cohesion of soil Submerged unit weight of soil Bearing capacity factor, Nc Nq N Bs = 1.555*40* (7.75*1)
Ks = 47981.6 + (482.32* Z^0.5) kN/m3
= 5m =0 = 150 kN/m2 = 7.75 kN/m3 = 5.14 =1 =0 = 482.32 kN/m3
As = 1.555*40* (150*5.14 + 0.5*7.75*1*0) = 47981.6 kN/m3
Similarly for other layers, ks is found out and from that, value of spring constant is also found out for every 1m interval as per equations given above. Values of spring constants throughout
77
Chapter 5
Pile Design
the entire depth are calculated using spread sheet Spring Constant. Calculated values are shown below in Table-15.1 and 15.2:
Table-15.1 Layer c sub Thk.(m) (kN/m2) (Deg) (kN/m3) Nc Nq N As (kN/m2) Bs (kN/m3)
5 1.53 5 4 5 2.5 3
150 150 80 80 160 160 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 35
7.75 7.75 7.75 7.75 7.75 7.75 7.75
5.14 5.14 5.14 5.14 5.14 5.14
1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
47981.6 47981.6 25590.2 25590.2 51180.4 51180.4 11582.6
482.31 482.31 482.31 482.31 482.31 482.31 16061
46.12 33.3 48.03

Table-15.2
Depth (m)
As (kN/m2) Bs (kN/m3) Ks (kN/m3) K (kN/m)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
47981.61 47981.61 47981.61 47981.61 47981.61 47981.61 47981.61 25590.19 25590.19 25590.19 25590.19 25590.19 25590.19 25590.19 25590.19 25590.19 51180.38
482.3054 482.3054 482.3054 482.3054 482.3054 482.3054 482.3054 482.3054 482.3054 482.3054 482.3054 482.3054 482.3054 482.3054 482.3054 482.3054 482.3054
47981.61 48463.91 48663.69 48816.98 48946.22 49060.07 49163.01 26866.25 26954.36 27037.11 27115.37 27189.82 27260.94 27329.17 27394.81 27458.15 53109.6
24082.96 48440.37 48659.82 48814.98 48944.94 49059.16 47296.37 28731.66 26953.91 27036.73 27115.05 27189.54 27260.7 27328.95 27394.62 29590.49 50976.93
78
Chapter 5 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
5.1.2 Depth Of Fixity:
Pile Design 51180.38 51180.38 51180.38 51180.38 51180.38 51180.38 51180.38 11582.56 11582.56 11582.56 482.3054 482.3054 482.3054 482.3054 482.3054 482.3054 482.3054 16060.77 16060.77 16060.77 53168.98 53226.63 53282.7 53337.32 53390.58 53442.59 53493.44 90263.94 91886.41 93476.74 53168.83 53226.5 53282.58 53337.2 53390.48 53442.5 56553.41 87334.94 91883.73 46474.65
It can be seen from the Figure.18 that moment attains maximum value at second spring. Thus depth of fixity can be taken as 1m below scour level.
5.1.3 Pile Capacity Calculations:
From analysis of structure, it is found that maximum axial load in working condition is 2932 kN. Pile capacity is checked for above value of axial load required to be transmitted. Bearing capacity of piles is calculated as per procedure given in Appendix B IS: 2911-1979 part 1/sec
2.
Ultimate Skin Resistance Ultimate End Bearing Capacity Ultimate Bearing Capacity Of Soil Where, C K Pdi Asi Cp B Ap W
Qs Qb Qu
= = =
(*C + K*Pdi*tan)*Asi (Cp*Nc + Pd*Nq + 0.5**B*N)*Ap Qs + Qb-W
= reduction factor, = average cohesion throughout layer, = coefficient of earth pressure, = effective over burden pressure for ith layer, = angle of wall friction between soil and pile, = surface area of pile for ith layer, = cohesion at the base of pile, = diameter of pile, = area of pile tip, = weight of pile, = effective unit weight of soil,
79
Chapter 5 Nc,Nq,N
Soil data for input:
Pile Design = bearing capacity factors as per IS: 2911-1979 part 1/sec 2.
Design sea bed level = (+) 1.15 m

Table-16 Soil Properties Layer No. Depth below D.S.B.L. Layer Thickness (m) Density (kN/m3) Submerged density (kN/m3) N value Cohesion (kN/m2) Angle of friction (deg)
1 2 3 4 5 6
Layer 1:
6.53 15.53 23.03 26.03 29.15 31.15
6.53 9 7.5 3 3.12 2
18 18 18 18 18 20
7.75 7.75 7.75 7.75 7.75 7.75
38 26 18 50 80 80
150 80 160 0 0 300
0 0 0 35 35 0
Skin frictional resistance:
Layer thickness sub C Angle of internal friction SPT N value Level of water table Length of pile above bed level Critical depth Factor of safety Surface area Reduction factor Wall friction between soil and pile Co-efficient of earth pressure Avg. over burden pressure Design over burden pressure
Skin frictional resistance,Qsf1 Layer 2:
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
=
6.53 7.75 150 0 38 (+) 5.10 11.245 20 2.5 20.518 0.3 0 2 50.6075 50.6075
923
m kN/m3 kN/m2 deg m m times dia. m2 deg kN/m2 kN/m2

kN
Layer thickness
80
Chapter 5 C Angle of internal friction SPT N value Surface area Reduction factor Wall friction between soil and pile Co-efficient of earth pressure Avg. over burden pressure Design over burden pressure
Pile Design = = = = = = = = = =
=
7.75 80 0 26 28.274 0.3 0 1 69.75 120.3575

678.58
kN/m3 kN/m2 deg m2 deg kN/m2 kN/m2

kN
Layer thickness C Angle of internal friction SPT N value Surface area Reduction factor Wall friction between soil and pile Co-efficient of earth pressure Avg. over burden pressure Design over burden pressure
= = = = = = = = = = =
=
7.5 7.75 160 0 18 23.562 0.3 0 1 58.125 155

1131
m kN/m3 kN/m2 deg m2 deg kN/m2 kN/m2

kN
Layer thickness Angle of internal friction SPT N value Surface area Reduction factor Wall friction between soil and pile Co-efficient of earth pressure Avg. over burden pressure
= = = = = = = = =
3 0 35 50 9.425 0.3 35 2 23.25
m kN/m2 deg m2 deg kN/m2 81
Chapter 5 Design over burden pressure

Skin frictional resistance,Qsf4 Total Skin Frictional Resistance, Qsf End Bearing Resistance: Layer 4:
Pile Design =
= =
155
2045.8 4778.5
kN/m2
kN kN
Angle of internal friction Pile tip area Nq N Design over burden pressure
End bearing resistance at pile tip, Qb Weight of Pile:
= = = = =
=
35 0.7853 50 48 155
4241
deg m2
kN/m2
kN
Weight of pile above scour level Weight of pile below scour level
Total ultimate resistance of pile Allowable load
Wp1 Wp2
= =
= = = =
220.893 301.548
8717.452 3266
kN kN
kN kN.
Qsf + Qb Wp2 (8717.452 / F.S.) Wp1
From above calculations, Required depth E.G.L. Total depth below E.G.L. Level at this depth
Allowable load at this level = 3266 kN > 2836 kN.
=26.03m below design seabed level = = = (+) 1.15 26.03 m (-) 24.88 m CD m CD
This value is also useful for finding out value of spring stiffness at the bottom of pile. Assuming 10 mm settlement, Stiffness = Load / settlement = 3266 /0.01 =326600 kN/m
82
Chapter 5
Pile Design
5.2 Structural Design Of RCC Piles:

Pile foundations should be designed in such a way that the load from the structure it supports, can be transmitted to the soil without causing any soil failure and without causing such settlement differential or total under permanent transient loading as may result in structural damage and/or functional distress. The pile shaft should have adequate structural capacity to withstand all loads (vertical, axial or otherwise) and moments which are to be transmitted to the subsoil. Design of pile is done as per IS:456-2000 & SP 16. Design is checked for all possible severe combination of resultant forces and design is presented for a typical governing force combination (moment and axial force combination). Design of piles is done using spread sheet RCC PILE DESIGN. A typical design is presented here.
Basic Inputs:-
Diameter of pile Unsupported length of pile Effective length factor Grade of concrete Grade of steel Dia. of bar assumed Dia. of helicals assumed Clear cover to outermost reinforcement, d
Loads:-
D L fck fy h
= = = = = = = =
1.00 13.00 1.2 40 500 28 12 75 3112 184 1931 1940 1.2*13 15.6 103
m m N/mm2 N/mm2 mm mm mm kN kN.m kN.m kN.m m mm
Axial force Moment My Moment Mz Considering root mean square value, Design resultant moment Effective length of pile Effective cover Area of pile Area of pile core Minimum eccentricity
Pu Mx Mz Mu Leff d' Ag Acr
= = = = = = = = =
0.785398163 m2 17436.62463 m2
83
Chapter 5 e = (L/500) + (D/30) 20 mm e Me Therefore Final actual moments

Me
Pile Design = = < = = = = = = = =

= = =
59.33 177.11 Mu 1940 0.0778 0.0485 0.03 1.2 % 9424.77 0.80%
mm kN.m kN.m
The section is now checked for biaxial bending:-
Pu / fck D2 Mux / fck D3 From SP:16 chart 59 to 62, Therefore Ast required Minimum reinforcement required
Dia of bars provided No. of bars provided Ast provided
Pt / fck Pt
mm2
6283.185307 mm2
28 18 11083.53 mm2 mm
Design of helical reinforcement Dia. of helicals required = = Pitch required

Dia. of helicals provided Pitch provided
max. of 6 mm or Dia. of main bar / 4

7 150 12 150 mm mm mm mm
=
= =
Development Length Ld = s / 4 bd Bond stress Design bond stress Stress in bar s = 0.87 fy
Development Length Ld
= = =
=
1.9 2.4 435
N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2
60% increase for deformed bars
46.00 times dia
84
Chapter 5
PILE DESIGN SUMMARY:Table 17 Reinforcement Summary Level Reinforcement Grid A Grid B
Pile Design
(+)14.246 18-28mm 18-28mm (+)10.979 12-28mm 12-28mm (+)7.6982 12-28mm 12-28mm (+)4.4243 12-28mm 12-28mm (+)0.15 (-)1.85 (-)3.85 (-)5.85 12-28mm 12-28mm 12-28mm 12-28mm 12-28mm 12-28mm 12-28mm 12-28mm
5.2.1 Check For Serviceability:
Piles are checked for serviceability under all possible severe combination of working loads. Deflections at top of piles are summarized in table below.
Load Combination Deflection (mm)
Operating Seismic Storm
48 44 60
As per Cl. 43.2 IS:456-2000, Cracks due to bending in a compression member subjected to a design axial load greater than 0.2fckAc, where fck is the characteristic compressive strength of concrete and Ac is the area of the gross section of the member, need not be checked. Here, maximum axial load on the pile = 4195.08 kN < 0.2*40*785398.1634 = 6283.185 kN Therefore check for crack width must be done. Crack width is found out as per Annex F IS: 456-2000.
85
Chapter 5 Design surface crack width, Wcr = 3acr m 2(a cr C min ) 1+ hx
Pile Design
Where, acr Cmin h x m = distance from point considered to the surface of the nearest longitudinal bar. = clear cover to main reinforcement = overall depth of the member = depth of neutral axis = average steel strain given by,
b(h x)(a x) 3E s As (d x)
m = 1
Where, As b a 1 Es
Basic Inputs:-
= area of tension steel = width of the section = distance from the compression face to the point at which crack width is being calculated. = strain at level considered ignoring the stiffening of the concrete in the tension zone. = Youngs modulus for steel h fck fy N h Cmin Pu Mx Mz = = = = = = = = = = = 1.00 40 500 28 18 12 75 87 2099 1202 374 mm mm mm kN kN.m kN.m m N/mm2 N/mm2 mm
Diameter of pile Grade of concrete Grade of steel Dia. of main reinforcement No. of bars Dia. of helicals Clear cover to outermost reinforcement Clear cover to main reinforcement
Loads:-
Axial force Moment My Moment Mz
86
Chapter 5 Considering root mean square value, Design resultant moment Effective diameter Effective depth
Neutral axis and stress calculations:-
Pile Design
Mu d deff
= = = =
1258.84 798 899
kN.m mm mm
10008787-28
Using spread sheet PILE CRACK, Depth of neutral axis Stress in reinforcement Approx. spacing between bars Area of tension reinforcement x fs = = = = = 382.533 211.299 d/N 139.277 6157.82 mm mm2 mm MPa
Figure.27 Neutral Axis Row, i Area in each row, Ai (mm )

2
Centre of area from surface of pile, Yi (mm) AiYi (mm3)
1 2 3 4 5
Total
1231.504 1231.504 1231.504 1231.504 1231.504 6157.52
500 636.46 756.47 845.54 892.93
615752 783803.0358 931595.8309 1041285.892 1099646.867 6439213.338
87
Chapter 5 C.G. of tension reinforcement Width of section at C.G. of tension reinforcement Distance from compression face, a Distance to the surface of nearest bar, acr Strain at level considered, 1 Average steel strain, m Design surface crack width, Wcr Permissible crack width (As per IS: 4651-1989 part 4 Cl. 8.3.4) =
Crack Width Check Summary: Table-18.1 GRID A Member Fx (kN) My (kN.m) Mz (kN.m) Mu (kN.m) N.A. (mm)
Pile Design = = = = = = = = 726.28 891.72 1000 108.68 0.00126 0.00108

0.33 mm
mm mm mm mm
0.004 times clear cover

0.348 mm Therefore O.K.
Stress in R/F.(N/mm2)
Crackwidth (mm)
220 4774 220 4774 220 4774 4482 4774 4532 4824 4534 4826 4536 4828 480 4830
2099 554 2194 649 2289 1050 2945 840 2453.6 954 2492 994 2532 1033 2617 1072
1202 503 721.7 250 233 171.4 397 255 947.2 491 522 265 153 76 5 1
374 364 220 243 64.6 36.6 91 97 300 333 169 189 51 58 2 3
1258.840737 620.8904895 754.4871702 348.6387815 241.7894952 175.2641435 407.2959612 272.8259518 993.5732686 593.2705959 548.6756783 325.4934715 161.2761607 95.60334722 5.385164807 3.16227766
382.16 318.65 525.12 368.55 1104.79 869.931 961.873 524.993 439.925 344.01 724.187 520.973 1505.56 1195.56 28388.4 17635.9
211.738 150.016 59.175 71.314 -6.5 0.68 -3.35 23.148 134.182 140.79 14.67 28.24 -12.78 -3.68 -21.59 -8.76
0.33 0.21 0.06 0.05 0 0 0 0 0.19 0.19 0 0 0 0 0 0
88
Chapter 5
Table-18.2 GRID B Member Fx (kN) My (kN.m) Mz (kN.m) Mu (kN.m) N.A. (mm)
Pile Design
Stress in R/F.(N/mm2)
Crackwidth (mm)
221 4775 221 4775 221 4775 4483 4775 4484 4776 4486 4778 4488 4780 384 4782
2340 717 2435 1097 2530 1192 2528.7 1005 2575 1117 2614 1257 2653 1296 2858 1520
1189 501 712 430 227 179 396 255 939 490 517 263 151 75 6 4
379 233 749 454 241 186 404 259 968 503 533 296 156 86 6 5
1247.943108 552.5305421 1033.414244 625.3127218 331.0740099 258.1414341 565.7137085 363.4638909 1348.608542 702.2172029 742.5483149 395.9608567 217.1105709 114.1095964 8.485281374 6.403124237
393.21 344.29 550.25 433.24 1171.24 902.68 890.88 639.91 465.77 408.9 765.42 688.43 1587.39 1463.56 30956.7 17380.1
204.57 115.75 53.46 63.63 -8.59 0.09 0.43 11.73 113.18 81.01 10.37 10.03 -14.06 -6.35 -23.6 -10.4
0.32 0.15 0.03 0.04 0 0 0 0 0.15 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0
5.3 Geotechnical Design Of Steel Piles

5.3.1 Calculation Of Soil Spring Constant :
Soil spring stiffness calculation is same as that for RCC piles. So it is not presented here.
5.3.2 Pile Capacity Calculations:
From analysis of structure, it is found that maximum axial load in working condition is 2823 kN in operating case and 2660 kN in extreme case. Pile capacity is checked for above value of axial load required to be transmitted. Bearing capacity of piles is calculated as per procedure given in Clause of 6.4 of API RP 2A-WSD. Ultimate Skin Resistance Ultimate End Bearing Capacity Ultimate Bearing Capacity Of Soil Where, = a dimensionless factor, 89 Qs Qb Qu = = = (*C + K*Po*tan) (9*C + Po*Nq) Qs + Qb-W kN/m2 kN/m2 kN/m2
Chapter 5 C K Po W Nq Factor Where = undrained shear strength of soil at point in question, = coefficient of lateral earth pressure, = effective overburden pressure at point in question, = friction angle between soil and pilewall, = weight of pile, = effective unit weight of soil, = dimensionless bearing capacity factor. = 0.5 -0.5 = C / Po for 1.0 = 0.5 -0.25 for > 1.0 provided that 1.0
Soil data for input:
Pile Design
Design sea bed level = (+) 1.15 m

Refer Table-16 for soil properties. Skin frictional resistance: Layer 1:
Level of water table Length of pile above bed level Factor of safety Pile outer diameter Pile tip thickness Pile inner diameter Pile tip area (annular) Pile tip are (inner) Outer pile perimeter Inner pile perimeter Layer thickness sub C Angle of internal friction Wall friction between soil and pile Co-efficient of lateral earth pressure Effective over burden pressure at top of layer Effective over burden pressure at bottom of layer Outer surface area
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
(+) 5.10 11.245 2.0 1.016 20 0.976 0.063 0.748 3.191 3.066 6.53 7.75 150 0 0 0.8 0 50.6075 20.83
m CD m mm mm mm m2 m2 m2 m2 m kN/m3 kN/m2 deg deg kN/m2 kN/m2 m2 90
Chapter 5 Inner surface area

Reduction factor :
Pile Design = 20.02 m2
top bottom
= C / Po = 0, = 2.964, top = 0 0.5 -0.25 = = =

= =
0 0.381 0.190
593.65 570.57 kN kN
bottom =
Average reduction factor

Outer skin friction Qsfo1 Inner skin friction Layer 2: Qsfi1
Layer thickness sub C Angle of internal friction Wall friction between soil and pile Co-efficient of lateral earth pressure Effective over burden pressure at top of layer Effective over burden pressure at bottom of layer Outer surface area Inner surface area
Reduction factor :
= = = = = = = = = =
9 7.75 80 0 0 0.8 50.6075 120.35 kN/m2 28.719 m2 27.594 m2
m kN/m3 kN/m2 deg deg kN/m2
top bottom
= C / Po = 1.58, = 0.664, top = 0.5 -0.25 0.5 -0.5 = = =

= =
0.445 0.613 0.529

1215.38 1167.77 kN kN
bottom =

Layer thickness sub C Angle of internal friction Wall friction between soil and pile Co-efficient of lateral earth pressure Effective over burden pressure at top of layer
= = = = = = =
7.5 7.75 160 0 0 0.8 120.35
m kN/m3 kN/m2 deg deg kN/m2 91
Chapter 5 Effective over burden pressure at bottom of layer Outer surface area Inner surface area
Reduction factor :
Pile Design = = = 178.48 28.719 m2 27.594 m2 kN/m2
top bottom
= C / Po = 1.32, top = 0.5 -0.25 0.5 -0.5 = = =

= =
0.466 0.529 0.4975

1903. 12 1828.19 kN kN
= 0.89, bottom =

Layer thickness sub C Angle of internal friction Wall friction between soil and pile Co-efficient of lateral earth pressure Effective over burden pressure at top of layer Effective over burden pressure at bottom of layer Average over burden pressure at bottom of layer Outer surface area Inner surface area
Outer skin friction Qsfo4 Inner skin friction Qsfi4
= = = = = = = = = = =
= =
2 7.75 0 35 24.5 0.8 178.48 kN/m2 193.98 kN/m2 186.23 kN/m2 6.38 6.132
426.60 409.54
m kN/m3 kN/m2 deg deg
m2 m2
kN kN
End Bearing Resistance:
Annular end bearing Qba
= 193.98 x 40 x 0.063
= =
= =
488.82 5801.66
4084 3920
kN kN
kN kN
Inner end bearing Qbi = 193.88 x 40 x 0.7481

Total outer skin friction Qsfo Total inner skin friction Qsfi
< Inner end bearing. Therefore plug is not formed. Total ultimate bearing capacity = Qsfo + Qsfi + Qba Weight of Pile: = 8482.41 kN
92
Chapter 5 Weight of pile above scour level Weight of pile below scour level From above calculations, Required depth E.G.L. Total depth below E.G.L. Level at this depth = = = = 26.03 m below design sea bed level (+) 1.15 m 26.03 m (-) 24.88 m
4134 kN > 3000 kN.
Pile Design Wp1 Wp2 = = = 55.63 112.33 kN

4134.23 kN
kN
Allowable load = ((8482.41 112.33)/2) 55.63
Allowable load at this level =
This value is also useful for finding out value of spring stiffness at the bottom of pile. Assuming 10 mm settlement, Stiffness = Load / settlement = 4134/0.01 =413400 kN/m
5.4 Structural Design Of Steel Piles

Design of steel pile section is done with working stress method. Design is done in accordance with API RP-2A WSD. Design is checked for all possible severe combination of resultant forces and design is presented for a typical governing force combination (moment and axial force combination). Design of piles is done using spread sheet API STEEL PILE DESIGN. A typical design is presented here.
5.4.1 Typcial Design For Operating Case: Basic Inputs:-
Outside diameter of pile Corrosion Allowance Corroded outside diameter Structural thickness Inside diameter of pile Unsupported length of pile Effective length factor Grade of steel Modulus of elasticity
Do Do t Di L K Fy E
= = = = = = = = =
1.016 5 1.011 17 0.977 13.0 1.2 240 200000
m mm m mm m m N/mm2 N/mm2
93
Chapter 5
Loads:-
Pile Design
Axial force Moment My Moment Mz Considering root mean square value, Design resultant moment Effective length of pile
Compressive stress
Pu Mx Mz Mu Leff
= = = = = =
2353 1119 388 1184 1.2*13 15.6
kN kN.m kN.m kN.m m
Cross sectional area Actual compressive stress Elastic local buckling stress
A fa Fxe
= = = = = = =
/4 (Do2Di2) 53086.63 P/A 44.32 2CEt/Do 0.3 2017 N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2 mm2
(API RP 2A-WSD Cl.3.2.2.b)
Where C = critical elastic buckling co-efficient Fxe Inelastic local buckling stress Fxc
= lesser of Fxc1 and Fxc2

Where Fxc1 = Fy x [1.64 0.23(Do/t)1/4] Fxe, Fxc2 = Fy Fxc1 Fxc2 Therefore,

Bending Stress
= = = = = = = = =
240.3 240 240
N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2
Fxc I Z fb
Moment of inertia Section Modulus Actual bending stress
/64 (Do4Di4) 6558355778 mm4 I / (Do/2) 12973997.58 mm3 M/Z 91.259 N/mm2
Since (10340/Fy) < (Do/t) = 67.4 < (20680/Fy), Allowable bending stress
Check for combined stresses
Fb
= [0.84 1.74 (FyDo) / (Et)] Fy = 171.80 N/mm2
94
Chapter 5
fa f + b 1.0 0.6 Fxc Fb
Pile Design
(API RP 2A-WSD Cl.3.3.1.b) Therefore OK.
fa f + b 0.6 Fxc Fb
Basic Inputs:-
= 0.30 + 0.53 = 0.83 1.
5.4.2 Typcial Design For Extreme Case:
Outside diameter of pile Corrosion Allowance Corroded outside diameter Structural thickness Inside diameter of pile Unsupported length of pile Effective length factor Grade of steel Modulus of elasticity
Loads:
Do Do t Di L K Fy E Pu Mx Mz Mu A fa Fxe
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
1.016 5 1.011 15 0.981 13.0 1.2 240 200000 2660 333 1347 1387 /4 (Do2Di2) 46935.39 P/A 56.67 2CEt/Do 0.3 1780
m mm m mm m m N/mm2 N/mm2 kN kN.m kN.m kN.m
Axial force Moment My Moment Mz Considering root mean square value, Design resultant moment
Compressive stress
Cross sectional area Actual compressive stress Elastic local buckling stress Where C
mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2
= critical elastic buckling co-efficient Fxe Fxc

1/4
N/mm2
Inelastic local buckling stress Where Fxc1 = Fy x [1.64 0.23(Do/t) ] Fxe, Fxc2 = Fy
lesser of Fxc1 and Fxc2
95
Chapter 5 Fxc1 Fxc2 Therefore,

Bending Stress
Pile Design = = = = = = = = = 235 240 235 N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2
Fxc I Z fb
Moment of inertia Section Modulus Actual bending stress
/64 (Do4Di4) 5821402815 mm4 I / (Do/2) 11516128.22 mm3 M/Z 120..43 N/mm2
Since (10340/Fy) < (Do/t) = 67.4 < (20680/Fy), Allowable bending stress
Check for combined stresses
fa f + b 1.33 0.6 Fxc Fb
Fb
= [0.84 1.74 (FyDo) / (Et)] Fy = 167 N/mm2
(API RP 2A-WSD Cl.3.3.1.b) Therefore OK.
fa f + b 0.6 Fxc Fb
Basic Inputs:-
= 0.401 + 0.721 = 1.122 1.33.
Check for shear stress:
Outside diameter of pile Corrosion Allowance Corroded outside diameter Structural thickness Inside diameter of pile
Loads:
Do Do t Di Fx Fz Fu A fv
= = = = = = = = = = =
1.016 5 1.006 11 0.984 230.17 56.564 237 34384.73 Fu / 0.5A 13.78
m mm m mm m kN kN kN mm2 N/mm2 96
Shear Force Shear Force Considering root mean square value, Design resultant shear force Area of cross section Actual Shear stress
Chapter 5 Allowable shear stress Fv = = >

5.4.3 Minimum Wall Thickness:
Pile Design 0.4 Fy 96 13.78 N/mm2 N/mm2.
(API RP 2A-WSD Cl.3.2.4.a)
As per Cl.6.10.6 of API RP 2A-WSD, the D/t ratio of the entire length of a pile should be small enough to preclude local buckling at stresses up to the yield strength of the pile material. Consideration should be given to the different loading situations occurring during the installations and service life of a piling. For piles that are to be installed by driving where sustained hard driving is anticipated, the minimum piling wall thickness used should not be less than t = 6.35 + D/100 where t= thickness (mm) D= diameter (mm) For diameter of 1016 mm, t = 6.35 + 1016/100 = 16.51mm. <18mm(provided thickness)
5.4.4 Corrosion Allowance:
Corrosion allowance in terms of additional steel plate thickness is added to the structural thickness. Corrosion allowance is considered in accordance with BS:6349 -1:2000 Maritime
Structures-Code Of Practice For General Criteria.
Marine environment usually include several exposure zones with differing degrees of aggressiveness. The corrosion performance of maritime structures therefore requires separate consideration in each of these zones. The average and upper limit values for the different exposure zones are given in Table 19. The rates apply to each face exposed to environment of the zone. The rates given in the table should be regarded to the uniform or general corrosion and can be used to assess the theoretical design life of the structure.
97
Chapter 5
Table-19 Rates Of Corrosion For Structural Steel
Pile Design
Corrosion Rate Exposure Zone mm/side/year Mean Atmospheric Zone: Upper Limit
Above splash zone and where direct wave or spray impingement is infrequent
Splash Zone:
0.04
0.1
Above mean high water to a height depending on mean wave height and exposure to wind
Tidal Zone:
0.08
0.17
Between mean high water and mean low water spring level
Inter-tidal Low Water Zone:
0.04 0.08 0.04
0.1 0.17 0.13 0.015
Between low water spring and 0.5m below LAT

Continuous Sea Water Immersion Zone:
From 0.5 m below LAT to sea bed level

Below Sea Bed Level Or In Contact With Soil
98
Chapter 5
5.4.5 Pile Design Summary: Table-20.1 GRID A Reqd. Thk. R.L. (Operating) (mm) Reqd. Thk. (Extreme) (mm) Max. Reqd. Thk. (mm) Corrosion Allowance (mm)
Pile Design
Total Reqd. Thk. (mm)
14.246 13.159 12.059 10.972 9.885 8.785 7.698 6.611 5.485 4.424 2.683 2.237 1.150 0.150 -1.850 -3.850 -5.850 -7.850 upto -24
16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 10 11 12 13 15 15 15 12 10 9 9
16 14 13 11 10 8 7 6 6 8 9 11 13 13 12 8 6 6 6
16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 10 11 12 13 15 15 15 12 10 9 9
5 5 5 5 8.5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
21 20 19 18 20.5 16 15 14 15 16 17 18 20 15.75 15.75 12.75 10.75 9.75 9.75
99
Chapter 5
Table-20.2 GRID B Reqd. Thk. R.L. (Operating) (mm) Reqd. Thk. (Extreme) (mm) Max. Reqd. Thk. (mm) Corrosion
Pile Design
Total Reqd. Thk. (mm)
Allowance (mm)
14.246 13.159 12.059 10.972 9.885 8.785 7.698 6.611 5.485 4.424 2.683 2.237 1.150 0.150 -1.850 -3.850 -5.850 -7.850 upto -24
17 16 15 14 13 11 10 9 9 10 12 13 15 15 14 12 10 9 9
16 15 13 12 10 9 7 6 6 8 9 11 13 12 12 11 9 7 7
17 16 15 14 13 11 10 9 9 10 12 13 15 15 14 12 10 9 9
5 5 5 5 8.5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
22 21 20 19 21.5 16 15 14 14 15 17 18 20 15.75 14.75 12.75 10.75 9.75 9.75
5.4.6 Provided Thickness:
As can be seen from pile design summary that there is minor difference between the thickness requirements of grid A and grid B piles, both piles are given same spool lengths and thicknesses. Spool length and thickness of each spool for one pile is given in table below:
100
Chapter 5
Spool Length (m) Grid A & B Piles
Pile Design
Spool Thickness (mm)
4 11 11 11
25 20 18 18
Gross Length 5.4.7 Design Of Concrete Plug: Shear Key Connections:
37
According to Cl.7.4.4.b of API RP 2A-WSD, where shear keys are used at interface between steel and grout, the value of nominal allowable axial load transfer stress fba should be taken as: fba = 0.138 + 0.5 fcu h/s for operating loading conditions and should be taken as: fba = 0.184 + 0.67 fcu h/s for extreme loading conditions where: fcu h s = unconfined grout compressive strength (MPa) = shear key outstand dimension (mm) = shear key spacing MPa MPa
Figure.28 Shear key details
Axial load on top of pile for operating condition Axial load on top of pile for extreme condition
= =
2823 2660
kN kN
101
Chapter 5
Nominal allowable load transfer stress fba for operating condition:
Pile Design
Assuming fba
h = 20 mm s = 300 mm
= 0.138 + 0.5 fcu h/s = 0.138 + 0.5 x 40 x 20 / 300 = 1.47 MPa
Length of concrete plug required = 2823 x 1000 / ( x 966 x 1.47) = 632 mm

Nominal allowable load transfer stress fba for extreme condition:
fba
= 0.184 + 0.67 fcu h/s = 0.184 + 0.67 x 40 x 20 / 300 = 1.97 MPa
Length of concrete plug required = 2660 x 1000 / ( x 966 x 1.97) = 445 mm Hence provide in-situ concrete plug of 1000mm length inside steel pile.
Design Of Shear Key:
Maximum axial force on top of pile Permissible bearing stress in concrete Nos. Of shear keys in 1m length of concrete plug Bearing area of 3 shear keys = x 977 x 20 x 3
= = = = <
2823 10 3 184160.16 1841 2823
kN N/mm2 N/mm2 kN kN
Capacity of shear keys in bearing = 184160.16x10/1000 =
Hence provide 4 shear keys of 25 mm thickness and 50 mm wide @ 200 mm c/c distance to meet bearing criteria. Bearing capacity of 4 shear keys = x 977 x 25 x 4 x 10 / 1000 = > 3069 2823
Hence OK.
kN kN.
According to Cl.7.4.4.c of API RP 2A-WSD, following limitations should be observed while designing shear keys: 17.25 MPa fcu = 40 MPa 110 MPa Shear key ratio Shear key shape factor h/s = 0.1 0.1 1.5 w/h=2 3
Product of fcu and h/s = 4 5.5 MPa. Hence shear key dimension and spacing is satisfying all above stated limitations.
Weld Design:
102
Chapter 5 Axial force to be transferred through each shear key Assumed size of fillet weld Effective throat thickness Permissible shear stress in fillet weld Length required for weld =705750 / (4.242 x 108)
5.4.8 Design Of Concrete Plug:
Pile Design = = = 0.707 x 6 = = = 705750 6 4.24 108 1540 N mm N/mm2 N/mm2 mm.
Design of plug is done as per IS:456-2000 & SP 16. Design is checked for all possible severe combination of resultant forces and design is presented for a typical governing force combination (moment and axial force combination). Design of insitu concrete plug is done using spread sheet PILE DESIGN. A typical design is presented here.
Basic Inputs:-
Diameter of pile Unsupported length of pile Effective length factor Grade of concrete Grade of steel Dia. of bar assumed Dia. of helicals assumed Clear cover to outermost reinforcement,
Loads:-
D L fck fy h d Pu Mx Mz Mu Leff d' Ag Acr e Me
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
0.966 13.00 1.2 40 500 28 12 75 3013 227 2267 2278 1.2*13 15.6 101 0.73289909 31741.60 58.2 112/26
m m N/mm2 N/mm2 mm mm mm kN kN.m kN.m kN.m m mm m2 m2 mm kN.m 103
Axial force Moment My Moment Mz Considering root mean square value, Design resultant moment Effective length of pile Effective cover Area of pile Area of pile core Minimum eccentricity e = (L/500) + (D/30) 20 mm
Chapter 5 < Mu Therefore Final actual moments

The section is now checked for biaxial bending:Me
Pile Design
= = = = = = = =
= = =
1924 0.08 0.063 0.05 2.0 % 14657.98 0.80% 5863.19

32 19 11699.29
kN.m
Pu / fck D2 Mux / fck D3 From SP:16 chart 59 to 62, Therefore Ast required Minimum reinforcement required
Dia of bars provided No. of bars provided Ast provided
Pt / fck Pt
mm2 mm2
mm mm2
Design of helical reinforcement Dia. of helicals required = = Pitch required

Dia. of helicals provided Pitch provided Development Length
max. of 6 mm or Dia. of main bar/4

7 150 12 150 mm mm mm mm
=
= =
Ld = s / 4 bd Bond stress 60% increase for deformed bars Design bond stress Stress in bar s = 0.87 fy
Development Length Concrete Plug Design Summary: Table-21 PILE R/F Ld
= = =
=
1.5 2.4 435
N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2
46.00 times dia
Grid A 19-32mm Grid B 17-32mm
104
Chapter 5
5.4.9 Check For Serviceability:
Pile Design
Piles are checked for serviceability under all possible severe combination of working loads. Deflections at top of piles are summarized in table below.
Load Combination Deflection (mm)
Operating Seismic Storm
48 75.5 66
As per Cl. 43.2 IS:456-2000, Cracks due to bending in a compression member subjected to a design axial load greater than 0.2fckAc, where fck is the characteristic compressive strength of concrete and Ac is the area of the gross section of the member, need not be checked. Here, maximum axial load on the pile = 4044 kN < 0.2*40*785398.1634 = 6283.185 kN Therefore check for crack width must be done. Crack width is found out as per Annex F IS: 456-2000. Design surface crack width, Wcr = 3acr m 2(a cr C min ) 1+ hx
Where, acr Cmin h x m = distance from point considered to the surface of the nearest = clear cover to main reinforcement = overall depth of the member = depth of neutral axis = average steel strain given by, b(h x)(a x) 3E s As (d x) longitudinal bar.
m = 1
Where, As b a = area of tension steel = width of the section
= distance from the compression face to the point at which being calculated.
crack width is
105
Chapter 5 1 Es
Basic Inputs:-
Pile Design = strain at level considered ignoring the stiffening of the concrete in the tension zone. = Youngs modulus for steel h fck fy N h Cmin Pu Mx Mz Mu d deff = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 0.966 40 500 28 19 12 75 87 2206 1175 94 1178 764 865 mm mm mm kN kN.m kN.m kN.m mm mm m N/mm2 N/mm2 mm
Diameter of pile Grade of concrete Grade of steel Dia. of main reinforcement No. of bars Dia. of helicals Clear cover to outermost reinforcement Clear cover to main reinforcement
Loads:-
Axial force Moment My Moment Mz Considering root mean square value, Design resultant moment Effective diameter Effective depth
Neutral axis and stress calculations:-
966 87 87 28
Using spread sheet PILE CRACK, Depth of neutral axis Stress in reinforcement Approx. spacing between bars Area of tension reinforcement x fs = = = = = 391.334 186.24 d/N 126.32 48629 mm mm2 mm MPa
106
Chapter 5
Pile Design
Figure.29 Concrete Plug Neutral Axis
C.G. of tension reinforcement Width of section at C.G. of tension reinforcement Distance from compression face, a Distance to the surface of nearest bar, acr Strain at level considered, 1 Average steel strain, m Design surface crack width, Wcr Permissible crack width
= = = = = = = = =
686.83 875.76 966 105.12 0.00112 0.0009

0.29
mm mm mm mm
mm
0.004 times clear cover

0.348 mm
(As per IS: 4651-1989 part 4 Cl. 8.3.4)

Therefore O.K. Crack Width Check Summary: Table-22.1 GRID A Beam Fx (kN) My (kN.m) Mz (kN.m) Mu (kN.m) N.A. (mm) Stress in reft.(N/mm2) Crackwidth (mm)
220 4774
122 133
Fx (kN)
2206 848
My (kN.m)
1175 648
Mz (kN.m)
94 295
Mu (kN.m)
391.33 335.56
N.A. (mm)
186.24 154.55
Stress in reft.(N/mm2)
0.29 0.22
Crackwidth (mm)
Table-22.2 GRID B Beam
221 4775
127 121
2353 1036
1119 743
388 252
343.61 393.47
159.13 191.38
0.23 0.30
107
CHAPTER6 COMPARISONOFRESULTS
Chapter 6
Comparison Of Results
6.1 Comparison Between Various Steel Pile Diameters:

6.1.1 Without restricted deflection: Here, comparision of weight between 4 different diameters is done keeping total structural thickness equal to what is required from strength point of view. Table 23 Weight Comparision
O.D. (mm) 1016 1118 914 813 Spool Details (Length - Thickness) Spool-1 4m-25mm 4m-25mm 11m-25mm 11m-25mm Spool-2 11m-20mm 11m-20mm 4m-20mm 4m-25mm Spool-3 11m-18mm 11m-18mm 11m-18mm 11m-18mm Spool-4 11m-18mm 11m-18mm 11m-18mm 11m-18mm Total Weight(T) 17.6 19.4 16.5 15
Table 24 Deflection Comparision

Pile Options 1000mm Dia. RCC 1118mm O.D. Steel 1016mm O.D. Steel 914mm O.D. Steel 813mm O.D. Steel Load Case Operating 46 46 49 52 58 Seismic 68 74 79 86 100 Storm 60 58 69 84 106
Table 25 Founding Level Comparision

Pile Options 1000mm Dia. RCC 1118mm O.D. Steel 1016mm O.D. Steel 914mm O.D. Steel 813mm O.D. Steel Founding Level (m CD) (-)25.00 (-)25.00 (-)25.00 (-)25.00 (-)25.00
6.1.2 With Restricted Deflection: As mentioned in Chapter 3 Project Description, deflection at top of deck in operating condition is to be restricted to 50mm for proper functioning of material handling system installed over deck, plate thickness were revised to suit this limit. Analysis and design with increased structural thickness is done for pile diameters 914mm and 813m as for other two diameters, deflection is well within limit.
108
Chapter 6 Table 26 Weight Comparision

O.D. (mm) 1016 914 813 Spool Details (Length - Thickness) Spool-1 4m-25mm 11m-28mm 11m-34mm Spool-2 11m-20mm 4m-25mm 4m-32mm Spool-3 11m-18mm 11m-20mm 11m-30mm
Spool-4 11m-18mm 11m-18mm 11m-30mm
Total Weight(T) 17.6 18.5 22.39
Table 27 Deflection Comparision

Pile Options 1016mm O.D. Steel 914mm O.D. Steel 813mm O.D. Steel Load Case Operating 49 50 50 Seismic 79 83 85 Storm 69 75 75
6.2 Comparison Of Forces In Pile:

MOMENT COMPARISION FOR OPERATING LOADCASES
RCC 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 0.083 0.167 0.25 0.333 0.417 0.5 H/L 0.583 0.667 0.75 0.833 0.917 1 Steel
MOMENT (KN.M)
MOMENT COMPARISION FOR SEISMIC LOADCASES

RCC 2500 MOMENT (KN.M) 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 0.083 0.167 0.25 0.333 0.417 0.5 H/L 0.583 0.667 0.75 0.833 0.917 1 STEEL
H = length of segment measured from top of pile, L = Total length up to fixity measured from pile top.
109
Chapter 6
MOMENT COMPARISION FOR STORM LOADCASES

RCC 2000 MOMENT (KN.M) 1500 1000 500 0 0 0.083 0.167 0.25 0.333 0.417 0.5 H/L 0.583 0.667 0.75 0.833 0.917 1 STEEL
MOMENT COMPARISION
RCC OPERATING STEEL OPERATING 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 0.083 0.167 0.25 0.333 0.417 0.5 H/L 0.583 0.667 0.75 0.833 0.917 1 RCC SEISMIC STEEL SEISMIC RCC STORM STEEL STORM
MOMENT (KN.M)
SHEAR FORCE COMPARISION FOR OPERATING LOADCASES

RCC SHEAR FORCE (KN) 200 150 100 50 0 0 0.083 0.167 0.25 0.333 0.417 0.5 H/L 0.583 0.667 0.75 0.833 0.917 1 STEEL
110
Chapter 6
SHEAR FORCE COMPARISION FOR SEISMIC LOADCASES

RCC SHEAR FORCE (KN) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 0.083 0.167 0.25 0.333 0.417 0.5 H/L 0.583 0.667 0.75 0.833 0.917 1 STEEL
SHEAR FORCE COMPARISION FOR STORM LOADCASES

AXIAL FORCE COMPARISION

RCC AXIAL FORCE (KN) 2800 2750 2700 2650 2600 OPERATING SEISMIC LOADING CONDITION STORM STEEL
111
Chapter 6
6.3 Comparison Of Deflection In Pile

DEFLECTION COMPARISION
RCC DEFLECTION (MM) 100 80 60 40 20 0 OPERATING SEISMIC LOADING CONDITION STORM STEEL
6.4 Comparison Of Forces In Beams

COMPARISION OF FORCES FOR PILE-CAP BEAM
RCC 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Hogging at Sagging at Sagging at midsupport (KN.m) support (KN.m) span (KN.m) FORCES Shear at support (KN) Steel
VALUE
COMPARISION OF FORCES FOR LONGITUDINAL BEAMS

RCC 1500 VALUE 1000 500 0 Hogging at support (KN.m) Sagging at mid-span (KN.m) FORCES Shear at support (KN.m) STEEL
112
CHAPTER7 CONCLUSIONANDFUTURESCOPE
Chapter 7
Conclusion & Future Scope
7.1 Conclusion:
Following conclusions are derived based on the present work. For required structural thickness, 914mm O.D. pile and 813mm O.D. pile are weighing 6.25% and 14.77% less than 1016mm O.D. pile respectively. And 1118 mm O.D. pile is weighing 10.22% more than 1016mm O.D. pile. But deflection is limited to 50mm in operating condition at top of deck for proper functioning of the material handling system installed above deck. Deflection is higher than this limit in 914mm O.D. pile and 813mm O.D. pile. To reduce deflection, thickness needs to be increased. With increased thickness (by providing thickness required to reduce deflection to 50mm), 914mm O.D. pile and 813mm O.D. pile are weighing 5.11% and 27.21% more than 1016mm O.D. pile respectively. Thus it can be concluded that for given deflection limit, 1016mm O.D. pile option is most economical steel pile for the structure studied in this thesis. Founding level of all the three steel piles are coming same as piles are founded in sand layer to avoid founding into clay layer which is considered as weak for end bearing. All three piles are penetrated into sand layer by 2m as per guidelines given in API RP 2A-WSD. Founding level of 1.0m dia. bored cast in situ RCC pile and 1.016m outer dia. steel piles is coming same because of avoiding founding into clay. Because static calculation shows formation of soil plug inside steel pile which reduces pile bearing capacity and there is large reduction in the end bearing resistance in clayey soil in case of RCC piles. At same founding, level hollow steel pile gives more bearing capacity than that of solid RCC pile. This is because skin friction is available on outer side as well as on inner side of the steel pile whereas it is available only at outer side of the RCC pile. In comparison between 1.0m dia. bored cast in situ RCC pile and 1.016m outer dia. steel pile, it can be seen that forces are almost same in both the cases except for seismic load case where slight variation in forces is observed. Moments are approx. 6% higher in steel pile and shear force is approx. 8% higher in steel in seismic load case. Base shear co-efficient for RCC pile is 0.04 whereas for steel pile is 0.05. Although hollow steel piles are flexible foundation compared to solid RCC pile but
113
Chapter 7
Conclusion & Future Scope
multiplication of damping factor of value 1.4 with base shear coefficient increases seismic force in steel piled structures as compared to RCC piles structure. Moment of inertia (I) of 1.0 m dia. RCC pile is approx. 7.4 times moment of inertia of 1.016m outer dia. steel pile. At the same time, modulus of elasticity (E) of steel material is approx. 6.3 times E of RCC material. But product of EI for RCC pile is only 1.16 times EI of steel pile. Because of this, there is not major variation in RCC pile and steel pile option.
7.2 Future Scope:

In this dissertation work, both steel pile and RCC pile options are analyzed by using soil spring stiffness method. Same can be done by depth of fixity approach. Bearing capacity of steel piles can be evaluated by dynamic methods. Further research can be done on using batter driven steel pile for reducing deflection. Further work can be done on economics of steel pile and RCC pile option. Further studies can be done on other pile types such as precast RCC piles, precast prestress piles etc. Dynamic analysis can be carried out for the given structure for dynamic loads such as waves, current, wind, earthquake are acting on the.
114
CHAPTER8 REFERENCES
Chapter 8
References
1. Arora K.R., Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Standard Publishers, Third Edition. 2. Aswani M.G. and Vazirani V.N. and Ratwani M.M., Design Of Concrete Bridges, Khanna Publishers 3. Babu P.V.Mayur and Bhandari N.M, A Comparative Study of Integral Bridges versus Simply Supported Bridge 4. Bowles Joseph E., Foundation Analysis and Design, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., Fifth Edition. 5. Broms Bengt B., Design of Laterally Loaded Piles. 6. Byrne Byron, Driven Pipe Piles in Dense Sand 7. Chen Wai Fah and Duan Lian, Bridge Engineering Handbook, CRC Press. 8. Connal John, Integral Abutment Bridges Australian and US Practice 9. Dawson Thomas H., Offshore Structural Engineering, United Status Naval Academy 10. Duggal S.K., Design of Steel Structures, The McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Liminted, Second Edition, 11. Elson W.K., Design of Laterally Loaded Piles. 12. Evans Keith Martin, A Model Study of The End Bearing Capacity of Piles In Layered Calcareous Soils. 13. Flener Esra Bayoglu, Soil Structure Interaction in Integral Bridges. 14. Hambly E.C., Bridge Deck Behavior, E & F N Spon Publications, Second Edition. 15. Mistry Vasant C., Integral Abutment and Jointless Bridges 16. Mokwa R.L., Analysis of Laterally Loaded Pile Groups 17. Murthy V.N.S, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Sri Kripa Technical Consultants, Third Edition. 18. Nayak Narayan, Foundation Design Manual, Dhanpat Rai Publications, Fourth Edition 19. Obrien Eugene J. and Keogh Damien L., Design Details Of Integral Bridges. 20. Park R. and Paulay T., Reinforced Concrete Structure, John Willey And Sons Publications. 21. Poulos H.G. and Davis E.H., Pile Foundation Analysis and Design, John Willey And Sons Publications. 22. Prakash Shamsher and Sharma Hari D., Pile Foundations in Engineering Practice, John Willey And Sons Publications. 23. Raina V.K., Concrete Bridge Practice, The McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited, Second Edition. A Comparative Study Of RCC & Steel Pile Foundation For An Integral Bridge 115
Chapter 8
References
24. Reynolds Charles E. and Steedman James C., Reinforced Concrete Designers Handbook, E & F N Spon Publications, Tenth Edition. 25. API Recommended Practice 2A-WSD Recommended Practice For Planning, Designing And Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms Working Stress Design 26. BS:6349(Part1)-2000 Maritime Structures- Code Of Practice For General Criteria. 27. Coastal Engineering Manual(Part VI)- 2006 Chapter5 Fundamentals Of Design. 28. IRC:6-2000 Standard Specifications And Code Of Practice For Road Bridges. Section IILoad And Stresses. 29. IRC:22-1986 Standard Specifications And Code Of Practice For Road Bridges. Section VI- Composite Construction. 30. IS:1893(Part 1)-2002 Code Of Practice For Earthquake Resistant Design Of StructuresGeneral Provisions And Buildings. 31. IS:1893-1984 Criteria For Earthquake Resistant Design Of Structures. 32. IS:2062-1999 Steel For General Structural Purpose-Specification 33. IS:2911 (Part 1/Sec 2) 1979 Code Of Practice For Design And Construction Of Piles, Bored Cast In Situ Piles 34. IS:456-2000 Plain And Reinforced Concrete Code Of Practice 35. IS:4651 (Part 4) -1989 Code Of Practice For Planning And Design Of Ports And Harbours, General Design Considerations. 36. IS:800-1984 Code Of Practice For General Construction In Steel 37. IS:816-1969 Code Of Practice For Use Of Metal Arc Welding For General Construction In Mild Steel 38. IS:875 (Part 1) 1987 Code Of Practice For Design Loads (Other Than Earthquake 32. Loads) For Buildings And Structures Dead Loads 39. IS:875 (Part 2) 1987 Code Of Practice For Design Loads (Other Than Earthquake Loads) For Buildings And Structures Imposed Loads 40. IS:875 (Part 3) 1987 Code Of Practice For Design Loads (Other Than Earthquake Loads) For Buildings And Structures Wind Loads 41. SP:16-1980 Design Aids To IS:456-1978, 42. SP:34-1987 Handbook On Concrete Reinforcement And Detailing, 43. SP:64-2001 Explanatory Handbook On Code Of Practice For Design Loads (Other Than Earthquake Loads) For Buildings And Structures Wind Loads
116
APPENDIXA WAVEFORCECALCULATIONCHARTS
Appendix A
Wave Force Calculation Charts
Figure.A.1 Values Of Kim.
A Comparative Study Of RCC & Steel Pile Foundation For An Integral Bridge -
117
Appendix A
Figure. A.2 Values Of KDm.
118
Appendix A
Figure. A.3 Values Of Sim.
119
Appendix A
Figure. A.4 Values Of SDm.
120
Appendix A
Figure. A.5 Values Of m For W=0.05.
121
Appendix A
122
Appendix A
123
Appendix A
124
Appendix A
125
Appendix A
126
Appendix A
127
Appendix A
128
APPENDIXB SUPERSTRUCTUREANALYSIS&DESIGN
Appendix B
Super-structure Analysis & Design
B.1Super-structure Analysis:
B.1.1 Pilecap Beam Analysis:
Figure.B.1 Longitudinal & Pile Cap Beam Arrangement Structural Idealization and Analysis Results: 3D analysis carried out on the same structural model which is used for design of piles. Following set of design forces depict the maximum forces taken at face (1m) of support (for hogging, sagging and shear at support) and sagging at mid span and corresponding torsion is added appropriately as given in IS:456 2000 Cl.41.4.2 (equivalent moment) and 41.3.1 (equivalent shear). Equivalent BM, Me = Mu + Mt ; Mt = Tu * (1+(D/b))/1.7 Equivalent shear, Ve = Vu + (1.6*Tu/b) Forces at a section 2.25m from centre of pile are also shown to see the possibility of curtailment of main reinforcement. Table B.1.1 Limit State Of Collapse Force Hogging at face of support Sagging at face of support Shear at d distance from face of support Hogging at 2.25m from support Sagging at 2.25m from support Shear at 2.25m from support Sagging at mid span Beam 4282 4770 4282 626 4280 4282 4281 L/C 517 671 460 435 489 460 464 V/M (kN/kN.m) 3590.00 529.82 2144.115 66.688 1662.37 1955.03 3011.56 T (kN.m) 562.33 207.30 606.45 678.848 135.546 606.45 665.57 Ve/Me (kN/kN.m) 4708 942.113 3357 1416.8 1932 3167.93 4335.36
129
Appendix B Table B.1.2
Limit State Of Collapse Force Sagging at mid span for stage-I Sagging at mid span for stage-II Sagging at 2.25 from support for stage-I Sagging at 2.25 from support for stage-II Shear at d distance from face of support for L-shear check Shear at 3m from support for Lshear check Beam 4281 4282 L/C 185 195 V/M (kN/kN.m) 549.847 1151.479 132.356 67.375 1047 564 T (kN.m) 0 171.076 0 598.356 0 0 Ve/Me (kN/kN.m) 549.847 1491.761 132.356 1252.00 1047 564
B.1.2 Longitudinal Beam Analysis: 3D analysis carried out on the same structural model which is used for analysis of pile cap beams. Following set of design forces depict the maximum forces taken at face (1m) of support (for hogging, sagging and shear at support) and sagging at mid span and corresponding torsion is added appropriately as given in IS:456 2000 Cl.41.4.2 (equivalent moment) and 41.3.1 (equivalent shear). Equivalent BM, Me = Mu + Mt ; Mt = Tu * (1+(D/b))/1.7 Equivalent shear, Ve = Vu + (1.6*Tu/b) Forces at a section 3m from centre of pile are also shown to see the possibility of curtailment of main reinforcement.
130
Appendix B Girder 2 to 4 Table B.2.1
Limit State Of Collapse Force Hogging at face of support Hogging at 3m from support Sagging at mid span Sagging at 3m from support Shear at d distance from face of support Shear at 3m from support Beam L/C SF/BM (KN/KNm) 3554 165 4702 4432 4466 4651 Table B.2.2 Limit State Of Serviceability Force Sagging at mid span for stage-I Sagging at mid span for stage-II Sagging at 3m from support for stage-I Sagging at 3m from support for stage-II Shear at d distance from face of support for L-shear check Shear at 3m from support for L-shear check 305.381 Beam L/C SF/BM (KN/KNm) 2244 4719 225 219 386.69 612.55 312 603 451 435 517 547 513 519 541 934.119 102.834 1531.8 1344.19 909 577.5
131
Appendix B Girder 1 & 5 Table B.3.1
Limit State Of Collapse Force Hogging at face of support Hogging at 3m from support Sagging at mid span Sagging at 3m from support Shear at d distance from face of support Shear at 3m from support Beam L/C SF/BM (KN/KNm) 3086 163 3458 3424 3543 3509 Table B.3.2 Limit State Of Serviceability Force Sagging at mid span for stage-I Sagging at mid span for stage-II Sagging at 3m from support for stage-I Sagging at 3m from support for stage-II Shear at d distance from face of support for L-shear check Shear at 3m from support for L-shear check 108 Beam L/C SF/BM (KN/KNm) 3441 4717 182 217 386.69 360 312 282.74 180 429 517 432 433 433 435 778.867 106.548 1050 923.393 527.1 344.8
132
Appendix B Girder 6 to 8 Table B.3.3
Limit State Of Collapse Force Hogging at face of support Hogging at 3m from support Sagging at mid span Sagging at 3m from support Shear at d distance from face of support Shear at 3m from support Beam L/C SF/BM (KN/KNm) 3091 170 4705 4654 3548 4350 429 519 461 461 433 513 651.667 61.85 790.5 726.41 403.5 226.4
Table B.3.4 Limit State Of Serviceability Force Sagging at mid span for stage-I Sagging at mid span for stage-II Sagging at 3m from support for stage-I Sagging at 3m from support for stage-II Shear at d distance from face of support for L-shear check Shear at 3m from support for L-shear check 69 Beam L/C SF/BM (KN/KNm) 4688 4722 203 203 386.69 200 312 181 112
B.1.3 End Diaphragm Analysis: 3D analysis carried out on the same structural model which is used for analysis of pile cap beams. Following set of design forces depict the maximum forces taken at face (1m) of support (for hogging, sagging and shear at support) and sagging at mid span and
133
Appendix B
corresponding torsion is added appropriately as given in IS:456 2000 Cl.41.4.2 (equivalent moment) and 41.3.1 (equivalent shear). Equivalent BM, Me = Mu + Mt ; Mt = Tu * (1+(D/b))/1.7 Equivalent shear, Ve = Vu + (1.6*Tu/b) Table-B.4.1 Limit state of Collapse Force Hogging at face of support Sagging at mid span Shear at face of support Beam 4765 4762 4765 L/C 545 547 463 SF/BM (KN/KNm) 1411 1049 1003 T (KNm) 77 295 101 Ve/Me (KN/KNm) 1514 1440 1203
Table-B.4.2 Limit state of Serviceability SF/BM T Ve/Me
Force Sagging at mid span
Beam L/C 4762 218
(KN/KNm) (KNm) (KN/KN.m) 907 193 1164
B.1.4 Deck Slab Analysis:
Figure.B.2 Precast Deck Planks Arrangement The deck slab is modeled in the STAAD as a rectangular beam of 1m width and 280 mm depth. Vehicular loads are restricted within the road width of approach and a live load of 1.5 kN/m2 is considered in the rest. The vehicular load is placed at various positions in the transverse direction and results are obtained as below: Deck Plank DP1 Design sagging moment Design hogging moment = = 77.09 60.6 kNm kNm 134
Appendix B Design shear force Serviceability shear Serviceability moment Deck Plank DP2 Design sagging moment Design hogging moment Design shear force Serviceability shear Serviceability moment
Super-structure Analysis & Design = = = = = = = = 250.5 157 51.3 7.05 32 30 30 4.7 kN kN kN kNm kNm kN kN kN
B.2 Design of Pile Cap Beam:

Design of longitudinal beam is done using spread sheet Pile-Cap. However, one typical design is presented here. Grade of concrete, Grade of steel, Dia. of stirrups Clear cover Width of flange, Width of web, Overall depth, Depth of flange, Equivalent BM, Dia. of bar 1 Dia. of bar 2 Number of bars 1 Number of bars 2 Effective depth, Xulim Ast provided Xuactual Xu < Df Xu. Neutral axis lies within flange. Moment of resistance MR = 4641.91 KNm d bf bw D Df Me 1 2 fck fy = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 30 500 16 50 2000 800 1905 1005 4335.36 32 20 6 4 1805.94 830.73 mm (IS:456-2000,Cl.38.1.) 6082.12 122.48 mm mm2 mm M Fe mm mm mm mm mm mm KNm mm mm
B.2.1 Design for sagging moment at mid span:
135
Appendix B
Super-structure Analysis & Design > 4335.36 OK KNm
Provide 6 bars of 32 mm dia. and 4 bars of 20 mm dia. B.2.2 Design for maximum hogging moment at face of pile: Equivalent BM, Dia. of bar 1 Dia. of bar 2 Number of bars 1 Number of bars 2 Effective depth, Xulim Ast provided Xuactual Moment of resistance MR d Me 1 2 = = = = = = = = = = > Provide 6 bars of 32 mm dia. and 4 bars of 25 mm dia. B.2.3 Shear design: Maximum shear force, Corresponding torsion, Design equivalent shear force, Effective depth, Width, Effective depth, Width, Nominal shear stress, Vu Tu Ve d1 b1 d2 b2 = = = = = = = 2144.55 606.5 3557.353 1802.28 800 923 1200 KN KN KN mm mm mm mm 4708 32 25 6 4 1802.28 829.05 mm 6788.98 341.8 mm2 mm mm KNm mm mm
<Xulim Under reinforced. 4898.54 4708 KNm KNm
ve =
Ve (b1 d 1 ) + (b 2 d 2 )
= Pt =
1.395 0.266
MPa
Percentage of reinforcement,
100 Ast (b1 d1 ) + (b 2 d 2 )
Permissible shear stress in concrete,c
0.379
MPa
(IS:456-2000,Cl.40.2.1.)
136
Appendix B cmax
Super-structure Analysis & Design = 3.5 MPa
(IS:456-2000,Cl.40.2.3.) c < ve < cmax, Transverse reinforcement is to be designed as per IS:456 2000, Cl.41.4.3 Yield stress for stirrups Dia. of stirrups Assume spacing of stirrups Sv C/C dist. Between corner bars in width direction,b*1 C/C dist. Between corner bars in depth direction,d*1 = = = = = 415 16 175 472 1741 MPa mm mm mm mm
Area of shear reinforcement required will be taken as maximum of following three values.
Asv =
Tu S v Vu S v + * b d 1 (0.87 f y ) 2.5d *1 (0.87 f y )

* 1
596.196
mm2
(IS:456-2000,Cl.41.4.3)
Asv =
( ve c ) b S v 0.87 f y
393.9
mm2
(IS:456-2000,Cl.41.4.3)
Minimum area of shear reinforcement required

Asv =
0.4 b S v 0.87 f y
155.103
mm2
(IS:456-2000,Cl.26.5.1.6)
Assume No. of legs, Shear reinforcement provided
= =
4 804.1472 mm2
Provide 4 legged 16 mm dia. stirrups @ 175 mm C/C. Summary of reinforcement is given at the end of this chapter and typical R/F detail is given in Appendix G. B.2.4 Check for longitudinal shear:
Neutral axis for composite section from compression face Effective depth, Modular ratio, Area of tension reinforcement Taking moment about neutral axis, d m Ast = = = 1802.28 9.33 6788.98 mm2 mm
137
Appendix B
bx 2 = mAst (d x) 2
Solving this equation, Depth of neutral axis, Area of concrete up to N.A. M.I. of concrete area about N.A. Transformed area of steel M.I. of steel area about N.A. Net M.I. about N.A.
As per IRC: 22-1986 Cl.608.2.2,
VL = V . Ac .Y I
= = = = = =
460.95 mm 368763.51 63363.829 114001451969 140119612958 mm2 mm2 mm4 mm4 26118160988 mm4
Where VL V Ac Y I Vertical shear,
= The longitudinal shear per unit length at the interface in the under consideration = Vertical shear due to dead load and live load including impact acting on the section = Transformed compressive are of concrete above N.A. = Distance from the neutral axis to the centre of area under consideration, = Moment of inertia of whole composite section about N.A. V VL = = = = = = = = = = > 1047 635.07 16 4 175 840.247 230 184.97 5.71 1057.01 635.07 KN
OK.
section
KN KN mm mm mm2 MPa KN KN
Longitudinal shear Dia. of stirrups No. of legs Spacing Area of one stirrup Yield stress of steel Shear resistance of one stirrup No. of stirrups in 1m length Total shear resistance
Provide 4 legged 16 mm dia. stirrups @ 175 mm C/C.
138
Appendix B
B.2.5 Check For Precast Beam:
Precast beam is checked for (self weight of beam + load due to in situ concrete + deck slab + load from L-girder) including construction live load of 20 KN at the centre of beam. Self weight of beam Load due to in situ concrete 1.005*25*2 Total UDL acting on beam Load from precast longitudinal girder Load from deck slab over girder 2 to 5 Load from deck slab over girder 1 & 8 Load from deck slab over girder 6 & 7 Total concentrated load from girder 2 to 5 Total concentrated load from girder 1 & 8 Total concentrated load from girder 6 & 7 Construction live load at the centre of beam Max hogging moment Design hogging moment Hogging reinforcement:Dia. of bars provided 1 No. of bars provided 1 Clear cover Grade of concrete Grade of steel Ast provided Width of section Depth of section Effective depth Xulim Xuactual Moment of resistance MR b D d fck fy = = = = = = = = = = = < = > 32 8 25 30 500 6433.982 800 900 843 387.78 323.93 mm M Fe mm2 mm mm mm mm mm KNm KNm 139 mm Mu = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 23.8 50.25 74.05 91.25 159.25 KN 0.28*1.9375*25*10 135.625 122.5 253.75 KN 245.375 236 20 1536.2 KNm 1843.44 KNm KN KN KN KN KN 0.28*1.75*25*10 KN/m KN/m KN/m KN
0.28*2.275*25*10
Xulim Under reinforced.

1978.59
1843.44
Appendix B

OK.
Provide 8 bars of 32 mm dia.
Max sagging moment Design sagging moment Dia. of bars provided No.of bars provided Grade of concrete Grade of steel Ast provided Dia. of stirrups Width of section Depth of section Effective depth Xulim Xuactual Moment of resistance MR b D d fck fy Mu
= = = = = = = = = = = = = > = >
549.847 659.164 32 6 30 500 4825.486 16 800 900 818 387.78 mm 242.949
KNm KNm mm M Fe mm2 mm mm mm mm mm KNm KNm

1555.34
659.164
OK.
Max. shear Design shear Grade of steel Effective depth Width of section Nominal shear stress Percentage of reinforcement Shear strength of concrete Permissible shear stress in concrete c < ve < cmax, Transverse reinforcement is to be designed. Net shear force Dia. of stirrups No. of legs Area of stirrups provided Vus Vu fy d B ve Pt c cmax
= = = = = = = = =
952.34 KN 1142.808 415 843 800 1.693 0.954 0.644 3.5 MPa MPa KN MPa mm mm MPa
= = = =
707.667 16 4 804.247
KN mm mm2 140
Appendix B Spacing provided Area of shear reinforcement required

Asv = Vus S v 0.87 f y d
Super-structure Analysis & Design Sv = = 175 406.885 mm mm2
Minimum area of shear reinforcement required

Asv =
155.103
mm2
0.4 b S v 0.87 f y <

804.247 OK.
mm2
B.2.6 Check for handling stresses:
Precast beam is checked for handling stresses during lifting and stacking.
Self weight of section, [((0.2+0.275)*0.2/2)+(0.4*0.9)+((0.125+0.1)*0.6/2)]*25 = 11.86 KN/m Max. hogging moment = 1.5*11.86*1.5*1.5/2 Grade of concrete Grade of steel Width of section Depth of section Effective depth Dia. of bars provided fck fy b D d = = = = = = = 20.01 15 500 400 900 843 32 KNm M Fe mm mm mm mm
141
Appendix B No. of bars provided Ast provided Xulimit Xuactual Moment of resistance MR
Super-structure Analysis & Design = = = = < = > 4 3216.991 387.78 mm 323.933 mm KNm KNm Xulim Under reinforced.
798.907
mm2
20.01
OK.
B.2.7 Design of lifting hook:
Lifting weight of precast beam Impact during handling Total tensile force in hook possible during handling into consideration.) Grade of steel Permissible direct tension
= = =
88.95 1.25 111.1875
KN KN
(Although 2 hooks are provided, it is assumed that total load acts on one hook taking errors = = = Assume dia. of hook No. of hooks C/S area of one hook Area required = = = = < 500 0.55fy
(IS:456-2000,App.B.2.2.)
MPa
275 25 2 490.9
404.318 490.9 OK
MPa mm mm2 mm2 mm2
Development length
Stress in bar Bond stress Ld = s / 4 bd
s bd
= = = Say
227.2611 0.96
MPa
(IS:456-2000,Cl.B.2.1.2.)
1479.564
1500
mm mm
B.2.8 Check for serviceability:
As per IS:456-2000,Annex F Design surface crack width,
142
Appendix B
Super-structure Analysis & Design 3a cr m 2(a cr C min ) 1+ hx
Wcr =
Where, acr Cmin h x m = distance from point considered to the surface of the nearest longitudinal bar = clear cover to main reinforcement = overall depth of the member = depth of neutral axis = average steel strain given by,
m = 1
Where, As b a 1 Es = area of tension steel = width of the section
b(h x)(a x) 3E s As (d x)
= distance from the compression face to the point at which crack width is being calculated. = strain at level considered ignoring the stiffening of the concrete inthe tension zone. = Youngs modulus for steel
Check for stage-I loading:
Details of main reinforcement in beam Service Bending Moment Tension Reinforcement No. of bars Dia. of bars No. of bars Dia. of bars Dia. of stirrups Clear cover Depth of beam Width of section Effective cover Clear cover main reinforcement h b d Cmin = = = = = = = = = = 6 32 4 20 16 50 900 800 99.05 66 mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm = 549.847 KNm
143
Appendix B Effective depth Taking moment about neutral axis, bx 2 = mAst (d x) 2 Solving this equation, Depth of neutral axis, Service stress in reinforcement Strain at level considered steel Average steel strain Spacing of bars Design surface crack width
Check for stage-II loading:
Super-structure Analysis & Design d = 800.94 mm
x fst 1 m S Wcr
= = = = = =
273.57 mm 131.29 MPa 0.0007 0.00056 120.37 mm 0.152 mm
Details of main reinforcement in beam Service Bending Moment Tension Reinforcement No. of bars Dia. of bars No. of bars Dia. of bars Dia. of stirrups Clear cover Depth of beam Width of flange Depth of flange Width of web Effective cover Clear cover main reinforcement Effective depth Taking moment about neutral axis, bx 2 = mAst (d x) 2 Solving this equation, Depth of neutral axis, Service stress in reinforcement x fst = = 293.05 mm 145.12 MPa 144 h bf Df bw d Cmin d = = = = = = = = = = = = = 6 32 4 20 16 50 1905 2000 1005 800 99.05 66 1805.94 mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm = 1491.761 KNm
Appendix B Strain at level considered Average steel strain Spacing of bars Design surface crack width Total crack width Permissible crack width steel 1 m S wcr
Super-structure Analysis & Design = = = = = = = = 0.0007 0.00038 120.37 mm 0.097 0.152+0.097 0.249 mm 0.004 times clear cover
(IS:4651-1989 part4,Cl.8.3.4)
mm
264
mm
B.2.9 Design Of Corbel:
Load transfer through corbel is a temporary phase, until in situ concrete attains its full strength. Therefore, reaction due to self weight, dead load from longitudinal girder & deck slab and construction live load acts as the load on the corbel.
Self weight Reaction from L-girder Total reaction Ultimate load Ultimate moment Width of longitudinal beam / load, a Dist. Of the load from face of cantilever support a1 Effective width of slab
= = = = = = = = = = =
(0.2+0.275)*0.2/2*9*25 10.6875 253.75/2 126.875 137.56 1.5*137.56 206.34 20.634 400 100 1.2*a1 + a KN KN mm mm KN KN KN
145
Appendix B
Super-structure Analysis & Design = 520 25 30 415 242 0.4132 1 0.727 0.5 mm mm M Fe mm
Clear cover Grade of concrete Grade of steel Assuming 16 mm dia. bars, Effective depth Here a1/d Also s/D Therefore design as a Corbel. Design shear, Vu = 0.36 f ck bX u a1 Z u a1 + Z 2 u 100 Z u 100 2 + Z 2 u
2
= fck fy d = = 100/242 200/275 = = = = < = >
206.34 10 3 = 0.36 30 520 X u
Putting Zu = d 0.42Xu and solving the above equation, Xu Zu Main steel: Tension in horizontal steel Stress in steel Area of reinforcement required Minimum reinforcement required Tu fst Ast = = = = = = =
= =
92.7 203.066 Vu * a1 / Zu 101.612 0.87* fy 361.05 MPa 281.43 mm2
mm mm
KN
= 101.612*1000/361.05 0.004*520*242 503.36 mm2 603.1104 503.36 mm2 1.05 * 0.489 mm2
Area of steel provided Shear design: For Pt = 0.479 and M30,
= >
uc
146
Appendix B
Super-structure Analysis & Design = 0.51 uc 2d/a1 2.4684 MPa ucmax (3.5 2.4684 MPa uc bd 310.623 206.34 KN 0.87 fy Asv / (0.4b) 272.661 mm2 KN MPa) MPa
Enhanced shear strength on account of a < 2d
= = <
Therefore design shear stress Shear taken by concrete Vuc
= = = >
Therefore min. shear reinforcement is sufficient. For 2 legged 10 mm dia. stirrups, Sv = = Therefore provide 1 stirrup of 2 legged 10 mm dia. bars. Also shear reinforcement in upper two third of the effective depth should not be less than one half of the main reinforcement.
Asv 2d Ast = . S 3 2
therefore
Sv
= = =
84 242/84 2.88 3.
mm
Therefore No. of stirrups
Provide 3 stirrups of 2 legged 10 mm dia. bars. Development length
s bd
= = = = = = = = = = =
361.05 MPa 2.4

(IS:456-2000,Cl.26.2.1.1)
601.75 mm 112.5 1000 1005 600 2.8125 KN/m 25.125 KN/m 5.0 32.9375 KN/m KN/m 147 mm mm mm mm
E.2.10 Check For Flange Portion Of Pile Cap Beam:
Average depth of the flange portion Width Depth of insitu concrete Length of the flange portion Self weight Weight of insitu concrete Construction live load of 5 KN/m2 Total load on the flange portion
Appendix B
Moment acting on the flange portion due to total load acting on it, = = Ultimate bending moment ( factor = 1.5 ) Design for bending moment Grade of concrete Grade of steel Diameter of main bar Diameter of distribution bar Clear cover Effective depth No. of main bars provided Ast provided Xulimit Xuactual Moment of resistance fck fy = = = = = = = = = = < =
>
32.9375*0.6*0.6/2 5.928 8.892 30 500 16 8 25 71.5 3 603.1858 32.89 24.294 mm Xulim Under reinforced. 16.083 KNm
8.892 O.K. KNm.
KN/m KN/m M Fe mm mm mm mm mm mm2 mm
Distribution reinforcement No. of bars provided Ast provided

= = = =
0.15% of C/S area 168.75 mm2 4 201.061 mm2
B.3 Design of Longitudinal Beam:

Design of longitudinal beam is done using spread sheet L-girder. However, one typical design is presented here. Grade of concrete, Grade of steel, Dia. of stirrups Clear cover Width of flange, bf fck fy = = = = = 30 500 16 50 2275 MPa MPa mm mm mm
148
Appendix B Width of web, Overall depth, Depth of flange, Equivalent BM, Dia. of bar 1 Dia. of bar 2 Number of bars 1 Number of bars 2 Effective depth, Xulim Ast provided Xuactual
Xu < Df Xu. Neutral axis lies within flange.
Super-structure Analysis & Design bw D Df Me 1 2 = = = = = = = = d = = = = M.R. = > 400 1005 280 1531.8 KNm 36 36 4 4 885 408.94 mm
(IS:456-2000,Cl.38.1.)
mm mm mm
mm mm
mm
8143 144.16 mm
mm2
Moment of resistance
2920
KNm
1531.8 KNm
OK.
Provide 4 bars of 36 mm dia and 4 bars of 36 mm dia. B.3.2 Design for maximum hogging moment at face of pile:
Equivalent BM, Dia. of bar 1 Number of bars 1 Number of bars 2 Effective depth, Xulim Ast provided Xuactual Moment of resistance
Me 1
= = = =
934.12 25 6 0 927 426.26 mm 2945 296.56 mm
kNm mm
= = = = <
mm mm2

1027 KNm
M.R.
= >
934.12 KNm
Provide 6 bars of 25 mm dia. B.3.3 Shear design:
Maximum shear force,
Vu
909
KN 149
Appendix B Effective depth, Width, Nominal shear stress, d b
Super-structure Analysis & Design = = 927 400 mm mm
ve =
Ve bd
= Pt =
2.45 0.79
MPa
Percentage of reinforcement,
100 Ast bd
Permissible shear stress in concrete,c cmax
= =
0.620 3.5
MPa MPa
(IS:456-2000,Cl.40.2.1.)
(IS:456-2000,Cl.40.2.3.)
c < ve < cmax, Transverse reinforcement is to be designed as per IS:456 2000, Cl.41.4.3 Yield stress for stirrups Dia. of stirrups No. of legs Dia. of stirrups No. of legs Assume spacing of stirrups Area of shear reinforcement required Asv = ( ve c ) b S v 0.87 f y = 0.4 b S v 0.87 f y = Sv = = = = = = = 415 12 2 12 2 200 405 mm mm2 mm MPa mm
(IS:456-2000,Cl.40.4.a)
Minimum area of shear reinforcement required Asv =
88
mm2
(IS:456-2000,Cl.26.5.1.6)
Shear reinforcement provided
452
mm2
Provide 2 legged 12 mm dia. and 2 legged 12 mm dia. stirrups @ 200 mm C/C. Summary of reinforcement is given at the end of this chapter and typical R/F detail is given in Appendix H. B.3.4 Check for longitudinal shear:
Neutral axis for composite section from compression face, Effective depth, Modular ratio, Area of tension reinforcement d m Ast = = = 926.5 9.33 2945 mm2 150 mm
Appendix B Taking moment about neutral axis, bx 2 = mAst (d x) 2 Solving this equation, Depth of neutral axis, Area of concrete up to N.A. M.I. of concrete area about N.A. Transformed area of steel M.I. of steel area about N.A. Net M.I. about N.A.
As per IRC: 22-1986 Cl.608.2.2,
VL = V . Ac .Y I
= = = = = =
294.68 mm 117874.19 27488.93 mm2 mm2 3412047111 mm4 10973296365 mm4 14385343476 mm4
= The longitudinal shear per unit length at the interface in the section under consideration = Vertical shear due to dead load and live load including impact acting on the section = Transformed compressive are of concrete above N.A. = Distance from the neutral axis to the centre of area under consideration, = Moment of inertia of whole composite section about N.A. V VL = = = = = = = = = = = = < 451 544 12 2 12 2 200 452 230 104 5 520 549 KN KN 151 mm mm2 MPa KN mm KN KN mm
Longitudinal shear Dia. of stirrups No. of legs Dia. of stirrups No. of legs Spacing Area of stirrups Yield stress of steel Shear resistance of a pair of stirrups No. of stirrups in 1m length Total shear resistance
Appendix B
Therefore increase shear reinforcement.
Provide 2 legged 16 mm dia. stirrups and 2 legged 12 mm dia. stirrups @ 200 mm C/C. Therefore total shear resistance = > B.3.5 Check for handling stresses: 578 549 KN KN.
Precast beam is checked for handling stresses during lifting and stacking.
Self weight of section = ((0.4*0.725)+((0.2+0.15)*0.25/2)+ ((0.2+0.15)*0.6/2))*25= Max. hogging moment = 1.5*10.97*2*2/2 Grade of concrete Grade of steel Width of section Depth of section Effective depth Dia. of main reinforcement No. of main reinforcement Ast provided Xulim Xuactual Moment of resistance MR fck fy b D d = = = = = = = = = = = < = > 10.97 32.91 15 500 400 725 667 16 2 402.12 306.82 80.98 mm2 mm mm KNm KNm KN/m KNm MPa MPa mm mm mm mm

110.724
32.91
152
Appendix B

OK.
B.3.6 Design of lifting hook:
Lifting weight of precast beam Impact during handling Total tensile force in hook possible during handling into consideration.) Grade of steel Permissible direct tension Assume dia. of hook No. of hooks C/S area of the hook Area required
= = =
109.7 1.25 137.125
KN KN
(Although 2 hooks are provided, it is assumed that total load acts on one hook taking errors = = = = = = < 250 140 25 2 981.75 mm2
979 981.75 mm2 OK Development length
MPa MPa mm
mm2
s bd
= = = Say
139.67 MPa 0.6

(IS:456-2000,Cl.B.2.1.2.)
1454
1500
mm mm
B.3.7 Check For Precast Beam:
Precast beam is checked for (self weight of beam + deck slab) including construction live load of 20 KN placed at centre of beam. Max sagging moment Design sagging moment Dia. of bars provided No.of bars provided Dia. of bars provided No.of bars provided Grade of concrete Grade of steel Ast provided Dia. of stirrups fck fy M Mu = = = = = = = = = = 386.188 579.282 36 4 32 4 30 500 7288 16 MPa MPa mm2 mm 153 mm KNm KNm mm
Appendix B No. of legs Width of section Depth of section Effective depth Xulim Xuactual Moment of resistance MR b D d
Super-structure Analysis & Design = = = = = = > = > 2 400 725 610.11 280.65 733.91
957.06 KNm
mm mm mm mm mm
Xulim Over reinforced. 579.282

OK.
KNm KN KN MPa mm mm
Max. shear Design shear Grade of steel Effective depth Width of section Nominal shear stress Percentage of reinforcement Design shear stress Vu fy d B ve Pt c cmax c < ve < cmax, Transverse reinforcement is to be designed. Net shear force Dia. of stirrups No. of legs Area of stirrups provided Spacing provided Sv Vus S v 0.87 f y d Vus
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = <
144.475 216.7125 415 643 400 0.8425 MPa 1.31 0.72 3.5 31.507 16 4 804.247 200 27.143 88.630
804.247 OK.
MPa MPa KN mm mm2 mm mm2 mm2 mm2
Area of shear reinforcement required Asv =
Minimum area of shear reinforcement required Asv = 0.4 b S v 0.87 f y
As per IS:456-2000,Annex F,
154
Appendix B Design surface crack width, Wcr =
3acr m 2(a cr C min ) 1+ hx
Where, acr Cmin h x m = distance from point considered to the surface of the nearest longitudinal bar = clear cover to main reinforcement = overall depth of the member = depth of neutral axis = average steel strain given by, b(h x)(a x) 3E s As (d x)
m = 1
= distance from the compression face to the point at which crack width is being calculated. = strain at level considered ignoring the stiffening of the concrete in the tension zone. = Youngs modulus for steel
Check for stage-I loading:-
Details of main reinforcement in beam Service Bending Moment Tension Reinforcement No. of bars Dia. of bars No. of bars Dia. of bars Dia. of stirrups Clear cover Depth of beam Width of section Effective cover h b d = = = = = = = = = 4 36 4 36 16 50 725 400 120 mm mm mm mm mm mm mm = 386 KNm
155
Appendix B Clear cover main reinforcement Effective depth Taking moment about neutral axis, bx 2 = mAst (d x) 2 Solving this equation, Depth of neutral axis, Service stress in reinforcement Strain at level considered steel Average steel strain Spacing of bars Radial distance to surface of bar Design surface crack width
Check for stage-II loading:-
Super-structure Analysis & Design Cmin d = = 66 605 mm mm
x fst 1 m S acr wcr
= = = = = = =
325.73 107.8 0.00065 0.0006 77.33 74.47 0.162
mm MPa
mm mm mm
Details of main reinforcement in beam Service Bending Moment Tension Reinforcement No. of bars Dia. of bars No. of bars Dia. of bars Compression Reinforcement No. of bars Dia. of bars Dia. of stirrups Clear cover Depth of beam Width of flange Depth of flange Width of web Effective cover Clear cover main reinforcement Effective depth Taking moment about neutral axis, A Comparative Study Of RCC & Steel Pile Foundation For An Integral Bridge 156 h bf Df bw d Cmin d = = = = = = = = = = = 0 0 16 50 1005 2275 280 400 120 66 885 mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm = = = = 4 36 4 36 mm mm = 612.55 KNm
Appendix B bx 2 = mAst (d x) 2 Solving this equation, Depth of neutral axis, Service stress in reinforcement Strain at level considered steel Average steel strain Spacing of bars Radial distance to surface of bar Design surface crack width Total crack width x fst 1 m S acr wcr
= = = = = = = = =
212.04 97.31 0.00048 0.00054 77.33 74.47 0.102 0.162+0.102 0.264
mm MPa
mm mm mm mm
Permissible crack width = 0.004 times clear cover to main reinforcement

(IS:4651-1989 part4,Cl.8.3.4)
=
B.3.9 Design Of Haunch:
0.264
mm
Dead load of precast planks placed over longitudinal beams acts as load for haunch portion. Bearing of deck plank Self weight of the beam Assuming 1m wide precast deck plank, Self weight of plank = 0.28*1.675*25/2 Construction live load = 1.675*2/2 Point load acting at 175 mm from edge Maximum bending moment Grade concrete Grade of steel fck fy = = = = = = 5.8625 1.675 7.5375 1.455 30 415 KN/m KN/m KN KNm MPa MPa 157 = = 150 4.375 mm KN/m
Appendix B Dia. of main bars No. of main bars Clear cover Width of beam Depth of beam Effective depth Ast provided Xu limit Xu actual Moment of resistance b D d
Super-structure Analysis & Design = = = = = = = = = < = > 10 3 50 1000 150 95 235.59 45.6 7.875 mm mm mm mm mm2 mm mm KNm KNm mm

7.8
1.455
OK.
Provide 3 bars of 10 mm dia. per meter length of haunch.
B.4 Design of Diaphragm At Expansion Joint

Grade of concrete, Grade of steel, Dia. of stirrups Clear cover Width of beam, Depth of beam, Equivalent BM, Dia. of bar 1 Number of bars 1 Effective depth, Xulim Ast provided Xuactual Moment of resistance MR d b D Me 1 fck fy = = = = = = = = = = = = = < = > 30 500 12 50 400 1005 1440 32 9 922 424.12 7238.229 364.42 mm mm mm2 mm MPa MPa mm mm mm mm KNm mm
(IS:456-2000,Cl.38.1.)

2421 KNm
1440
KNm
158
Appendix B

OK
Provide 9 bars of 32 mm dia. B.4.2 Design for maximum hogging moment at face of pile:
Equivalent BM, Dia. of bar 1 Number of bars 1 Number of bars 2 Effective depth, Xulim Ast provided Xuactual Moment of resistance
Me 1
= = = =
1514 32 4 0 922 424.12 4825.5 242.94
KNm mm
= = = = <
mm mm mm2 mm

1721 KNm
MR
= >
1514
KNm
Provide 4 bars of 32 mm dia. B.4.3 Shear design:
Maximum shear force, Corresponding torsion, Design equivalent shear force, Effective depth, Width, Nominal shear stress,
Vu Tu Ve d b
= = = = = = = = =
1003 101 1203 922 800 1.63 0.65 0.55 3.5
KN KN KN mm mm MPa
ve =
Ve bd
Percentage of reinforcement, Pt Permissible shear stress in concrete,c cmax
MPa MPa
(IS:456-2000,Cl.40.2.1.)
(IS:456-2000,Cl.40.2.3.)
c < ve < cmax, Transverse reinforcement is to be designed as per IS:456 2000, Cl.41.4.3 Yield stress for stirrups Dia. of stirrups Assume spacing of stirrups Area of shear reinforcement required Sv = = = = 415 12 175 418.77 MPa mm mm mm2
159
Appendix B ( ve c ) b S v 0.87 f y
Asv =
155.103
mm2
(IS:456-2000,Cl.26.5.1.6)
Shear reinforcement provided

Provide 4 legged 12 mm dia. stirrups @ 175 mm C/C. B.4.4 Check for serviceability:
452.39
mm2
As per IS:456-2000,Annex F Design surface crack width, Wcr = 3acr m 2(a cr C min ) 1+ hx
m = 1
= distance from the compression face to the point at which crack width is being calculated. = strain at level considered ignoring the stiffening of the concrete in the tension zone. = Youngs modulus for steel = = = 1164 9 32 mm 160 KNm
Details of main reinforcement in beam Service Bending Moment Tension Reinforcement No. of bars Dia. of bars
Appendix B Dia. of stirrups Clear cover Depth of beam Width of section Effective cover Clear cover main reinforcement Effective depth Taking moment about neutral axis, bx 2 = mAst (d x) 2 Solving this equation, Depth of neutral axis, Service stress in reinforcement Strain at level considered steel Average steel strain Spacing of bars Radial distance to surface of bar Design surface crack width Permissible crack width x fst 1 m S acr wcr h b d Cmin d
Super-structure Analysis & Design = = = = = = = 12 50 1000 800 78 62 922 mm mm mm mm mm mm mm
= = = = = = =
319.5 197.163 0.0001 0.000092 80.5 71.772 0.193
mm MPa
mm mm mm
= 0.004 times clear cover to main reinforcement

(IS:4651-1989 part4,Cl.8.3.4)
= Typical R/F detail is given in Appendix I.
0.248
mm
B.5 Design of Deck Slab:

Two typical designs are done for the slab covering road width (DP1) and slab covering conveyor system (DP2). Grade concrete Grade of steel Dia. of main bars Dia. of main bars Clear cover Width of section Depth of section Effective depth b D d fck fy = = = = = = = = 30 500 16 12 50 1000 280 210 MPa MPa mm mm mm mm mm mm
161
Appendix B
B.5.1 Design for maximum sagging moment:
Design bending moment No. of bars Ast provided Xu limit Xu actual Moment of resistance
Mu
= = = = = <
77.09 7 1407.434 96.6 56.68 113.99 KNm
KNm mm2 mm mm
MR
B.5.2 Design for maximum hogging moment:
Design bending moment No. of bars Ast provided Xu limit Xu actual Moment of resistance
Provide 6 bars of 16 mm dia. B.5.3 Shear Design:
Mu
= = = = = <
60.6 6 1206.37 100.8 48.58 mm
KNm mm2 mm
Xulim Under reinforced. 97.39 KNm
MR
Design shear Nominal shear stress Percentage reinforcement
Vu v Pt
= = = = =
250.5 1.12 0.57% 0.526*1.04
KN MPa
Permissible shear stress in concrete, c
(IS:456-2000,Cl.40.2.1.)
0.547 1.75
MPa MPa
cmax ve < cmax > c, Transverse reinforcement is to be designed. Net shear force Vus Yield stress Dia. of stirrups No. of legs Area of stirrups provided Spacing provided Sv = Vu cbd
(IS:456-2000,Cl.40.2.3.)
= = = = = =
135.63 KN 415 12 4 452.3328 200 mm2 mm 162 MPa mm
Appendix B Vus S v 0.87 f y d
Super-structure Analysis & Design mm2
Area of shear reinforcement required Asv =
357.76
= <
221.57 452.33
OK.
mm2 mm2
Provide 4 legged 12 mm dia. stirrups @ 200 mm C/C. B.5.4 Check for longitudinal shear:
Modular ratio Area of tension reinforcement Taking moment about neutral axis, bx 2 = mAst (d x) 2 Solving this equation, Depth of neutral axis, Area of concrete up to N.A. M.I. of concrete area about N.A. Transformed area of steel M.I. of steel area about N.A. Net M.I. about N.A.
As per IRC: 22-1986 Cl.608.2.2,
VL = V . Ac .Y I
= =
9.333 1206.37 mm2
= = = = = =
58.42 58423 66473301 11259.46 325163595
mm mm2 mm4 mm2 mm4
258690294.8 mm4
= The longitudinal shear per unit length at the interface in the = Vertical shear due to dead load and live load including impact acting on the section = Transformed compressive are of concrete above N.A. = Distance from the neutral axis to the centre of area under consideration, = Moment of inertia of whole composite section about N.A. V = 157 KN 163
section under consideration
Appendix B Longitudinal shear Dia. of stirrups No. of legs Spacing Area of one stirrup Yield stress of steel Shear resistance of 12 mm bar No. of stirrups in 1m length Total shear resistance VL
Super-structure Analysis & Design = = = = = = = = = < 824 12 4 200 113.0976 230 104.04 5 520.24 824 KN KN mm mm2 MPa KN KN mm
Therefore increase shear reinforcement. Provide 6 legged 12 mm dia. Stirrups @ 200 mm C/C. Therefore total shear resistance = > B.5.5 Distribution steel: 918 824 KN KN.
Percentage reinforcement required Ast required Dia. of bars No. of bars

B.5.6 Summary of reinforcement: Deck plank DP1
Pt
= = = =
0.12% 336 10 5 mm2 mm
Sagging moment Hogging moment Shear reinforcement

Deck plank DP2
= = = = = =
7Nos-16mm# per meter width 6 Nos-16mm# per meter width 6legged 12mm# @ 170mm C/C. 5 bars of 10mm# per meter width 5 bars of 10mm# per meter width 3legged 12 mm# @ 200mm C/C.
Sagging moment Hogging moment Shear reinforcement Typical R/F detail is given in Appendix J.
B.5.7 Check For Precast:
Precast deck is checked for (self weight of deck plank + insitu deck slab) including construction live load of 2 KN/m2. Total UDL coming on precast section = 6.28+5.44+(2*1) Max sagging moment = = 13.72 4.811 KN/m KNm 164
Appendix B Design sagging moment Dia. of bars provided No.of bars provided Grade of concrete Grade of steel Ast provided Width of section Depth of section Effective depth Xulim Xuactual Moment of resistance MR b D d fck fy Mu
Super-structure Analysis & Design = = = = = = = = = = = > = > 7.21 16 7 30 500 1407.434 1000 150 80 36.8 56.68 MPa MPa mm2 mm mm mm mm mm KNm KNm KNm mm
Xulim Over reinforced.

34.40
7.21
OK.
As per IS:456-2000,Annex F, Design surface crack width, Wcr = 3acr m 2(a cr C min ) 1+ hx
m = 1
Where, As b = area of tension steel = width of the section
165
Appendix B a 1 Es
Super-structure Analysis & Design = distance from the compression face to the point at which being calculated. = strain at level considered ignoring the stiffening of the concrete in the tension zone. = Youngs modulus for steel crack width is
Check for stage-I loading:-
Details of main reinforcement in beam Service Bending Moment Tension Reinforcement No. of bars Dia. of bars Dia. of stirrups Clear cover Depth of beam Width of section Effective cover Clear cover main reinforcement Effective depth Taking moment about neutral axis, bx 2 = mAst (d x) 2 Solving this equation, Depth of neutral axis, Service stress in reinforcement Strain at level considered steel Average steel strain Spacing of bars Design surface crack width
Check for stage-II loading:-
= = = = = h b d Cmin d = = = = =
5.234 7 16 12 50 150 1000 70 62 70
KNm
mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm
x fst 1 m S wcr
= = = = = =
34.55 55.4 0.00067 0.00033 135 0.061
mm MPa
mm mm
Details of main reinforcement in beam Service Bending Moment Tension Reinforcement No. of bars Dia. of bars = = 7 16 mm 166 = 46 KNm
Appendix B Dia. of stirrups Clear cover Depth of beam Width of beam Effective cover Clear cover main reinforcement Effective depth Taking moment about neutral axis, bx 2 = mAst (d x) 2 Solving this equation, Depth of neutral axis, Service stress in reinforcement Strain at level considered steel Average steel strain Spacing of bars Design surface crack width Total crack width x fst 1 m S wcr h b d Cmin d
Super-structure Analysis & Design = = = = = = = 12 50 280 1000 70 62 210 mm mm mm mm mm mm mm
= = = = = = = =
62.29 172.21 0.0012 0.00085 135 0.182 0.182+0.061 0.243
mm MPa
mm mm mm
Permissible crack width = 0.004 times clear cover to main reinforcement

(IS:4651-1989 part4,Cl.8.3.4)
0.248
mm
167
Appendix E
PILECAP DESIGN SUMMARY Physical Data Serviceability moment stage-II Depth of Flange Shear for Long. Shear check Grade of concrete Grade of steel for main R/F Grade of steel for stirrups Effective Width of Flange Dia.of Stirrups Dia.of Stirrups Overall Depth Width of Web Clear cover Dia. Of Bar Dia. Of Bar
Design Forces Equivalent Shear Ultimate Torsion Equivalent B.M Serviceability moment stage-I Ultimate Shear
Reinforcement Area Of Reinforcement Provided Moment Of Resistance
Shear Reinforcement No. of legs No. of legs Spacing Required Spacing Provided
Crack width check Allowable Crack Width mm 0.264 0.264 0.264 Crack Width stage-I Crack Width stage-II Wcr mm Total Crack Width Wcr mm
Bar N1
Description
Me Sagging - mid span
Ve
Vu
Tu
Me
Me
fck
fy
fy
bw
bf
df
s1
s2
N2
Bar
KNm KN 4335
KN KNm KNm KNm KN MPa MPa MPa mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm 549.8 1492 30 500 415 800 2000 1005 1905 50 32 20 16 12 6 4
Astpro mm2
MR KNm
n1 n2 Svreqd Svpro mm mm
Wcr mm
6082.12 4641
0.152 0.097 0.249 0.264
Sagging - 2.25m 1932 from support Sagging - face 942.1 of support Hogging at face of support + 4708 3357 2144 606.5 shear at 'd' distance from face of support Hogging & shear - 2.25m from support 1417 3168 1955 606.5
132.7 1252
30
500
415
800 2000 1005 1905
50
32
20
16
12
4825.49 3740
0.001
0.08 0.081 0.264
30
500
415
800 2000 1005 1905
50
32
32
16
12
4825.49 3740
1047
30
500
415
800 2000 1005 1905
50
32
25
16
12
6788.98 4898
198
175
564
30
500
415
800 2000 1005 1905
50
32
25
16
12
4825.49 3612
206
200
168
Appendix E
L-GIRDER DESIGN SUMMARY Physical Data Dia.of Stirrups Dia.of Stirrups Overall Depth Width of Web Grade of steel for main R/F Grade of steel for stirrups Dia. Of Bar Dia. Of Bar Clear cover Effective Width of Flange Depth of Flange
Design Forces Ultimate Shear Serviceability moment stageI Serviceability moment stageII Shear for Long. Shear check Grade of concrete Equivalent B.M
Reinforcement Area Of Reinforcement Provided Moment Of Resistance
Shear Reinforcement No. of legs No. of legs Spacing Required Spacing Provided
Crack width check Crack Width stage-I Crack Width stage-II Allowable Crack Width mm 0.264 0.264 0.185 0.168 0.064 0.249 0.264 0.057 0.225 0.264 0.264 0.264 0.213 0.19 0.032 0.245 0.264 0.036 0.226 0.264 0.264 0.264 Total Crack Width Wcr mm
Bar N1
Beam
Moment Location
Me KNm Sagging - mid span Girder 2 to 4 Sagging - 3m from support 1531.8 1344.2
Vu KN
Me KNm
Me KNm KN
fck MPa 30 30 451 305 30 30 30 30 180 108 30 30 30 30 112 69 30 30
fy
fy
bw
bf mm 2275 2275 2275 2275 1938 1938 1938 1938 1750 1750 1750 1750
df mm 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280
D mm 1005 1005 1005 1005 1005 1005 1005 1005 1005 1005 1005 1005
c mm 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
s1
s2
N2
Bar
MPa MPa mm 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 415 415 415 415 415 415 415 415 415 415 415 415 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400
mm 36 36 25 25 32 32 25 25 32 32 20 20
mm 36 36 0 0 32 32 32 32 32 32 0 0
mm 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
mm 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 4 4 6 3 4 4 6 3 4 4 6 3 4 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 2 0 0 0
Astpro mm2 8143.008158 6107.256119 2945.243113
MR KNm 2920 2262 1027
n1
n2
Svreqd Svpro mm mm
Wcr mm 0.159 0.142
Wcr mm
386.19 612.55 312 909 603
0.097 0.256 0.264 0.122 0.264 0.264
Hogging at face 934.12 of support Hogging - 3m from support Sagging - mid span
2 2
2 0
300 300
250* 250*
102.83 577.5 1050 923.39 386 312 360 282.74
1472.621556 553.61 6433.981755 4825.486316 2945.243113 2336 1804 1027
Girder 1 & 5
Sagging - 3m from support
Hogging at face 778.87 527.1 of support Hogging - 3m from support Sagging - mid span 106.55 344.8 790.5 726.41 386 312 200 181
2 2
0 0
300 300
250* 300
1472.621556 553.61 4825.486316 3216.990877 1794 1248
Girder 6 to 8
Sagging - 3m from support
Hogging at face 651.67 403.5 of support Hogging - 3m from support 61.85 226.4
1884.955592 696.37 942.4777961 364.53
0 0
2 2
300 300
300 300
169
APPENDIXC GENERALARRNGMENTDRAWING
APPENDIXD CONSTRUCTIONSEQUENCEDRAWING
APPENDIXE RCCPILEDETAILDRAWING
APPENDIXF STEELPILEDETAILDRAWING
APPENDIXG PILECAPBEAMREINFORCEMENTDETAILDRAWING
APPENDIXH LONGITUDINALBEAMREINFORCEMENTDETAILDRAWING
APPENDIXI DIAPHRAGMREINFORCEMENTDETAILDRAWING
APPENDIXJ DECKSLABREINFORCEMENTDETAILDRAWING
National Conference on Recent Advancements in Civil Engineering & Infrastructural Developments (RACE-InD 2011) 21-22 December, 2011 Department of Civil Engineering, Jaypee University of Engineering & Technology, Guna, MP, India
Viral B. Panchal
M.E.(CASAD) Student, Applied Mechanics Department, L.D.College Of Engineering, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.
C.S.Sanghvi
Associate Professor, Applied Mechanics Department, L.D.College Of Engineering, Ahmedabad, Gujarat,India. Keywords: Integral bridge, RCC bored cast in situ piles, driven steel piles, bearing, marine, pile bearing capacity, pile fixity, soil spring stiffness, seismic, deflection. ABSTRACT: The increase in demand for complex roadway alignments, advances in construction technology and availability of computing power for bridges design, are some of the factors for developments in bridge engineering. Concept of Integral Bridges is one of these developments. Due to ease & economy in construction and maintenance, it is also getting popular in India. Integral bridge concept is also widely adopted in marine structures where many times foundations are flexible like pile foundation. Main reasons for increasing popularity of integral concept in marine structures are efforts of minimizing use of bearings and to resist large lateral forces. Integral bridge requires flexible foundation to accommodate thermal stresses and stresses produced from lateral forces like waves, current, wind, seismic etc. As pile foundation is a flexible foundation as compared to piers or caissons and because of ease of construction it is generally adopted in marine structures. However there can be variations in pile foundations for integral bridges like bored cast in situ RCC piles, driven precast piles, driven precast prestress piles, driven steel piles etc. This study is based on the comparison of structural response of a marine integral bridge with two different pile types i.e. RCC bored cast in situ piles and driven steel piles. Structural configuration, site specific data and load data for RCC pile option is obtained for an existing marine approach bridge at Dahej, India. Structural as well as geotechnical design of bored cast in situ RCC piles is done for the available data. Foundation is then changed to driven steel piles. 4 different diameters are tried to arrive at optimum steel pile diameter. Structural response of this optimum diameter steel piled structure is compared with RCC piled structure.
1 Introduction
Integral Bridge Concept: Integral bridges are bridges where the superstructure is continuous and connected monolithically with the substructure with a moment-resisting connection. As an effect we obtain a structure acting as one unit. Integral bridges accommodate superstructure movements without conventional expansion joints. With the superstructure rigidly connected to the substructure and with flexible substructure piling, the superstructure is permitted to expand and contract. Such bridges are the answer for small and medium length bridges where bearings and expansion joints can be either eliminated altogether or reduced to a minimum. By incorporation of intermediate expansion joints, the integral bridge concept can be extended to long bridges and viaducts too. Integral bridges are designed to provide resistance to thermal movements, breaking forces, seismic forces and winds by the stiffness of the soil abutting the end supports and the intermediate supports. A typical three span integral abutment bridge is shown in Fig. 1. Provision of joints and bearings induces decrease in redundancy and difficulties in providing adequate ductility for resisting earthquake effects, leading to larger earthquake design forces. Possibilities of dislodgement of superstructure during accidental loads, especially those due to earthquakes, is a clear danger requiring expensive and clumsy attachments.
Surajbari new bridge superstructure shifted in the transverse direction
Bridge between Surajbari & Bhachau Violent shaking has resulted in pier head being damaged due to pounding of deck Application of Integral bridge concept is also widely seen in pile supported marine structures. In such water front structures, it is very difficult and costly to replace bearings. Also due to the equipments on the deck level, movement of the deck is limited in horizontal directions. So, less numbers of joints are required to reduce these longitudinal and lateral movements. Also many a times, marine structures are supported on piles or sheet piles which are easier to construct as compared to other deep foundations in ocean water with aggressive environmental conditions. And super structure is rigidly connected to piles. So lateral movements induced due to temperature produced stresses and environmental loadings such as waves, current and wind are effectively sustained by piles and transferred to the ground. As piles are slender flexible members, it can sustain more bending and deflections. Piles used in marine structures are subjected to lateral loads from the impact of berthing ships and from waves. Combinations of vertical and horizontal loads are carried where piles are used to support retaining walls, bridge piers and abutments, and machinery foundations. Bored cast in situ RCC piles are conventional piling option for marine structures especially in India. But now with the advancement in construction methods, construction equipments and increase in availability of technical-financial resoures, use of driven steel piles is becoming popular, Steel piles are costly in terms of material and construction cost. But steel piles are advantageous in terms of saving in construction time as construction of steel pile is very fast as compared to bored cast in situ piles. However, use of driven steel piles over bored cast in situ RCC piles is dependent upon loading condition, serviceability criteria (deflection as steel piles deflect more) and site condition. Therefore the decision to use steel piles over RCC piles defers from project to project. Comparison of structural behavior of a marine approach bridge with these two pile types is studied. Data related to structural configuration, site specific data such as soil data, ground levels, environmental loadings etc. are obtained for an existing approach bridge at Dahej, India. Existing structure is having RCC pile. Existing structure is checked for the use of driven steel piles. Change in structural behavior of super structure elements due to change in sub structure is also studied. Description of structure used for analysis and design: Approach bridge carries 7.5 m wide carriageway with provision for steel trestle for conveyor galleries. The
structure consists of 1.0m dia. bored cast in situ piles with pilecap beams spanning across pile bents. Entire 1168m long approach is divided into 7 units each unit consisting of approximately 125 m length. Each unit consists of approximately 13 pile bents at a spacing of 12m. Each unit is separated from adjacent unit by expansion gaps. GA drawing is attached at the end of paper. Sea bed level is (+)3.15m CD and 2m scour level is considered in addition. Top of deck is (+)15.00m CD. Deflection at top of deck in operating condition is limited to 50mm suit proper functioning of material handling system installed over deck.
2 Analysis & Design

Loads and Load combinations: Following loads are considered in analysis: 1.0 Dead load of the structure 2.0 Construction, erection and handling loads 3.0 Vehicular and other possible live load 4.0 Impact load of moving live load (not considered for pile design, only for super structure design) 5.0 Braking force 6.0 Wind load (operating and extreme) 7.0 Seismic force 8.0 Wave force (operating and extreme) 9.0 Water current force (operating and extreme) 10.0 Buoyancy 11.0 Thermal effect 12.0 Secondary effects (shrinkage etc.) Load combinations are considered as per IS 456:2000 and IS 4651(Part4):1989. The 3-D modeling and analysis of the structure is carried out with Staadpro 2007 package. Beams and slabs are modelled as beam elements. Piles are modelled as a beam elements and soil is modelled as a spring supports with soil stiffness. P Delta analysis is carried out to consider slenderness effect and to achieve economical design. Structural design of RCC elements is done for Limit state of collapse and checked for limit state of serviceability as per IS:456-2000. The geotechnical design of bored cast in situ RCC piles is also carried out as per the IS:2911 (part 1/sec 2)-1979. Structural as well as geotechnical design of steel piles is done in accordance with API RP 2A-WSD. Piles are modeled as vertical beam elements supported by soil spring supports. Stiffness of soil spring is calculated as per method of subgrade modulus given in Foundation Analysis And Design by Bowles Joseph E. Soil data considered is given in Table-1 : RCC pile option is analyzed and designed for 1.0m diameter pile. For steel pile option, analysis and design was carried out for 4 different diameters i.e. 1016mm OD, 1118mm OD, 914mm OD and 813mm OD. After detail design, it was found that 1016mm OD is optimum diameter. Comparison of 1016mm OD steel pile with other 3 pile diameters is given in preceding paragraphs. In this section, analysis and design summary is given only for 1016mm OD option. Analysis Results: Results of the Staad analysis for piles of the structure have been tabulated and given in the subsequent pages of this paper. The resultant forces have been extracted by sorting up to the length of lower point of contra flexure as shown in bending moment envelope. Beyond this point the bending moment in the pile is very low and not considered for structural design. Results are tabulated in Table-2 to Table-4 for RCC piles and in Table-5 to Table-7 for steel piles: Design Results: RCC Piles: Geotechnical Design: Scour level considered for bearing capacity calculation for RCC as well as steel pile is (+)1.15m CD. The bearing capacity calculation for bored cast in situ RCC piles out as per the IS:2911 (part 1/sec 2)-1979 indicates founding level as (-)25.0m CD. Allowable load at this level is 3266 KN. Piles are founded just below clay layer and into sand layer to avoid drastic reduction in end bearing which makes bearing capacity less than what is required. Structural Design: Structural design of pile is done as per IS 456:2000 and checked for crack width as per IS 456:2000. Summary of reinforcement is shown in Table8: Steel Piles: Geotechnical Design: Structural as well as geotechnical design of steel piles is done in accordance with API RP 2A-WSD. Bearing capacity calculation indicates founding level as (-)25.0m CD. Allowable load at this level is 4134 KN. Piles are founded just below clay layer and into sand layer to avoid drastic reduction in end bearing. Calculation shows plug formation if founded in clay which greatly reduces end bearing capacity. Structural Design:
Corrosion allowance in terms of additional plate thickness is added to the calculated structural thickness. Corrosion allowance is considered in accordance with BS:6349 -1:2000 Maritime Structures-Code Of Practice For General Criteria. Summary of design is shown in Table-9: Calculated thickness is then adjusted according to the available plate thickness in the market. Spool Length (m) Thickness (mm) 4 25 11 20 11 18 11 18 37 Total Length
3 Comparison Of Results
Comparison Between Various Steel Pile Diameters: a). Without restricting deflection: Here, comparison of weight between 4 different diameters is done keeping total structural thickness equal to what is required from strength point of view. Please refer to the Table-10 to Table-12 for results. b). With restricting deflection: As mentioned in Introduction section, deflection at top of deck in operating condition is to be restricted to 50mm for proper functioning of material handling system installed over deck, plate thickness were revised to suit this limit. Analysis and design with increased structural thickness is done for pile diameters 914mm and 813m as for other two diameters, deflection is well within limit. Please refer to the Table-13 to Table-14 for results. 3.1 Comparison Of Forces-Deflection In Pile: Refer to the charts given in Fig. 2 to Fig. 7 for comparison of moment, shear force, axial force and deflection for operating, seismic and storm loading conditions.
4 Conclusion
For required structural thickness, 914mm O.D. pile and 813mm O.D. pile are weighing 6.25% and 14.77% less than 1016mm O.D. pile respectively. And 1118 mm O.D. pile is weighing 10.22% more than 1016mm O.D. pile. But deflection is limited to 50mm in operating condition at top of deck for proper functioning of the material handling system installed above deck. Deflection is higher than this limit in 914mm O.D. pile and 813mm O.D. pile. To reduce deflection, thickness needs to be increased. With increased thickness (by providing thickness required to reduce deflection to 50mm), 914mm O.D. pile and 813mm O.D. pile are weighing 5.11% and 27.21% more than 1016mm O.D. pile respectively. Thus it can be concluded that for given deflection limit, 1016mm O.D. pile option is most economical steel pile for the structure studied in this thesis. Founding level of all the three steel piles are coming same as piles are founded in sand layer to avoid founding into clay layer which is considered as weak for end bearing. All three piles are penetrated into sand layer by 2m as per guidelines given in API RP 2A-WSD. Founding level of 1.0m dia. bored cast in situ RCC pile and 1.016m outer dia. steel piles is coming same because of avoiding founding into clay. Because static calculation shows formation of soil plug inside steel pile which reduces pile bearing capacity and there is large reduction in the end bearing resistance in clayey soil in case of RCC piles. At same founding, level hollow steel pile gives more bearing capacity than that of solid RCC pile. This is because skin friction is available on outer side as well as on inner side of the steel pile whereas it is available only at outer side of the RCC pile. In comparison between 1.0m dia. bored cast in situ RCC pile and 1.016m outer dia. steel pile, it can be seen that forces are almost same in both the cases except for seismic load case where slight variation in forces is observed. Moments are approx. 6% higher in steel pile and shear force is approx. 8% higher in steel in seismic load case. Base shear co-efficient for RCC pile is 0.04 whereas for steel pile is 0.05. Although hollow steel piles are flexible foundation compared to solid RCC pile but multiplication of damping factor of value 1.4 with base shear coefficient increases seismic force in steel piled structures as compared to RCC piles structure. Moment of inertia (I) of 1.0 m dia. RCC pile is approx. 7.4 times moment of inertia of 1.016m outer dia. steel pile. At the same time, modulus of elasticity (E) of steel material is approx. 6.3 times E of RCC material. But product of EI for RCC pile is only 1.16 times EI of steel pile. Because of this, there is not major variation in RCC pile and steel pile option.
5 Tables And Figures

Table-1 Soil Properties Layer No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Depth below D.S.B.L. 6.53 15.53 23.03 26.03 29.15 31.15 Layer Thickness (m) 6.53 9 7.5 3 3.12 2 Density (kN/m3) 18 18 18 18 18 20 Submerged density (kN/m3) 7.75 7.75 7.75 7.75 7.75 7.75 N value 38 26 18 50 80 80 Cohesion (kN/m2) 150 80 160 0 0 300 Angle of friction (deg) 0 0 0 35 35 0
Table-2 RCC Pile Forces Limit state of Collapse Level Fx (kN) 3112 1352 2040 1437 2905 1523 3303 1609 2406 1712 2453 1747 2501 1783 2548 1818 My (kN.m) 184 105 108 150 512 26 117 97 215 229 149 162 72 533 25 27 Mz (kN.m) 1931 1900 1362 1341 22 461 474 454 1500 1475 1087 1070 542 539 197 194 Mu (kN.m) 1940 1900 1366 1350 512 462 488 465 1516 1493 1097 1082 546 539 199 196 Fx (kN) 2099 554 2194 649 2289 1050 2945 840 2453 954 2492 994 2532 1033 2617 1072 Limit state of serviceability My (kN.m) 1202 503 721 250 233 171 397 255 947 491 522 265 153 76 5 1 Mz (kN.m) 374 364 220 243 64.6 36.6 91 97 300 333 169 189 51 58 2 3 Mu (kN.m) 1258 620 754 348 241 175 407 272 993 593 548 325 161 95 5 3
(+)14.246
(+)10.979
(+)7.6982
(+)4.4243
(+)0.15
(-)1.85
(-)3.85
(-)5.85
Table -3 Maximum Axial Load On Top Of RCC Pile Loading Condition Axial Load On Top (KN) Operating 2836 Extreme 2465 Table -4 Deflection At Top Of RCC Pile Load Combination Deflection (mm) Operating Seismic Storm 48 44 60
Table-5.1 Steel Pile Forces (Operating) R.L. (m CD) 14.25 13.16 12.06 10.97 9.89 8.79 7.70 6.61 5.49 4.42 2.68 2.24 1.15 0.15 -1.85 -3.85 -5.85 -7.85 Member 220 220 220 220 220 220 1738 4482 4482 4482 4482 4482 4482 4532 4534 4536 4538 1796 L/C 127 127 127 127 127 127 141 117 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 142 Axial Force Fx (KN) 2272.98 2292.71 2312.44 2332.17 2351.91 2371.64 2804.15 2788.69 2836.27 2856.00 2875.74 2895.47 2915.20 2920.03 2924.86 2934.52 2944.18 3098.70 Shear Force Fy (KN) -5.62 -23.62 -23.66 -23.81 -23.97 -24.12 77.98 37.31 -15.01 -18.41 -21.98 -24.02 -25.56 -7.23 23.08 22.44 11.90 5.51 ShearForce Fz (KN) 121.49 132.20 132.20 132.20 132.20 132.20 30.24 -28.80 137.34 137.34 137.34 137.34 137.34 29.58 -145.00 -136.32 -70.92 -12.74 Moment My (KN) -1155.86 -1011.59 -867.32 -723.04 -578.77 -434.50 -40.81 75.74 162.66 312.54 462.42 612.31 762.19 791.77 700.60 401.57 160.10 15.33 Moment Mz (KN) -202.68 -176.91 -151.13 -125.23 -99.16 -72.92 176.78 83.03 29.58 47.20 69.48 94.66 121.75 128.98 115.45 67.33 27.42 6.58
Table-5.2 Steel Pile Forces (Extreme) R.L. (m CD) 14.25 13.16 12.06 10.97 9.89 8.79 7.70 6.61 5.49 4.42 2.68 2.24 1.15 0.15 -1.85 -3.85 -5.85 -7.85 Member 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 3562 4482 4482 4482 4482 4482 4532 476 478 480 3620 L/C 1022 1022 1022 1022 1022 1022 1022 1016 1022 1022 1022 1025 1025 1025 1022 1022 1022 2003 Axial Force Fx (KN) 2150.281 2170.013 2189.746 2209.479 2229.212 2248.945 2268.678 1624.799 2359.323 2379.055 2398.788 2053.095 2072.828 2077 2401 2411 2420 1635 Shear Force Fy (KN) 11.265 11.265 11.265 11.265 11.265 11.265 11.265 -1.28 17.506 20.851 24.419 23.044 24.583 9 15 15 8 42 ShearForce Fz (KN) 219.024 231.58 235.415 235.83 236.246 236.661 262.156 215.391 245.974 246.296 246.559 247.938 248.201 55 253 240 124 16 Moment My (KN) -1961.14 -1708.56 -1453.28 -1196.15 -938.558 -680.517 -412.948 -177.679 250.936 519.562 788.488 1057.686 1328.404 1383 971 460 152 3 Moment Mz (KN) 94.491 82.198 69.904 57.611 45.318 33.025 20.732 3.56 8.716 -11.57 -36.514 -67.244 -93.27 102 65 31 11 4
Table -6 Maximum Axial Load On Top Of Steel Pile Loading Condition Axial Load On Top (KN) Operating 2823 Extreme 2667
Table-7 Deflection At Top Of Steel Pile Load Combination Deflection (mm) Operating Seismic Storm 48 75.5 66
R.L. (m CD) 14.246 13.159 12.059 10.972 9.885 8.785 7.698 6.611 5.485 4.424 2.683 2.237 1.150 0.150 -1.850 -3.850 -5.850 -7.850 upto -25
Reqd. Thk. (Operating) (mm) 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 10 11 12 13 15 15 15 12 10 9 9
Table -9 Design Summary Max. Reqd. Thk. Reqd. Thk. (Extreme) (mm) (mm) 16 16 14 15 13 14 11 13 10 12 8 11 7 10 6 9 6 10 8 11 9 12 11 13 13 15 13 15 12 15 8 12 6 10 6 9 6 9 Table-10 Weight Comparison Spool Details (Length (m)- Thickness (mm)) Spool-1 4-25 4-25 11-25 11-25 Spool-2 11-20 11-20 4-20 4-25 Spool-3 11-18 11-18 11-18 11-18 Spool-4 11-18 11-18 11-18 11-18
Corrosion Allowance (mm) 5 5 5 5 8.5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Total Reqd. Thk. (mm) 21 20 19 18 20.5 16 15 14 15 16 17 18 20 15.75 15.75 12.75 10.75 9.75 9.75
O.D. (mm) 1016 1118 914 813
Total Weight( T) 17.6 19.4 16.5 15
Table-11 Deflection Comparision Load Case Pile Options Operating Seismic 1000mm Dia. RCC 46 68 1118mm O.D. Steel 46 74 1016mm O.D. Steel 49 79 914mm O.D. Steel 52 86 813mm O.D. Steel 58 100
Storm 60 58 69 84 106
Table-12 Founding Level Comparision
Pile Options 1000mm Dia. RCC 1118mm O.D. Steel 1016mm O.D. Steel 914mm O.D. Steel 813mm O.D. Steel
Founding Level (m CD) (-)24.00 (-)24.00 (-)24.00 (-)24.00 (-)24.00
O.D. (mm) 1016 914 813
Table 13 Weight Comparision Spool Details (Length (m) Thickness (mm)) Spool-1 Spool-2 Spool-3 Spool-4 4-25 11-20 11-18 11-18 11-28 4-25 11-20 11-18 11-34 4-32 11-30 11-30 Table 14 Deflection Comparision Load Case Pile Options Operating Seismic 1016mm O.D. Steel 49 79 914mm O.D. Steel 50 83 813mm O.D. Steel 50 85
Total Weight(T) 17.6 18.5 22.39
Storm 69 75 75
Fig.2 3D view of staad model
MOMENT COMPARISION FOR OPERATING LOADCASES

RCC 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 0.083 0.167 0.25 0.333 0.417 0.5 H/L 0.583 0.667 0.75 0.833 0.917 1 Steel
Fig.3.1 H = length of segment measured from top of pile, L = Total length up to fixity measured from pile top.
MOMENT COMPARISION FOR SEISMIC LOADCASES
RCC 2500 MOMENT (KN.M) 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 0.083 0.167 0.25 0.333 0.417 0.5 H/L 0.583 0.667 0.75 0.833 0.917 1 STEEL
MOMENT (KN.M)
Fig.3.2
MOMENT COMPARISION FOR STORM LOADCASES

RCC 2000 MOMENT (KN.M) 1500 1000 500 0 0 0.083 0.167 0.25 0.333 0.417 0.5 H/L 0.583 0.667 0.75 0.833 0.917 1 STEEL
Fig.3.3
SHEAR FORCE COMPARISION FOR OPERATING LOADCASES

RCC SHEAR FORCE (KN) 200 150 100 50 0 0 0.083 0.167 0.25 0.333 0.417 0.5 H/L 0.583 0.667 0.75 0.833 0.917 1 STEEL
Fig.4.1
SHEAR FORCE COMPARISION FOR SEISMIC LOADCASES
Fig.4.2
SHEAR FORCE COMPARISION FOR STORM LOADCASES
Fig.4.3
AXIAL FORCE COMPARISION
RCC AXIAL FORCE (KN) 2800 2750 2700 2650 2600 OPERATING SEISMIC LOADING CONDITION STORM STEEL
Fig.5
DEFLECTION COMPARISION
RCC DEFLECTION (MM) 100 80 60 40 20 0 OPERATING SEISMIC LOADING CONDITION STORM STEEL
Fig.6
COMPARISION OF FORCES FOR PILE-CAP BEAM

RCC 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Hogging at Sagging at Sagging at midsupport (KN.m) support (KN.m) span (KN.m) FORCES Shear at support (KN) Steel
VALUE
Fig.7
COMPARISION OF FORCES FOR LONGITUDINAL BEAMS

RCC 1500 VALUE 1000 500 0 Hogging at support (KN.m) Sagging at mid-span (KN.m) FORCES Shear at support (KN.m) STEEL
Fig.8
Fig.9 General Arrangement Drawing
References
Aswani M.G. and Vazirani V.N. and Ratwani M.M., Design Of Concrete Bridges, Khanna Publishers Babu P.V.Mayur and Bhandari N.M. A Comparative Study Of Integral Bridges Versus Simply Supported Bridge. Bowles Joseph E., Foundation Analysis And Design, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., Fifth Edition. Broms Bengt B., Design Of Laterally Loaded Piles Byrne Byron, Driven Pipe Piles In Dense Sand Chen Wai Fah and Duan Lian, Bridge Engineering Handbook, CRC Press. Connal John, Integral Abutment Bridges Australian And US Practice Dawson Thomas H., Offshore Structural Engineering, United Status Naval Academy Elson W.K., Design Of Laterally Loaded Piles Evans Keith Martin, A model Study Of The End Bearing Capacity Of Piles In Layered Calcareous Soils Flener Esra Bayoglu, Soil Structure Interaction in Integral Bridges Mistry Vasant C., Integral Abutment And Jointless Bridges Obrien Eugene J. and Keogh Damien L., Design Details Of Integral Bridges. Park R.and Paulay T., Reinforced Concrete Structure, John Willey And Sons Publications. Poulos H.G. and Davis E.H., Pile Foundation Analysis And Design, John Willey And Sons Publications. Prakash Shamsher and Sharma Hari D., Pile Foundations In Engineering Practice, John Willey And Sons Publications. Raina V.K., Concrete Bridge Practice, The McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Liminted, Second Edition. Reynolds Charles E. and Steedman James C., Reinforced Concrete Designers Handbook, E & F N Spon Publications,Tenth Edition. API Recommended Practice 2A-WSD Recommended Practice For Planning, Designing And Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms Working Stress Design BS:6349(Part1)-2000 Maritime Structures- Code Of Practice For General Criteria. Coastal Engineering Manual(Part VI)- 2006 Chapter5 Fundamentals Of Design. IS:1893(Part 1)-2002 Code Of Practice For Earthquake Resistant Design Of Structures- General Provisions And Buildings. IS:1893-1984 Criteria For Earthquake Resistant Design Of Structures. IS:2911 (Part 1/Sec 2) 1979 Code Of Practice For Design And Construction Of Piles, Bored Cast In Situ Piles IS:456-2000 Plain And Reinforced Concrete Code Of Practice IS:4651 (Part 4) -1989 Code Of Practice For Planning And Design Of Ports And Harbours, General Design Considerations. IS:800-1984 Code Of Practice For General Construction In Steel IS:816-1969 Code Of Practice For Use Of Metal Arc Welding For General Construction In Mild Steel
The paper may be considered for 1. Oral Presentation 2. Poster Session
Print
Page 1 of 2
Print - Close Window

Subject:Re: ABSTRACT ACCEPTANCE NOTIFICATION_RACE-InD2011 From: viral panchal (viralcivileng@yahoo.co.in) To: race.ind2011@gmail.com; Cc: cssanghvi@rediffmail.com; Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 17:40:04 Dear Sir/Madam, Thanks for acceptance of abstract. I am attaching full length paper for your pursual. Please feel free to communicate me if any modification is required or if any further information is required. My contact details are as follows: Name: Viral Panchal email id: viralcivileng@yahoo.co.in Contact No:+919099055654
From: RACE-InD2011 <race.ind2011@gmail.com> To: viral panchal <viralcivileng@yahoo.co.in> Sent: Fri, 29 July, 2011 12:50:36 PM Subject: ABSTRACT ACCEPTANCE NOTIFICATION_RACE-InD2011
DearSir/Madam, WearepleasedtoinformthattheAbstractofyourpaperhasbeenacceptedafterreview.We requestyoutosubmityourfulllengthpapernotexceeding6pagesinlengthandstrictly conformingtotheformattingguidelines.Atemplatefileisattachedherewithtohelpyouin preparingfulllengthmanuscript. Thecompletedpapermustbeemailedtorace.ind2011@gmail.comattheearliestbutinnocase laterthanAugust15,2011sothatthepapercanbesentforreviewwellintime. Acceptanceofthepapersafterreviewwillbenotifiedtotheauthorsviaemailby20September, 2011. Pleasenotethatthepaperwillbefinallyacceptedforpresentationandpublicationinthe ConferenceProceedingsonlyifatleastoneofitsauthorsisexclusivelyregisteredforthispaperso thatotherdelegatesmaybenefitfromthepresentationandamoreinteractiveandfruitful discussion. Whilesendingthefulllengthpaper,pleasementiontheemailID,contactnumberandaddressof theauthorwhowillpresentthepaper. Withwarmregards, Dr.AmitSrivastava OrganizingSecretary RACEInD2011 DepartmentofCivilEngineering JaypeeUniversityofEngineering&Technology Raghogarh,Guna,MP473226 INDIA
http://in.mg4.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=etree9k31lrpa
8/9/2011
Print
Page 2 of 2
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:33 PM, viral panchal <viralcivileng@yahoo.co.in> wrote: Dear Sir/Madam, I wish to participate in the event "National Conference On Recent Advancements In Civil Engineering & Infrastructural Development" being organized in your esteemed institute under "Structural Engineering Theme". For that, I have attached the abstract of the paper "A Comparative Study Of RCC & Steel Pile Foundation For An Integral Bridge" along with this mail for your kind consideration. Please acknowledge receipt of this mail by a return mail. Also, please let me know the date for notification of accepted abstract. Best Regards, Viral Panchal. Mobile No-9099055654
http://in.mg4.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=etree9k31lrpa
8/9/2011
INTEGRAL BRIDGES
Viral Panchal1 and Chaitanya S. Sanghvi2
1
M.E. (CASAD) Student, Applied Mechanics Department, L.D.College Of Engineering, India. E-mail: viralcivileng@yahoo.co.in
2
Associate Professor, Applied Mechanics Department, L.D.College Of Engineering, India. E-mail: cssanghvi@rediffmail.com
ABSTRACT
The increase in demand for complex roadway alignments, advances in construction technology and availability of computing power for bridges design, are some of the factors for developments in bridge engineering. Concept of Integral Bridges is one of these developments. Due to ease & economy in construction and maintenance, it is also getting popular in India. Integral bridge concept is also widely adopted in marine structures where many times foundations are flexible like pile foundation. Main reasons for increasing popularity of integral concept in marine structures are efforts of minimizing use of bearings and to resist large lateral forces. Integral bridge requires flexible foundation to accommodate thermal stresses and stresses produced from lateral forces like waves, current, wind, seismic etc. There are many advantages to jointless bridges as many are performing well in service. There are long term benefits to adopting integral bridges concept and therefore there should be greater use of integral bridge construction. Integral abutment and jointless bridges cost less to construct and require less maintenance then equivalent bridges with expansion joints. This paper explains why we should use integral bridges and discusses some of the recommended practices for integral abutment and jointless bridges. Keywords
Integral bridge, bearing, seismic, expansion joint, abutment, soil structure interaction.
Why Integral Bridges?

One of the most important aspects of design which can affect structure life and maintenance costs is the reduction or elimination of roadway expansion joints and associated expansion bearings. Unfortunately, this is too often overlooked or avoided. Joints and bearings are expensive to buy, install, maintain and repair and more costly to replace. The most frequently encountered corrosion problem involves leaking expansion joints and seals that permit salt-laden run-off water from the roadway surface to attack the girder ends, bearings and supporting reinforced concrete substructures. Elastomeric glands get filled with dirt, rocks and trash, and ultimately fail to function. Many of our most costly maintenance problems originated with leaky joints. Bridge deck joints are subjected to continual wear and heavy impact from repeated live loads as well as continual stages of movement from expansion and contraction caused by temperature changes, and or creep and shrinkage or long term movement effects such as settlement and soil pressure. Joints are sometimes subjected to impact loadings which can exceed their design capacity. Deck joints are routinely one of the last items installed on a bridge and are sometimes not given the necessary attention it deserves to ensure the desired performance. While usually not a significant item based on cost, bridge deck joints can have a significant impact on a bridge performance. A wide variety of joints have been developed over the years to accommodate a wide range of movements, and promises of long lasting, durable, effective joints have led States to try many of them. Some joint types perform better than others, but all
joints can cause maintenance problems. The problems arising from provision of bearings and expansion joints can be summarized as: Increased incidence of inspection and maintenance required, bridge durability is often impaired. Necessity of replacement during the service life of the bridge since their design life is lesser than that of the rest of the bridge elements. Decrease in redundancy and difficulties in providing adequate ductility for resisting earthquake effects, leading to larger earthquake design forces.
Surajbari new bridge superstructure shifted in the transverse direction.
Bridge between Surajbari & Bhachau Violent shaking has resulted in pier head being damaged due to pounding of deck
Possibilities of dislodgement of superstructure during accidental loads, especially those due to earthquakes, is a clear danger requiring expensive and clumsy attachments. The latest amendments to the Indian Road Congress codes require the positive measures such as restrainers be provided so that girders do not get dislodged during earthquake. Bridges presents soft target for terrorists who could put them out of service with little difficulty.
What is An Integral Bridge?

Because of above mentioned problems, use of integral or integral abutment bridge is being increased all over the world. Integral bridges are bridges where the superstructure is continuous and connected monolithically with the substructure with a moment-resisting connection. As an effect we obtain a structure acting as one unit. However, simply supported bridges are still popular in India. The main reason for their popularity is that these structures are simple to design and execute. The sub-structural design is also greatly simplified because of the determinate nature of the structure. Sometimes there are situations where bearings/simply supported spans/expansion joints can not be altogether avoided because of the length of the bridge. In such cases intermediate joints will be provided with bearings to allow horizontal movements. But these joints will be lesser in numbers as compared to simply supported bridges. On the other hand, monolithic joints and redundancy of the structural system do result in savings in the cost of the construction and maintenance. Elimination of bearings improves the structural performance during earthquakes. Finally, integral form of construction will require lesser inspection and maintenance efforts. Several urban structures in India have been built with this concept. However no national standards or uniform policy regarding the permissible bridge length, skews and design procedures have been clearly established, although certain general concepts become common in practice. The advisory note BA 42/96 recommends that all bridges need to be integral if overall length exceeds 60 m and skews less than 30 deg. The longitudinal movement in the bridge abutment is limited to 20mm from the position at time of restraint during construction. Integral bridges are designed for same range of temperatures as other bridges. According to IAJB 2005, the range of design criteria for selection of integral bridge is summarized below. Steel girders Maximum span (ft) Total length (ft) Maximum skew (degree) Maximum curvature 65-300 150-650 15-70 0-10 Concrete 60-200 150-1175 15-70 0-10
Some of the common features of monolithic bridge construction include: i) Elimination of the pier cap which improves bridge aesthetics.
ii) Heavily reinforced slender piers iii) Change in the structural system. Integral bridges accommodate superstructure movements without conventional expansion joints. With the superstructure rigidly connected to the substructure and with flexible substructure piling, the superstructure is permitted to expand and contract. Such bridges are the answer for small and medium length bridges where bearings and expansion joints can be either eliminated altogether or reduced to a minimum. By incorporation of
intermediate expansion joints, the integral bridge concept can be extended to long bridges and viaducts too. Integral bridges are designed to provide resistance to thermal movements, breaking forces, seismic forces and winds by the stiffness of the soil abutting the end supports and the intermediate supports. A typical three span integral abutment bridge is shown in Fig.1. Fig.2 shows three principle methods by which an integral bridge can accommodate movements of the super structure. Fig.3 shows different types of end supports used for integral bridges. The main types of the end supports can be categorized and described as: a). Frame abutment:- Full height frame abutments are suitable for short single-span bridges. The horizontal movements will only be small, so the earth pressures should not be very high. b). Embedded wall abutment:- Embedded wall abutments are also suitable for short single-span integral bridges. c). Piled abutment with reinforced soil wall :- A piled abutment with reinforced soil abutment wall and wing walls is a form of construction that should have a wide application. d). End screen (semi integral) :- Semi-integral construction with bearings on top of a rigid retaining wall is a design method that can be used for full-height abutments for bridges of any length. Jacking of the deck can result in soil movement under the abutment soffit. This can obstruct the deck from returning to its original level. e). Piled bank seat :- Piled bank seats are recommended for widespread use. The piles prevent settlement while allowing horizontal movement and rotation. f). Piled bank seat with end screen (semi integral):- Bank seats can be designed as semi-integral abutments. The footing is not required to move horizontally and piled or spread footings can be used. g). Bank pad abutment :- Shallow abutments on spread footings are only considered to be suitable for situations where the foundation is very stiff and there can be no settlement problems. A granular fill layer should be placed below the footing to allow sliding.
Benefits of Integral Bridges

Some of the advantages of adopting Integral bridges over that of the conventional bridges are summarized below: i. Simplified Construction- The simple characteristics of integral bridges make for rapid and economical construction. For example, there is no need to construct cofferdams, make footing excavations, place backfill, remove cofferdams, and prepare bridge seats, place bearings, back walls, and deck joints. Instead, integral construction generally results in just four concrete placement days. After the embankments, piles and pile caps have been placed and deck stringers erected, deck slabs, continuity connections, and approach slabs can follow in rapid succession. ii. No bearings and Joints- Integral bridges can be built without bearings and deck joints. Not only will this result in savings in initial costs, the absence of joints and bearings will reduce maintenance efforts. This is an important benefit because presently available deck joint sealing devices have such short effective service lives. Smooth jointless construction improves vehicular riding quality and diminishes vehicular impact stress levels.
iii.
Improved Design efficiency- Tangible efficiencies are achieved in substructure design due to an increase in the number of supports over which longitudinal and transverse superstructure loads may be distributed. Built-in abutments can be designed to accommodate some bending moment capacity, reducing end span bending moments with possible savings in end span girders. Due to rigid connection between superstructure and substructure, bending moments are considerably less thus resulting in smaller sections and economy in reinforcement and concrete.
iv.
Enhanced load distribution- One of the most important attributes of integral bridges is their substantial reserve strength capacity. The integrity of their unified structural system makes them extremely resistant to the potentially damaging effects of illegal super imposed loads, pressures generated by the restrained growth of jointed rigid pavements, earthquakes, and debris laden flood flows. A joint less bridge with integral abutments will have a higher degree or redundancy that may be beneficial in earthquake zones. The problem of retaining the superstructure on its bearing during seismic events is eliminated and the inherent damping of the integral bridge structural system allows it to better absorb energy and limit damage.
v.
Added redundancy and capacity for catastrophic events - Integral abutments provide added redundancy and capacity for catastrophic events. Joints introduce a potential collapse mechanism into the overall bridge structure. Integral abutments eliminate the most common cause of damage to bridges in seismic events, loss of girder support. Integral abutments have consistently performed well in actual seismic events and significantly reduced or avoided problems such as back wall and bearing damage, associated with seat type jointed abutments. Jointless design is preferable for highly seismic regions. The reasons for adopting integral bridges in India and elsewhere could be quite different. When
earthquake forces like predominant or when considerations like increased resistance to blast are to be reckoned with or there is a strong need of incorporating reduced cost of inspection & maintenance integral bridge concept is an excellent option.
Problems and Uncertainties

Despite the significant advantages of integral abutment bridges, there are some problems and uncertainties associated with them. Many articles, mentioned that the main problem connected with integral bridges are consequences of temperature variations and traffic loads, which cause horizontal bridge movements. Horizontal movements and rotations of the abutment cause settlement of the approach fill, resulting in a void near abutment if the bridge has approach slabs. Effects of lateral movements of integral abutments under cyclic loadings are obvious problem which demands solving, but positive aspect in this case is that temperature induced displacements in the traditional bridge is over twice bigger than displacement at the end of (considering objects with the same span length) integrated structure because of symmetrical nature of the thermal effects as illustrated below..
The other uncertainties connected with designing and performance of integral abutment bridges are: The elimination of intermediate joints in multiple spans results in a structural continuity that may induce secondary stresses in the superstructure. These forces due to shrinkage, creep, thermal gradients, differential settlement, differential deflections, and earth pressure can cause cracks in concrete bridge abutments. Wingwalls can crack due to rotation and contraction of the superstructure. Also, differential settlement of the substructure can cause more damage in case of integral bridges as compared to traditional briges. Integral bridges should be provided with approach slabs to prevent vehicular traffic from consolidating backfill adjacent to abutments, to eliminate live load surcharging of backfill, and to minimize the adverse effect of consolidating backfill and approach embankments on movement of vehicular traffic. For bridges with closed decks (curbs, barriers, etc.), approach slabs should be provided with curbs to confine and carry deck drainage across backfill to the approaches and prevent erosion, or saturation and freezing of the backfill. The piles that support the abutments may be subjected to high stresses as a result of cyclic elongation and contraction of the bridge structure. These stresses can cause formation of plastic hinges in the piles and may reduce their axial load capacities. The application of integral bridge concept has few other limitations. Integral bridges can not be used with weak embankments or subsoil, and they can only be used for limited lengths, although the maximum length is still somewhat unclear. Integral bridges are suitable if the expected temperature induced moment at each abutment is certain value specified by suitable authorities in every country, and somewhat larger moments can be tolerable.
Recommended Design Details for Integral Abutments

Use embankment and stub-type abutments. Use single row of flexible piles and orient piles for weak axis bending. Use steel piles for maximum ductility and durability. Embed piles at least two pile sizes into the pile cap to achieve pile fixedly to abutment. Provide abutment stem wide enough to allow for some misalignment of piles. Provide an earth bench near superstructure to minimize abutment depth and wingwall lengths. Provide minimum penetration of abutment into embankment. Make wingwalls as small as practicable to minimize the amount of structure and earth that have to move with the abutment during thermal expansion of the deck. For shallow superstructures, use cantilevered turn-back wingwalls (parallel to center line of roadway) instead of transverse wingwalls. Provide loose backfill beneath cantilevered wingwalls. Provide well-drained granular backfill to accommodate the imposed expansion and contraction.
Provide under-drains under and around abutment and around wingwalls. Encase stringers completely by end-diaphragm concrete. Paint ends of girders. Caulk interface between beam and backwall. Provide holes in steel beam ends to thread through longitudinal abutment reinforcement. Provide temporary support bolts anchored into the pile cap to support beams in lieu of cast bridge seats. Tie approach slabs to abutments with hinge type reinforcing. Use generous shrinkage reinforcement in the deck slab above the abutment. Pile length should not be less than 10 ft. to provide sufficient flexibility. Provide pre bored holes to a depth of 10 feet for piles if necessary for dense and/or cohesive soils to allow for flexing as the superstructure translates. Provide pavement joints to allow bridge cyclic movements and pavement growth. Focus on entire bridge and not just its abutments. Provide symmetry on integral bridges to minimize potential longitudinal forces on piers and to equalize longitudinal pressure on abutments. Provide two layers of polyethylene sheets or a fabric under the approach slab to minimize friction against horizontal movement. Limit use of integral abutment to bridges with skew less than 30 degree to minimize the magnitude and lateral eccentricity of potential longitudinal forces.
Summary
There are many advantages to jointless bridges as many are performing well in service. There are longterm benefits to adopting integral bridge design concepts and therefore there should be greater use of integral bridge construction. Due to limited funding sources for bridge maintenance, it is desirable to establish strategies for eliminating joints as much as possible and converting/retrofitting bridges with troublesome joints to jointless design. Now various organizations and authorities have adopted integral abutment bridges as structures of choice when conditions allow. Many of them are now building integral and/or semi-integral abutment type of bridges. Recently in India, this concept is widely used in Delhi Metro Rail bridges. While superstructures with deck-end joints still predominate, the trend appears to be moving toward integral. Although no general agreement, regarding a maximum safe-length for integral abutment and jointless bridges, exists among standards or organisations, the study has shown that design practices followed by the most organizations are conservative and longer jointless bridges could be constructed. Continuity and elimination of joints, besides providing a more maintenance free durable structure, can lead the way to more innovative and aesthetically pleasing solutions to bridge design. As bridge designers we should never take the easy way out, but consider the needs of our customer, the motoring public first. Providing a joint free and maintenance free bridge should be our ultimate goal. The best joint is no joint.
References
1) Babu P.V.Mayur and Bhandari N.M. A Comparative Study Of Integral Bridges Versus Simply Supported Bridge. 2) Chen Wai Fah and Duan Lian, Bridge Engineering Handbook, CRC Press. 3) Connal John, Integral Abutment Bridges Australian And US Practice 4) Flener Esra Bayoglu, Soil Structure Interaction in Integral Bridges 5) Obrien Eugene J. and Keogh Damien L., Design Details Of Integral Bridges. 6) Raina V.K., Concrete Bridge Practice, The McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Liminted, Second Edition.
Fig.2
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e) (f)
(g) (g)
Fig.3
10
Page 1 of 1
Acceptance of paper for submission

FROM: TO:
Friday, 5 August 2011 4:36 PM
Dear Sir, please find attached letter of acceptance of your article for publication in SED. regards, Editorial Team, SED
1 Attached files | 126KB
letter of ac
Reply to SED Info
http://36ohk6dgmcd1n.yom.mail.yahoo.net/om/api/1.0/openmail.app.invoke/36ohk6dgm... 8/9/2011
Dear Mr. Viral Panchal,
Date: 05-08-2011
We are thankful to you for sending the article on Integral bridges for publishing in Structural Engineering Digest. We are glad to inform you that the article will be published in the next issue of SED. We will be looking forward to some more of such interesting contributions from you. Thank you once again. Regards, Editorial Team Structural Engineering Digest (www.sedigest.in)
For Communication: SED, Chitrakoot flats, B/H Times of India, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad 380009 Phone: +91 (79) 2658 8829/2480/4488. Fax: +91 (79) 2658 3596 Email: info@sedigest.in Website: www.sedigest.in

Thesis

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Thesis

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF RCC & STEEL PILE FOUNDATION FOR AN INTEGRAL BRIDGE

Prepared by: Viral B Panchal Guided by: Prof C S Sanghvi

Applied Mechanics Department L. D. College of Engineering Ahmedabad-380 015 August 2011

GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT L. D. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AHMEDABAD 380015

Master of Engineering in CIVIL-CASAD

DISSERTATION APPROVAL SHEET

INTERNAL EXAMINER (S): (Prof. C. S. SANGHVI)

EXTERNAL EXAMINER (S): ( )

Chapter No. Abstract Acknowledgement 1 Introduction

Page No. (i) (iii) 1 1 10 17 20 24 24 43 61 73 73 83 89 97

Comparison Of Results Conclusion And Future Scope References

108 113 115 117

Appendix A - Wave Force Calculation Charts

Appendix B - Super structure Analysis & Design

Appendix C - General Arrangement Drawing

Appendix D - Construction Sequence Drawing

Appendix E - RCC Pile Detail Drawing

Appendix F - Steel Pile Detail Drawing

Appendix G - Pile Cap Reinforcement Detail Drawing

Appendix H - Longitudinal Beam Reinforcement Detail Drawing

Appendix I - Diaphragm Reinforcement Detail Drawing

A.9 A.10 A.11 A.12 B.1 B.2

125 126 127 128 129 134

Page No. 34 35 65 65 66 66 67 67 69 70 70 71 71 71 72 72 72 72 75 76 78 80 85 87-88 98 99-100 104

22.1-22.2 B.1.1 B.1.2 B.2.1-B.2.2 B.3.1-B.3.2

107 129 130 131 134

1.1 Introduction To Integral Bridges

Fig.1 Sketch Of A Typical 3 Span Integral Bridge

Fig. 2 Transfer Of Movements In Integral Bridges

Chapter-1 1.1.2 Background:

Surajbari new bridge superstructure shifted in the transverse direction

1.2 Bridge Substructure:

Chapter-1 Steel Piles:

2.1 Literature Review:

3.1 Project Description:

Current velocity at mid depth :

Chapter-3 Current velocity at bottom : 1.80 m/s

4.1 Load Description:

Fig.5 IRC Class 70R Loading

Fig.6 IRC Class A Loading

Hydrodynamic force acting on piers and modification in earth pressure due to

Chapter-4 8. Wave Force:

du/dt = horizontal water particle acceleration;

Figure.11 Definition Sketch Of Wave Forces On A Vertical Cylinder.

In general form these quantities may be written Fi = C M g

cosh[2 ( z + d ) / L] 2t H sin 4 L cosh[2d / L] T

gT 2 cosh[2 ( z + d ) / L ] 1 f D = C D gDH 2 2 2 4 L cosh[2d / L]

1 2t 2t n cos cos T 4 T 1 cosh[2d / L] (2d / L) sinh[2d / L]

1 1 1 1 cosh[4d / L] + 2 + (4d / L) sinh[4d / L] 2 2n 1 4d / L 1 + sinh[4d / L ] 2

1.5 0.66 0.5 0.5 to 0.7

2.1.1 Load Combinations:

4.2 Load Calculation:

L-girder-2 to 5 = ((0.4 x 0.725) + ((0.2 + 0.15) x 0.25)) x 25 = 9.44 kN/m

h). Self weight of deck slab (precast+insitu) = 0.35 x 25 = 7 kN /m2

i). Self weight of wearing course

Chapter-4 = 0.112 x 22 = 2.464 kN /m2 = = = =

1.5625 KN/m 1 10 15 kN/m kN kN

Braking force is calculated as per Cl. 214.2 of IRC:6-2000.

5 = = 15 4 17.85 kN 4 9.892 kN 2 10.71 kN kN

IRC Class 70R wheeled vehicle:

Table1 of IS:875 (part3)-1987 ..Table33 of IS:875(part3)-1987 Cl.5.3.3.1 of IS:875(part3)-1987

Pile Analysis Cl.8.2.1 of IS:875 (part3)-1987 Cl.8.3 of IS:875 (part3)-1987

Wind Pressure Pz = 0.6 V2z,