ISSN No: 2348-4845

International Journal & Magazine of Engineering,

Technology, Management and Research
A Peer Reviewed Open Access International Journal

Comparative Study of RCC Slab Bridge by Working Stress

(IRC: 21-2000) and Limit State (IRC: 112-2011)
Sudip Jha Cherukupally Rajesh P.Srilakshmi
M.Tech Structural Engineering, M.Tech Structural Engineering, Associate Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering,
Jawaharlal Nehru Technological Jawaharlal Nehru Technological Jawaharlal Nehru Technological
University, Hyderabad. University, Hyderabad. University, Hyderabad.

ABSTRACT: (ii)The modular ratio of 10 is adopted.

This paper focuses on the methodology of design and (iii)The tensile strength of concrete is ignored.
analysis of Slab Bridge by working stress method and
limit state method. Two models of slab bridges with dif- In WSM approach, service loads are used in design and
ferent carriageway widths are analyzed using STAAD strength of material is not fully utilized. Calculation of
PRO V8i as per IRC standards. Grillage analogy is ad- stresses acting on structural members is based on elastic
opted for the analysis of the models which compares the method which is designed not to exceed certain limit.
change in economy by varying the carriageway widths.
Keywords: %p steel, Limiting moment, VED applied The structure during its lifetime may not experience
shear force, VRDC shear resisting without shear rein- stresses equal to ultimate state. Under such scenario, the
forcement, VRDS shear resisting capacity with shear re- most economical design can hardly be obtained by using
inforcement. working stress approach which is now commonly used in
the design of temporary works.
1. INTRODUCTION:
In LSM approach, following limit states are introduced
1.Ultimate limit states (ULS)
Bridge design methods are different in different parts of
the world. While many codes are currently dealing with
a. Limit state of equilibrium: When subjected to various
limit state method, South Asian countries like India, Ne-
design combinations of ultimate loads, the bridge or any
pal etc are new to this design practice. IRC has published
of its components, is considered as a rigid body, and shall
new code IRC 112:2011 combining specifications for
not become unstable.
both RCC and prestress concrete bridges. They introduc-
es durability of concrete, general detailing requirements
b. Limit state of strength: The bridge or any of its com-
of different bridge members, grade of concrete and grade
ponents shall not lose its capacity to sustain the various
of steel compared to IRC:2000 which is working stress
ultimate load combinations by excessive deformation,
method. One of the most important types of bridge is Slab
transformation into a mechanism, rupture, crushing or
Bridge which is economical up to 8m. Due to its easy fab-
buckling.
rication of formwork, reinforcement detailing and place-
ment of concrete it is considered to be the simplest and
are designed as one way slab to support the dead load and 2. Serviceability limit states (SLS):
live load with impact.
a. Limit state of internal stress: The internal stresses de-
veloped in the materials of structural elements shall not
2. BASIS OF DESIGN:
exceed the specified magnitudes when subjected to com-
bination of serviceability design actions. The stresses are
Use of elastic theory can be implemented for the strength
to be estimated using resistance models to represent the
of a reinforced concrete structural member with following
behavior of structure, as stipulated in the Code.
assumptions:

(i)The modulus elasticity of steel adopted is 200Gpa.

Volume No: 2 (2015), Issue No: 8 (August) August 2015

www.ijmetmr.com Page 223
 ISSN No: 2348-4845
International Journal & Magazine of Engineering,
Technology, Management and Research
A Peer Reviewed Open Access International Journal

b. Limit state of crack control: WSM, IRC 21:2000

(1) The cracking of reinforced, partially prestressed and Bending moment

prestressed concrete structures under serviceability load Considering compressive force
combinations is kept within acceptable limits of crack Mbal=0.5*σc*n*j*b*d2
widths in such a way as not to adversely affect the dura- Where,
bility or impair the aesthetics. σc = Limiting value of concrete
(2) Alternatively, the control of cracking deemed to be n=(m*σc)/(m*σc+σs)
satisfied by following restrictions on amount and spacing m=modular ratio=10
reinforcement. σs=limiting value of stress for steel
j=1-n/3
c. Limit state of deformation:
Considering tensile force
(1) The deformation of the bridge or its elements when M= σs*Ast*j*d
subjected to combination of design actions shall not ad- Where,d=effective depth of the section
versely affect the proper functioning of its elements, ap- Ast =Area of the steel provided
purtenances, and riding quality j=1-n/3
(2) Deformations during construction shall be controlled
to achieve proper geometry of finished structure. Shear Force
1.Clause A 4.6.1 (1),pg.254
d. Limit state of vibration: τv=v/b*d
2.Clause A 4.6,1 (4),pg. 257
(1) For footbridges or component of bridges specifically Vs=V- τc*b*d
designed to carry footway loading, the direct verification Asw=Vs*s/( σs*d*(sin w+cosw))
of vibration limits is required, for which specialist litera- 3.Clause A4.6.1(5),pg. 258
ture may be referred. ρw,min=Asw/b*s=0.4/0.87*fy≤415MPa

(2) For special types of bridges and their components dy- LSM, IRC 112:2011
namic effects under action of wind are required to be cal-
culated and verified to be within acceptable limits. Model Bending moment
tests are required under certain circumstances. Considering compressive force
Mlim = C*fck*b*d2*(xu,max)/d*(1-B*(x u,max)/d )
(3) For other types of bridges, the limit state of vibration Where,C=co-efficient depends on stain values of mate-
under serviceability load combinations is deemed to be rial
satisfied by limiting deflection of elements. Fck = Grade of concrete
b=breadth of the section
e. Limit state of fatigue: d=effective depth of the section
B=Coefficient depends on geometry
The bridge or any of its components shall not lose its ca- xu,max=limiting value of neutral axis
pacity to carry design loads by materials reaching fatigue
limits due to its loading history. Considering tensile force
Mu = 0.8*fy*Ast*b*(1-B*(x u,max)/d )
Where ,
3. PARAMETRIC STUDY: 0.8 is constant for limiting stress value
fy=grade of steel
The loads considered are Dead load, SIDL and Live loads.
Ast=area of steel required
Loadings are used as per IRC 6: 2014 for different car-
b=breadth of section
riageway widths. The loading combination for LSM is,
B=coefficient depends on geometry of section
1.35*(DL) +1.75 *(SIDL) + 1.5*(LIVE LOAD).
xu,max=limiting value of neutral axis
The bending moments and shear forces are given by:

Volume No: 2 (2015), Issue No: 8 (August) August 2015

www.ijmetmr.com Page 224
 ISSN No: 2348-4845
International Journal & Magazine of Engineering,
Technology, Management and Research
A Peer Reviewed Open Access International Journal

Shear Force 3. Chart shows the difference in bending mo-

1.clause 10.3.2.,pg. 88
ment for WSM & LSM due to Live load for
VRdc =[0.12K(80*ρl*fck)0.33 +0.15*σcp]*bw*d
7.5m carriageway width
2.Clause 10.3.3.2 ,pg.90 for vertical reinforcement Bending moment due to LL
VRds=Asw/s*z*fywd*cotθ 250
VRd,max = αcw*bw*z*v1*fcd/( cotθ+ tanθ) 234
178.25
Asw,max *fywd/bw*s≤0.5* αcw v1*fcd 200

157.625

BM in kNm
150
134.6
3.Clause 10.3.3.3 ,pg.91 for inclined reinforcement 118.825
WSM
100
VRds=Asw/s*z*fywd*(cotθ +cotαl) 75.175
71.5375 LSM
VRd,max = αcw*bw*z*v1*fcd*( cotθ+cotαl)/(1+ cot2θ) 50
60.625

Asw,max *fywd/bw*s≤0.5* αcw v1*fcd/sinαl 0

4. Clause 10.3.3.5,pg. 95,min. reinforcement ratio 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

ρmin= 0.072*√fck/fyk span in metres

4. Chart shows the difference in Bending mo-

1. Chart shows the difference in bending mo-
ment for WSM & LSM due to Dead load for
ment for WSM & LSM due to Dead load for
15m carriageway width
7.5m carriageway width
Bending moment due to dead load
Bending moment due to dead load 120
120 108
100
100 103 100.5
80
65.54
BM in kNm

80 95
65
BM in kNm

60 61
60 62 WSM
58 57 40 44
56 WSM LSM
40
17
LSM 20
15.27
20 18.28
17 0

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 span in metres

span in metres
5. Chart shows the difference in bending mo-
ment for WSM & LSM due to SIDL load for
2. Chart shows the difference in bending mo-
15m carriageway width
ment for WSM & LSM due to SIDL load for
7.5m carriageway width Bending moment due to SIDL
18
Bending moment due to SIDL 16
17
25 14
21 12 12
BM in kNm

20 10.826
10
18
8 WSM
14 9
BM in kNm

15
6 6 6 LSM
10 12 WSM 4
9
8 LSM 2 0.6
5 0 0.4
1.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 0.88
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 span in metres

span in metres

Volume No: 2 (2015), Issue No: 8 (August) August 2015

www.ijmetmr.com Page 225
 ISSN No: 2348-4845
International Journal & Magazine of Engineering,
Technology, Management and Research
A Peer Reviewed Open Access International Journal

6. Chart shows the difference in bending mo- 9. Chart shows the difference in Shear force
ment for WSM & LSM due to Live load for for WSM & LSM due to Live load for 7.5m
15m carriageway width carriageway width
Bending moment due to Live Load Shear Force due to LL
200 300
189.15 264
180
250 221
160 144.3
140 200
130.95 177.025
BM in kNm

120

SF in kN
93.3625 161.25
150 149.1375
100 97 124.8875 96.25
118.25 WSM
80 WSM
100 64.25
60 61.8375 LSM
LSM
40 50
42.4375
20
0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Length in metres
span in metres

7. Chart shows the difference in Shear force 10. Chart shows the difference in Shear force
for WSM & LSM due to dead load for 7.5m for WSM & LSM due to Dead load for 15m
carriageway width carriageway width
Shear Force due to dead load Shear Force due to dead load
100
100
92 90 90
90
80
80 79 76.434
83 70 83
70
71 60 71
SF in kN

60 48
SF in kN

49 50
50 44
44 40 WSM
40 WSM
30 LSM
30 LSM
20
20
10
10
0 0
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Length in metres
Length in metres

8. Chart shows the difference in Shear force 11. Chart shows the difference in Shear force
for WSM & LSM due to SIDL load for 7.5m for WSM & LSM due to SIDL load for 15m
carriageway width carriageway width
Shear Force due to SIDL Shear Force due to SIDL
12 12
10 11
10 10
9 8.839
8 8
SF in kN

SF in kN

6
6 6 6 6
6 WSM 5 WSM
4 4
5 LSM LSM
3.2 3
2 2

0 0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Length in metres Length in metres

Volume No: 2 (2015), Issue No: 8 (August) August 2015

www.ijmetmr.com Page 226

International Journal & Magazine of Engineering,
Technology, Management and Research
12. Chart shows the difference in Shear force
for WSM & LSM due to Live load for 15m
carriageway width
Shear Force due to Live Load
250
200
198.85
198.85
150
SF in kN
100 133.375 133.375 75.175
50 50.925
0 As: Gross area of concrete section in mm2
0 1 2 3
Length in metres
CONCLUSION:
Based on above charts we can conclude,
1.By observing 1st & 4th chart, maximum bending mo-
ment for carriageway widths 7.5m and 15m are almost
same that is reinforcement detailing will be also almost
same. Change in carriageway widths does not affect the
detailing.
2.In above charts maximum bending moment is obtained
at the centre of span and maximum shear force is obtained
at the support.
3.Class AA tracked vehicle gives maximum live load
shear force for both models as in chart 9 and chart 12
respectively. It is due to maximum UDL load with less
contact length.
4.In 3rd, 6th, 9th, & 12th charts the variation in WSM and
LSM is not only due to different loading cases but also
due to change in Impact factor for different live loads.
5.In 2nd &5th charts, maximum BM due to SIDL is ob-
tained for carriageway width of 7.5m where there is no
considerable change in SF due to SIDL for both carriage-
way widths.
6.The thickness of slab was 500mm for WSM which was
reduced to 400mm for both carriageways still there is
about 20% saving in amount of concrete and 5-10% sav-
ing in amount of reinforcement for LSM that is LSM is
considerably economical design compared to WSM.
Volume No: 2 (2015), Issue No: 8 (August)
www.ijmetmr.com
ISSN No: 2348-4845
A Peer Reviewed Open Access International Journal
NOTATIONS:
fck : characteristic compressive strength of concrete
fy :characteristic strength of steel
b : breadth of the section
d : Effective depth of the section
m : modular ratio=10
Ast : Area of steel provided or required
τ: Design shear stress at any cross section
115.1875
WSM τmax: maximum permissible shear stress.
86.625
LSM S: spacing of the stirrups
M: bending moment at cross section
4 5 6
VRdc : Shear resistance of the section without shear re-
inforcement
bw : width of web in case of t-beam or width of section.
σst =limiting value of stress for steel.
VRd,max = Ultimate shear resisting capacity of the mem-
ber with shear reinforcement
fcd = design value of concrete compression strength.
REFERENCES:
(1)B.H.Solanki & Prof.M.D.Vakil “Comparative study
for Flexure design using IRC 112:2011 & IRC 21:2000”
, Published in International Journal of Scientific & Engi-
neering Research, Volume 4,Issue 6,June 2013.
(2)B.H.Solanki & Prof.M.D.Vakil “Comparative study
for Shear design using IRC 112:2011 & IRC 21:2000”
, Published in International Journal of Scientific & Engi-
neering Research, Volume 4,Issue 6,June 2013.
(3)Alok Bhowmick “Detailing provisions of IRC:112-
2011 compared with previous codes(i.e.IRC:21 &
IRC:18)” ,Published in Journal of the Indian Road Con-
gress, January-March 2014
(4)IRC:6-2014, “Standard Specifications and code of
Practice for Road Bridges”, Section: II ,loads and stress-
es.
(5)IRC: 112-2011, “Code of practice for Concrete Road
Bridges”.
(6)IRC: 21-2001, “Standard Specifications and Code of
Practice for Road Bridges”, Section III, cement concrete
(Plain and reinforced).
(7)N Krishna Raju, “Design of Bridges” Oxford and IBH
Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, fourth Edition.
(8)E. C Hambly, “Bridge Deck Behavior”, Chapman and
Hall, Second Edition. 199
August 2015
Page 227