e-ISSN (O): 2348-4470

Scientific Journal of Impact Factor (SJIF): 4.72

p-ISSN (P): 2348-6406

International Journal of Advance Engineering and Research

Development
Volume 4, Issue 6, June -2017

A Comparative Study of Conventional RC Girder Bridge and Integral Bridge

Mr. Kiranakumar V Arutagi1, Prof. Ravichandra Honnalli2
1
Post graduate student, Department of Civil Engineering, Basaveshwar Engineering College, Bagalkot.
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Ballary Institute Of Technology & Management, Ballary

Abstract- Integral bridges have been constructed all over the world including India; these are becoming very popular due to
its low initial cost, elimination of bearings and less maintenance. To get a better understanding of the behavior of integral
bridges in different situation, a comparative study is carried out on a typical integral bridge and a conventional simply
supported RC girder bridge of same geometry and loading conditions. For modeling of bridges, 60 m length was considered.
It was divided into 3 spans of 20 m each. The bridges were modelled and analyzed in SAP 2000. The seismic analysis was
carried out by response spectrum method of analysis and the seismic responses of integral bridges were compared with the
responses of conventional RC girder bridge. From the study it may be concluded that, integral bridges performs better than
the conventional RC girder bridge under seismic loadings and also integral bridges requires minimum cross-sectional area
as compared to conventional bridges.

Keywords: Conventional bridges, Integral bridges, Bearings, Expansion joints, Response spectrum, IRC loadings.

I. INTRODUCTION

Bridges serve in the surface transport and carries water supply, electric lines across a stream. Apart from these day-to-day
amenity services, during natural calamities such as earthquakes, it facilitates in providing the emergency services like supply
of food, medicine etc. hence, the bridges are lifeline structures. For many decades, the majority of the research into the design
of earthquake resistant structure has been concerned with building structures and relatively little attention was paid to bridge
structures. This was presumably due to belief that social and economic consequences of earthquake damage to buildings were
likely to be more serious than those resulting from damage to bridges. The relief and rehabilitation work is made possible
only if bridges are saved from failures during earthquake events [1]. Highway bridges traditionally have a system of expansion
joint, roller supports, abutment bearing and other structural releases to account for cyclic thermal expansion and contraction,
creep and shrinkage.
There is an old saying that, „a chain is as weak as its weakest link‟. Bearings and expansion joints are the weak links in an,
otherwise, robust and sturdy structure. Hence, interest about integral bridges or jointless bridges is increasing and their
performance has gained international attention. Presumably, the primary reason for this interest is due to the acceptance of
integral bridges by many transportation departments throughout the world. Integral bridges are constructed without any
bearings or joints between spans or between spans and abutments.

II. INTEGRAL BRIDGE

Integral bridges are the bridges, where the superstructure is continuous and connected monolithically with the substructure
with a moment-resisting connection.[1] Due to this continuity in the bridge the bridge have less expensive, esthetically
pleasing appearance, safe riding, economical in construction and prevent the corrosion. However, simply supported bridges
are still popular in India. The main reason for their popularity is that, these structures are simple to design and construct. The
integral bridge concept is based on the theory that, due to the flexibility of the piles, thermal stresses are transferred to the
substructure by way of a rigid connection between the superstructure and substructure. Integral abutment type bridge
structures are single or multiple span bridges that have their superstructure cast integral with their substructure. With the
superstructure rigidly connected to the substructure and with flexible substructure piling, the superstructure is permitted to
expand and contract. Approach slab, connected to the abutment and deck slab with reinforcement, move with superstructure.
Due to the elimination of the bridge deck expansion joints, construction and maintenance costs are reduced [1]. Some of the
advantages of adopting integral bridges over that of the conventional bridge are summarized below:
• Simplified details for construction
• Reduced life cycle cost and long term maintenance
• Improved riding quality
• Added redundancy with improved seismic performance
• Elimination of water leakage on critical structural elements
• Lesser tolerance restriction due to elimination of bearings and expansion joints
• Faster construction
@IJAERD-2017, All rights Reserved 722
 International Journal of Advance Engineering and Research Development (IJAERD)
Volume 4, Issue 6, June-2017, e-ISSN: 2348 - 4470, print-ISSN: 2348-6406

• Simplified widening and replacement detail

• Useful for strengthening existing bridges

III. DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE

The bridge under consideration is a conventional RC girder bridge and a RC integral bridge. The parameters specified below
are applied to bridge structures. The modeling and analysis of both bridge structures was carried out in SAP 2000/Bridge
software.
 The total length of bridge is 60 m measured between two dirt walls.
 Bridge is divided into 3 spans: each span is 20 m.
 The bridge deck is 300 mm thick.
 Carriage way width is 7.5 m.
 Total width of the bridge is 11 m in cross section (two lanes with footpath).
 Cross girders are 0.3 m in width, 1.25 m in depth and 5 m c/c.
 Soil is type II medium soil.
 Bridge is located in zone V.
 Portion of deck provided as a footpath is overhang for a clear length of 1.5 m on either side from the face of external
girder rib.
 Thickness of overhang portion of the deck is 300 mm at the face of external girder rib. Thickness of overhang portion of
the deck is 300 mm at the face of external support which gradually reduces to 200 mm at free end.
 There are four longitudinal girders provided across the width of the bridge, each of them is spaced 2.5 m center to center
from each other, and the longitudinal girders are 1.6 m top width, 0.45 m web thickness, provided with a bottom bulb of
rectangular section with base width 0.75 m for conventional bridges. For integral bridges longitudinal girders are 1.0 m
top width, 0.2 m web thickness, provided with a bottom bulb of rectangular section with base width 0.45 m. In addition
to the longitudinal girders there are some cross girders provided to distribute the loads from the deck to the longitudinal
girders. These cross girders are provided at a center-to-center distance of 5 m it means there are three cross girders
between two consecutive piers, and it is 300 mm wide and 1250 mm deep in section.
 The superstructure is supported by rectangular pier cap of 1.2 m in depth and 1.2 m width. There are two circular piers of
1.2 m diameter provided to support the superstructure of the bridge, which rest on spread foundation. On either end of
the bridge, the superstructure rests on abutments, rigidly connected to the deck slab in integral bridge and simply
supported in case of conventional bridge.

IV. DESIGN LOADS

The design loads considered for the analysis are dead loads, super imposed dead loads, live loads, earthquake loads and
temperature loads. The brief description of these loads is given below.
4.1 Dead load
Dead load consists of various structural components of bridge superstructure and substructure. The dead load carried by the
girders or the members consists of its self weight and the portions of the self weight of the superstructure and any fixed loads
supported to the members. The dead load can be calculated accurately during design and can be controlled during
construction and service.
4.2 Super imposed dead load
The weight of superimposed dead load consists of self weight of footpaths, earth-fills, wearing course, ballast, water-proofing
courses, architectural ornamentation, pipes, conduits, cables and any other immovable materials installed on the structure.
4.3 Live load
Live loads are those produced by vehicles which pass over the bridge and are variable in nature. These loads cannot be
estimated accurately, and the designer has very little control over the live loads once the bridge is opened to traffic
movement. For 7.5 m carriage way width and for two lane bridge, the live load considered was two trains of class A (as per
IRC 6-2000).
4.4 Seismic forces
Seismic forces were calculated by using IS 1893-2009 (Part 3). For seismic analysis of bridges response spectrum method
was adopted.
Z = Zone factor = 0.36
I = Importance factor = 1.2
R = Response reduction factor = 4.0
Sa
= Average Acceleration coefficient for rock or soil sites = 2.5
g

@IJAERD-2017, All rights Reserved 723

 International Journal of Advance Engineering and Research Development (IJAERD)
Volume 4, Issue 6, June-2017, e-ISSN: 2348 - 4470, print-ISSN: 2348-6406

V. MODELLING
Finite element method was adopted for analysis in the present study. The detailed finite element model of conventional RC
girder bridge and integral bridge was created using SAP-2000 (computers and structures, Inc.) software. The bridge girders
were modeled using the specified reinforced concrete with an ultimate compressive strength of 50 MPa. The cast-in-place
concrete with ultimate compressive strength of 25 MPa was used to model the deck, abutments and bents. Once the finite
element model was developed, design loads such as dead loads, live loads, earthquake loads and temperature loads are
applied uniformly on the bridge structures.
5.1 Conventional RC girder bridge
Conventional RC girder bridge was modelled with expansion joints of 50 mm wide in deck slab at the support section as
shown in Fig. 3.5. These expansion joints reduce the thermal stresses in the deck slab caused by the surrounding temperature
variation. Due to the presence of expansion joints in the deck slab, the bridge acts as simply supported bridge. The girders
rest on the bridge bearings and these bearings transmits loads from superstructure to substructure.

Fig. 1 Plan of conventional bridge

Fig. 2 Model of conventional bridge

5.2 Integral bridge

In this type of bridges, the bearing joints are eliminated and girders are monolithically connected to pier cap. The deck slab is
continuous and it runs from start abutment to end abutment without any expansion joints. Due to this continuity of deck slab
and fixed supports negative moment develops at the supports.

Fig. 3 Plan of integral bridge

@IJAERD-2017, All rights Reserved 724

 International Journal of Advance Engineering and Research Development (IJAERD)
Volume 4, Issue 6, June-2017, e-ISSN: 2348 - 4470, print-ISSN: 2348-6406

Fig. 4 Model of integral bridge

VI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This includes the analytical results of the integral bridges under different load conditions. These results were discussed with
comparison of conventional bridge results. The responses such as bending moment, shear force, vertical displacements, and
lateral deflections are obtained in the analysis.
6.1 Bending moment and shear force
The conventional bridge was analyzed with simply supported condition and integral bridge was analyzed with fixed support
condition. Figure 4.1 shows the comparison of bending moment in conventional bridge and integral bridge. This bending
moment developed due to combination of dead load and live load. In conventional bridge the maximum bending moment was
17466.115 kN-m. In case of integral bridge, the maximum bending moment was 8186.69 kN-m. There is a negative moment
developed in the support section of the integral bridge because of fixed supports and fixed connectivity between deck slab
and substructure. Hence, negative moment is higher as compared to the positive moment and this negative moment was
considered in the design of sections. But, in case of conventional bridges no negative moment developed because of simply
supported structure. The reduction of bending moment in integral bridges is about 50% as compared to conventional bridges.
Hence, the cross-sectional area of longitudinal girder reduced in integral bridges.
Fig. 4.2 shows the variation of shear force in conventional bridge and integral bridge. The variation of shear force is similar
to the variation of bending moment. The shear force is more in case of conventional bridge as compared to the integral
bridge. The shear force in the conventional bridge is 2333.022kN and in case of integral bridge it was decreased to 1740.726
kN because of fixed supports and fixidity between superstructure and substructure.The reduction of shear force in integral
bridges is 25% as compared with conventional bridge.It was observed that, shear force is maximum at support sections and
minimum at mid spans sections. The reduction of shear force in integral bridges is due to the some part of load will
transferred to adjacent slabs because of continuity in the deck slab.

Fig. 5 Comparison of bending moment for DL+LL

@IJAERD-2017, All rights Reserved 725

 International Journal of Advance Engineering and Research Development (IJAERD)
Volume 4, Issue 6, June-2017, e-ISSN: 2348 - 4470, print-ISSN: 2348-6406

Fig. 6 Comparison of shear force for DL+LL

6.2 Vertical displacement

The moving load considered was two IRC class A vehicles: one in the forward direction and another in the backward
direction. These two vehicles are meeting together at the center of the span. When these two vehicles met together maximum
load will be applied on the deck slab. Hence, the maximum displacement found at the centre span of the bridge. Fig. 4.3
shows the variation of vertical displacement of deck slab due to combination of dead load and live load. The vertical
displacement in the conventional bridge is about 10.8 mm but in case of integral bridge it was reduced to 6.15 mm. This
reduction of vertical displacement is due to fixed supports in the integral bridges. This fixed support and fixed connectivit y
will not allow the deck slab to deflect in the downward direction. Due to fixidity the integral bridge becomes stiff and
durable. The limitation of the vertical displacement in bridges as per IRC-112-201 is,
For vehicular loads = span/800
Span = 20 m
= 20000/800
= 25 mm
But maximum deflection observed was 10.8 mm.
Hence, the deflections are within permissible limit.

Fig. 7 Comparison of vertical displacement for DL+LL

@IJAERD-2017, All rights Reserved 726

 International Journal of Advance Engineering and Research Development (IJAERD)
Volume 4, Issue 6, June-2017, e-ISSN: 2348 - 4470, print-ISSN: 2348-6406

6.3 Lateral deflection

Seismic analysis of both the bridges carried out by response spectrum analysis method. The bridges were analyzed separately
for longitudinal and transverse directions. Table 4.1 and 4.2 shows variation of lateral deflection in longitudinal direction and
transverse direction respectively. Conventional bridge experiences more deflection as compared to integral bridge in
longitudinal and transverse direction. In longitudinal direction, the deflection is 3.75 mm for conventional bridge and it was
reduced to 0.179 mm in integral bridges and this reduction is about 94%. But in case of transverse direction, the deflection
was reduced from 38.6 mm to 5.9 mm and this reduction is about 96%. This is due to the presence of continuous deck slab
and monolithic connection between deck slab and girders in the integral bridges. In case seismic forces the whole integral
bridge acts as single unit due to fixity between the superstructure and substructure.

Table 1 Comparison of deflection in longitudinal direction

Type of bridge Deflection in mm

Conventional bridge 37.5

Integral bridge 0.179

Table 2 Comparison of deflection in transverse direction

Type of bridge Deflection in mm

Conventional bridge 38.6

Integral bridge 5.9
6.4 Base shear
Base shear is an estimate of the maximum expected lateral force that occurs due to seismic ground motion at the base of a
structure. IS 1893-2009 (Part-3) gives the brief description of base shear for bridge structures. Table 4.3 shows variation of
base shear in longitudinal direction and transverse direction for conventional bridge and integral bridge. The base shear is
comparatively more in the integral bridges than the conventional bridges. This is due to more flexibility in the conventional
bridges than the integral bridges. The base shear in conventional bridge was 676.132 kN in longitudinal direction and
634.300 kN in transverse direction. In case of integral bridges, the base shear in longitudinal direction was 803.895 kN and in
transverse direction it increases to 1567.125 kN. The variation of base shear in longitudinal direction is about 16% and in
transverse direction is about 60%. The values indicated that, integral bridges are comparatively stiffer than the conventional
bridge. Furthermore, integral bridges are highly stiff in transverse direction than in the longitudinal direction….

Table 3 Variation of base shear

Base shear (kN)
Type of bridge
Longitudinal direction Transverse direction
Conventional bridge 676.132 634.300
Integral bridge 803.895 1567.125

V. CONCLUSIONS
It may be concluded that, integral bridge shows improved behavior under seismic loadings compared with conventional
bridges. Lateral deflection in the integral bridges reduced to 94% as compared to conventional bridges. Similarly, lateral
deflection in transverse direction reduced to 96% in case of integral bridges. The bending moment of deck slab was reduced
in integral bridges because of fixed supports. This results in reduction of cross-sectional area of girders. The base shear
results show that, integral bridges are stiffer than the conventional bridges. The base shear in integral bridge was 16% more
than the conventional bridge in longitudinal direction and 60% more in transverse direction.

REFERENCES
[1] Vasant A. Matsagar, Jungid R.S., “Seismic response of simply supported base isolated bridge with different isolators”,
International journal of applied science and engineering, pp 53-69, March-2006.
[2] Alok Bhowmick, “Design and detailing of integral bridges: suggested guidelines”, Indian concrete journal, , pp 45-50.
September 2005.
[3] ShaikhTausif, Kalurkar L G,”Behavior of integral abutment bridge with spring analysis”, proceedings of 7th IRF
international conference, 22nd June 2014.
[4] Shreedhar R, Vinod Hosur, IftikarChappu, “Behavior of integral abutment bridge with and without soil interaction”,
International Journal of scientific & engineering research, Volume 3, Issue 11, November 2012.

@IJAERD-2017, All rights Reserved 727

 International Journal of Advance Engineering and Research Development (IJAERD)
Volume 4, Issue 6, June-2017, e-ISSN: 2348 - 4470, print-ISSN: 2348-6406

[5] Mahesh Tondon, “Economical design of earthquake resistant bridges”, ISET journal of earthquake technology, Paper
no. 453, Vol. 42, , pp.13-20.March 2005.
[6] Aslam Amirahmad, Rahman A, “Analysis of integral bridges by finite element method”, 2nd International conference
on rehabilitation and maintenance in Civil engineering, , pp 308-314,2013.
[7] Meldi Suhatril, Azlan Adnan, “The seismic performance comparison of integral bridge model by using finite element
program and shaking table test”, International journal of physical sciences, Vol. 7(6), ,pp 927-936, February 2012.
[8] ShaikhTousif, L.G. Kalurkar, “Review integral bridge behavior in different condition”, International journal of
engineering and advanced technology, Vol. 3, Issue 5, ,pp 109-111, June-2014.
[9] IRC 6-2010: Standard specification and code practice for road bridges, section II-loads and stresses.
[10] IS 21-2000: Standard specifications and code practice for road bridges, section: III cement concrete (plain and
reinforced).
[11] IS 112-2010 Standard specifications and code practice for road bridges, Reinforced and pre-stressed concrete bridges.
[12] IS 1893-2002 (Part-1): Criteria of earthquake resistant design of structures, general provisions and buildings.
[13] IS 1893-2009 (Part-3): Criteria of earthquake resistant design of structures, Bridges and Retaining walls.

@IJAERD-2017, All rights Reserved 728