Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box

Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study

A Thesis

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Award of the Degree
of
Master of Technology
In

Structural Engineering

Under the supervision of

Dr. Gyani Jail Singh

Assistant Professor
By

Shiwali Verma

(Roll No. 152663)

Department of Civil Engineering

Jaypee University of Information Technology

Waknaghat, Solan – 173 234
Himachal Pradesh, India

May-2017
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the work which is being presented in the thesis titled “Analysis
and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A
Comparative Study,” in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the
degree of Master of Technology in “Structural Engineering,” Department of Civil
Engineering, Jaypee University of Information Technology, Waknaghat is an authentic
record of work carried out by SHIWALI VERMA (152663) during a period from July
2016 to May 2017 under the supervision of Dr. GYANI JAIL SINGH Assistant
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Jaypee University of Information
Technology, Waknaghat.
The above statement made is correct to the best of our knowledge.

Date:-

Supervisor Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta

(Dr. Gyani Jail Singh) Professor and Head
Associate Professor Department of Civil Engineering
Department of Civil Engineering JUIT, Waknaghat
JUIT, Waknaghat

i
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the work reported in the M.tech thesis entitled “Analysis and Design of
Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study” submitted
at JayPee University of Information Technology, Waknaghat, Solan(H.P) is an authentic
record of my work carried out under the supervision of Dr.Gyani Jail Singh. I have not
submitted this work elsewhere for any other degree or diploma.

Date:- Shiwali Verma

Place:- Roll No.-152663
Department of Civil Engineering
JayPee University of Information Technology
Waknaghat, Solan(H.P)

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I have taken efforts in this project. However, it would not have been possible without the kind
support and help of many individuals and organization. I would like to extend my sincere thanks
to all of them.

I am highly indebted to Dr. Gyani Jail Singh for their guidance and constant supervision as well
as for providing necessary information regarding the project & also for their support in
completing the project.

My Sincere thanks also go to Dr.Ashok Kumar Gupta, Professor and Head Department for his
kind co-operation in all spheres during my project work. I would to you like to thank all others
whose direct or indirect help benefited me during my project at JUIT.

I would like to express my gratitude toward my parents for their kind co-operation and
encouragement which help me in completion of this project.

My thanks and appreciations also go to my friend Shivam Chaudhary in developing the project
and willingly helped me out with his abilities

Date:- Shiwali Verma

iii
 LIST OF CONTENTS

Certificate…………………………………………………………………………………………..i
Declaration……………………………………………………………………………………...…ii
Acknowledgement……………………………………………………………………………......iii
List of Symbols …………………….………………………………………………………….....vi
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………....vii
List of Table………………………………………………………………………………………ix
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………x
Chapter 1………………………………………………………………………………………...1-5
Introduction
1.1.General………………………………………………………………………………………...1
1.1.1.T-Beam……………………………………………………………………………………...2
1.1.2.Girder………………………………………………………………………………………..2
1.1.3.Box Girder…………………………………………………………………………………..3
1.2.Computers and Structure………………………………………………………………………4
1.3.Advantage of T-Beam and Box Girder……………………………………………………..…4
1.3. Advantage…………………………………………………………………………………….4
1.4. Parameters……………………………………………………………………………………5
Chapter 2………………………………………………………………………………………6-10
Literature Review
Chapter 3……………………………………………………………………………………...11-15
Objective and Research Methodology
3.1 Objective……………………………………………………………………………………..11
3.2. Methodology………………...……………………………………………………….……...11
3.2.1. Dead load Analysis………………………………………………………………………..11
3.2.2. Live Load Analysis…………………………………………………………………….11-12
3.2.3. Load Combination……………………………………………………………………..12-13
3.2.4. Bent Design…………………………………………………………………………….….13
3.2.6. Design of Bent Cap………………………………………………………………….…14-15
Chapter 4……………………………………………………………………………………...16-17
Modeling of T-Beam and Box Girder

iv
4.1. Modeling of Girder Bridges…………………………………………………………………16
4.1.2. 3D Views of Girder Bridges…………………………………………………………..…..16
4.1.3. Load Analysis……………………………………………………………………………..17
Chapter 5……………………………………………………………………………………..18-44
Analysis and Design of T-Beam Bridge and Box Girder Bridge
Chapter 6………………………………………………………………………………………...45
Conclusion..………………………………………………………………………………..…….45
References………………………………………………………………………………………..46

v
 LIST OF SYMBOLS

RCC Reinforcement Concrete

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials
IRC Indian Road Congress
SIDL Superimposed Dead Load
DL Dead Load
LL Live Load
M Bending Moment
fy Yield Strength
fu Ultimate Tensile Strength
Ast Area of Steel
Ϭ cbc Permissible Flexural Strength in Concrete
Ϭ st Permissible Flexural Strength in Steel

vi
 LIST OF FIGURE

Figure 1.1 T-Beam 1

Figure 1.2 Girder (As usually Built) 2
Figure 1.3 Box Girder 3
Figure 3.1.6 Step to model the bridge in CSI bridge 15
Figure 4.1 Modelling T-Beam and Box Girder 16
Figure 4.1.2 3D view of T-beam and Box Girder 16
Figure 5.1 Variation of Dead load Moment in T-beam and Box Girder for 19
20m span
Figure 5.2 Variation of Dead load Moment in T-beam and Box Girder plus all 20
Girder
Figure 5.3 Variation of Live load Moment in T-beam and Box Girder 21
Figure 5.4 Variation of Live load Moment in T-beam and Box Girder plus all 22
Girder
Figure 5.5 Variation of wind load Moment in T-beam and Box Girder 23
Figure 5.6 Variation of wind load Moment in T-beam and Box Girder plus all 24
Girder
Figure 5.7 Variation of Torsion Moment in T-beam and Box Girder 25
Figure 5.8 Variation of Torsion Moment in T-beam and Box Girder plus all 26
Girder
Figure 5.9 Variation of Dead load Moment in T-beam and Box Girder for 27
30m span
Figure 5.10 Variation of Dead load Moment in T-beam and Box Girder plus 30
all Girder
Figure 5.11 Variation of Live load Moment in T-beam and Box Girder 31
Figure 5.12 Variation of Live load Moment in T-beam and Box Girder plus all 32
Girder
Figure 5.13 Variation of Wind load Moment in T-beam and Box Girder 33
Figure 5.14 Variation of Wind load Moment in T-beam and Box Girder plus 34
all Girder
Figure 5.15 Variation of Torsion Moment in T-beam and Box Girder 35

vii
Figure 5.16 Variation of Torsion Moment in T-beam and Box Girder plus all 36
Girder
Figure 5.17 Variation of Dead load Moment in T-beam and Box Girder for 37
40m span
Figure 5.18 Variation of Dead load Moment in T-beam and Box Girder plus 38
all Girder
Figure 5.19 Variation of Live load Moment in T-beam and Box Girder 39
Figure 5.20 Variation of Live load Moment in T-beam and Box Girder plus all 40
Girder
Figure 5.21 Variation of Wind load Moment in T-beam and Box Girder 41
Figure 5.22 Variation of Wind load Moment in T-beam and Box Girder plus 42
all Girder
Figure 5.23 Variation of Torsion Moment in T-beam and Box Girder 43
Figure 5.24 Variation of Torsion Moment in T-beam and Box Girder plus all 44
Girder

viii
 LIST OF TABLE

Table 5.1. Specification of T-Beam and Box Girder for 20m Span…………………………….18
Table 5.1(a). Dead Load Moment of T-Beam and Box Girder…………………………………19
Table 5.2. Dead Load Moment of T-Beam and Box Girder Plus all Girder……………………20
Table 5.3. Live Load Moment of T-Beam and Box Girder …………………………………….21
Table 5.4. Live Load Moment of T-Beam and Box Girder Plus all Girder……………………..22
Table 5.5. Wind Load Moment of T-Beam and Box Girder………………….…………………23
Table 5.6. Wind Load Moment of T-Beam and Box Girder Plus all Girder…………………….24
Table 5.7. Torsion Moment of T-Beam and Box Girder…………………….………………….25
Table 5.8. Torsion Moment of T-Beam and Box Girder Plus all Girder………………………..26
Table 5.9. Specification of T-Beam and Box Girder for 30m span……………………………..27
Table 5.10. Dead Load Moment of T-Beam and Box Girder……………………………………28
Table 5.11. Dead Load Moment Of T-Beam and Box Girder plus all Girder………………..…29
Table 5.12.Live load Moment of T-Beam and Box Girder………………………………….…30
Table 5.13. Live Load moment of T-Beam and Box Girder plus all Girder……………………31
Table 5.14.Wind load Moment of T-Beam and Box Girder…………………………………….32
Table 5.15. Wind Load Moment of T-Beam and Box Girder plus all Girder…………………..33
Table 5.16. Torsion Moment of T-Beam and Box Girder………………………………………34
Table 5.17. Torsion Moment of T-Beam and Box Girder Plus all Girder………………………35
Table 518. Specification of T-Beam and Box Girder For 40m Span………………………..….36
Table 5.18. Dead Load Moment of T-Beam and Box Girder……………………………………37
Table 5.19. Dead Load Moment of T-beam and Box Girder Plus all Girder……………………38
Table 5.20. Live Load Moment of T-Beam and Box Girder…………………………………....39
Table 5.21. Live Load Moment of T-Beam and Box Girder Plus all Girder……………………40
Table 5.22. Wind Load Moment of T-Beam and Box Girder ………………………………..…41
Table 5.23. Wind Load Moment of T-Beam and Box Girder plus all Girder…………………..42
Table 5.24. Torsion Moment of T-Beam and Box Girder………………………………………43
Table 5.25. Torsion Moment of T-Beam and Box Girder Plus all Girder………………………44

ix
 ABSTRACT

The reason for present review is the plan of Bridge structure for a few of span. The most clear
decision of this span is T-Beam and Box Girder Support. They have their own particular
attributes and impediments as T-Beam has simple development mythology, whereas girder and
box Girder has complex and exorbitant formwork. In present review a two/four path essentially
bolstered RCC T-Beam Girder Extension and Box Girder Bridge was investigations for dead
load and IRC moving load. The dead load computation has been done physically and for live
load straight examination is done on CSI Bridge 2016. The objective of study is to decide most
positive alternative from above extension. The choices in view of clear component of designing
that are security, serviceability and economy. Taking after these viewpoints a plan for T-Beam
Bridge and Box Girder has been performed. After estimation two basic material utilization steel
and cement the most practical has been chosen. This review is on the premise of snapshot of
resistance of area, shear limit of segment and practical arrangement from both T-Beam and Box
Girder Bridge Connect. T-Beam and Box Girder Bridge connect decks are one of the foremost
sorts of cast set up solid decks. T-Beam connect decks comprise of a solid piece basic with
supports. The limited component strategy is a general technique for basic investigation in which
the arrangement of an issue in continuum mechanics is approximated by the examination of an
array of limited components which are interconnected at a limited number of nodal focuses and
speak to the arrangement area of the issue. A basic traverse T-Beam and Box Girder Bridge
Extension was broke down by utilizing I.R.C. loadings as a one dimensional structure. A similar
T-Beam and Box Girder Bridge Extension is examined as a three-dimensional structure utilizing
limited component plate for the deck section and bar components for the principle bar utilizing
programming CSI Bridge 2016. Both models are subjected to I.R.C. Loadings to deliver greatest
twisting minute. The outcomes acquired from the limited component model are lesser than the
outcomes got from one dimensional examination, which implies that the outcomes got from
manual estimations subjected to IRC loadings are preservationist.

x
 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL
Bridges are the life line of road network, both in urban and country zones. With fast innovation
development, the commonplace bridge has been supplanted by creative practical structural
system. One of these courses of action presents basic RCC framework that is T-Beam and Box
Girder.

Bridge design is a goal and what's more personalities boggling approach for an structural design.
Just as there should rise an occasion of Bridge design, span length and live loads are consistently
fundamental variables. These parts affect the conceptualization time of plan. The impacts of live
load for different extents are moving. Choice of structural system for a cross is continually a
range in which investigate should be possible. Structural system got is influenced by fragments
like economy and fancy being created. Code strategy engages us to pick structural system i.e. T-
Beam Girder and Box Girder. The decision of sparing and constructible basic framework relies
on upon the outcome.

Figure 1.1. T-Beam

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 1

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

1.1.1 T-BEAM

T-beam utilized as a part of construction, is a load bearing structure of reinforced concrete, wood
or metal, with a t-formed cross area. The highest point of the t-molded cross segment fills in as a
flange or pressure part in opposing compressive stress. The web (vertical area) of the beam
beneath the compression flange serves to oppose shear stress and to give more noteworthy
detachment to the coupled strengths of bending.

1.1.2 GIRDER

Girder is a term used in construction to refer to a supporting, horizontal beam that can be made
from a variety of construction materials such as stainless steel, concrete, or a combination of
these materials. A girder bridge is a basic, common type of bridge where the bridge deck is built
on top of such supporting beams, that have in turn been placed on piers and abutments that
support the span of the bridge. The types of beams used for girder bridges are usually either I-
beam girders, so called because their shape is reminiscent of a capital Roman letter I, or box
girder beams that are made of steel or concrete and shaped like an open box. Girder bridges are
most commonly used for straight bridges that are 33-650 feet (10-200 m) long, such as light rail
bridges, pedestrian overpasses, or highway fly-over. The longest girder bridge in the world is
2,300 feet (700 m) long and located in Brazil.

Figure 1.2. Girder (as usually built)

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 2

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

1.1.3 BOX GIRDER

A Box Girder Bridge is a Bridge in which the primary Beam involve girder in the shape of an
hollow box. The box girder typically involves either prestressed concrete, structural steel, or a
composite of steel and reinforced cement. The box is ordinarily rectangular or trapezoidal in
cross-area. Box Girder Bridge is generally utilized for highway flyovers and for present day
elevated structures of light rail transport. Although regularly the crate box girder bridge is a type
of beam bridge, box girder may likewise be utilized on cable stayed bridges and different
structures.

Figure 1.3. Box girder

In this case we considered three codes of vehicles loads in bridge analysis :-

 Indian Standard, Indian Road Congress (IRC codes) – Class AA and Class A
 AASHTO-LRFD Bridge Design Specifications – HL-93K and HL-93M

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 3

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

1.2 COMPUTERS AND STRUCTURES

CSI is an structural and earthquake building programming organization established in 1975 and
situated in Walnt River, California with extra office area in New York The basic analysis and
design programming CSI deliver incorporate SAP2000, CSi-Bridge, ETABS, SAFE,
PERFORM-3D, and CSi COL. CSI-Bridge 2016v1811 as the name suggests is worked for the
structural analysis and outline of bridges of different sorts (Prestressed I-Girder, Box Girder,
Steel Girder, Curve).

1.3 ADVANTAGES OF T-BEAM AND BOX-GIRDER

1.3.1 ADVANTAGES

 Beam bridges are helpful for short spans.

 Long distances are normally covered by placing the beams on piers.

 It has simply geometry.

 Easy to cast in construction.

 It mostly adopted Bridge.

 Slab act as monolithically with beam.

Box-Girder

 Reduces the slab thickness and self-weight of bridge

 Cost effective
 Greater strength per unit area of concrete
 Quality assurance, as precast girders are made off-site

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 4

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

1.4 PARAMETERS

The design parameters are check and verify by the structural analysis program (CSI
BRIDGE).The structural design is a very important part of the bridge which defines safety in
overall context and the major cost of the project. Therefore, the choice of the correct and
appropriate code will save a high value of the cost of construction, in addition to the safe and
successful design.

To decide the size (dimension) of the member and the amount of reinforcement required. To
check the weather adopted section will perform safely and satisfactorily during the life time of
the structure. Design Philosophy, Loading and pattern of loading, Safety factors. Shear force and
Bending Moment induced in the components, Reinforcement required for each design, From
these comparative studies, we can have idea about the best design standards.

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 5

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

CHAPTER 2

LETRATURE REVIEW

 N.K Paul,(2011)[1] In this review, it is exhibited that, utilization of super elastic shape
memory alloy bars consolidating with steel reinforcement with some rate in T-Beam
concrete bridge longitudinal girder works successfully exceptionally well. The load
carrying capacity can be increased. The failure mechanism of a reinforced concrete
girder is demonstrated great utilizing FEA, and the failure load anticipated is near the
failure load measured during trial testing. The whole load distortion reaction of the
model created coordinates well with the reaction from trial result. This gave trust in the
utilization of ANSYS 11.0 and the model created.

 R.Shreedhar Spurti Namadapur,(2012)[2] A straightforward span T-beam extension

was analyzed by utilizing I.R.C. determinations and loading (dead load and live load) as a
one dimensional structure. Finite Element analysis of a three-dimensional structure was
done using Staad pro programming. Both models were subjected to I.R.C. Loadings to
convey most outrageous bending moment. The results were broke down and it was found
that the results got from the limited component model are lesser than the results got from
one dimensional examination, which suggests that the results got from I.R.C. loadings are
traditionalist and FEM gives practical design.

 Amit Saxena,(2013)[3] Dead load bending moment and Shear forces for T-Beam girder
are lesser than two cell Box Girder Bridge. Which empower designer to have lesser
heavier region for T-Bar Support than Box Brace for 25 m span. Moment of resistance of
steel for both has been evaluated and conclusions drawn that T-Beam Girder has more
noteworthy utmost with respect to 25 m span. Cost of concrete for T-Beam Girder is
under two cell Box Girder as sum required by T-Beam Girder.

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 6

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

 Mahesh Pokhrel,(2013)[4] General design and analysis of a run of the mill T-Girder RCC
Bridge has been completed with Assessment of reaction and design theories as per three
worldwide codes to be specific IRC, AASHTO and Euro code. Among of all, the Euro
code gave most moderate design. It might be because of the utilization of qualities load
utilized with no component. Euro code is compensated for extensive variety of pertinence
and scope so it can be referred for the design of bridges. In which truck loading is utilized
for reaction in the superstructure and in which non-direct conduct of pier and abutment is
not considered. Considering nonlinearity is one of the suggestions for the future work for
more practical outcome.

 M.G Kalyan Shetti,(2013)[5] This review is done for four path and six Path scaffolds of
traverses 15m, 20m, 35m, 30m, 35m utilizing IRC class A loading by differing various
longitudinal girder. From the perceptions, it can infer that-load figure acquired by
Courbon's technique is steady for all ranges and this demonstrates the impact of variety
of traverse is not considered. In which need to revise the condition of load variable given
by Courbon's hypothesis. The remedy calculate for each traverse by utilizing an
allegorical capacity y= a+bx+cx2.
Load factor by modified Courbon’s equation: By considering correction factor,
Courbon’s equation for Load factor is modified as

𝒏𝒆.𝒅𝒊
Pi = 𝒑/𝒏[𝟏 + ]x correction factor
∑𝐝𝐢𝟐

Where,

P = total live load

e = eccentricity of the live load (or c.g of loads in case of multiple loads),

di = distance of girder i from the axis of the bridge,

n = number of longitudinal girders.

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 7

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

 Supriya Madda,(2013)[6] The review is done for two lane and four lane bridges, for two
lane bridges, all the different span gave sensible outcome with the exception of 35m in
light of the fact that its redirection/traverse proportion is (2.51x10-3)very near allowable
limit(2.66x10-3). Furthermore, prompt serviceability issues in future. Also, four path
spans, avoidance/traverse proportion are inside allowable confine up to 30m for all the
blend of longitudinal support. However, for 35m traverse of 3 longitudinal girder
(2.66x10-3) and 5 longitudinal girder (2.19x10-3) there is no minor distinction amongst
real and passable esteem. Subsequently it is very conceivable that they may prompt
serviceability issue.

 Rajamoori Arun Kumar,(2014)[7] Bending moment and shear force for PSC T-Beam
Girder are lesser then RCC T-Beam girder bridge. Which allow designer to have lesser
heavier section for PSC T-Beam Girder then RCC T-Beam Girder for 24m span. Moment
of resistance of PSC T-Beam Girder is more as compare to RCC T-Beam Girder for 24 m
span. Cost of concrete for PSC T-Beam Girder is less then RCC T-Beam Girder.

 Manjeetkumar M Nagarmunnoli,(2014)[8] Concentrate about on the effects of deck

thickness in RCC T-Beam Bridge. For every decrement in deck segment thickness
reduces the bending stiffness by around 40% to half. Stresses acting in the deck under
truck wheel load are around 55 times more unmistakable than the allowable weights. For
every decrement in the deck piece thickness from 280 mm to 150 mm would profoundly
assemble the part slant by around 31% under the wheel stack. The uncracked depiction
of inaction decays by around 45% for every decrement in the deck area thickness from
280 mm to 150 mm subjected to IRC Class A truck stacking. The Curve force made in
the deck piece reduces by around 0.43% for every decrement in the deck segment
thickness.

 Praful NK,(2015)[9] The near review was directed in view of the diagnostic displaying
of basically bolstered RC T-pillar connect by rational method and Finite element method
utilizing Staad pro. In view of this review Courbon's method gives the normal outcome

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 8

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

with deference BM values in the longitudinal girder when contrasted with Guyon
Massonet technique. While Guyon Massonet's strategy belittles the BM values when
contrasted and Courbon's method.The Staad professional outcome nearly coordinates
with the qualities gotten by Courbon's technique for class AA followed vehicle. For class
AA Followed vehicle the Staad professional outcome is decreased by (0.01%) when
contrasted with Courbon's technique and increment in result contrasted with Guyon-
massonet strategy by (34.22%) for Bowing Moment.For class AA Followed vehicle the
Staad star result is lessened by (33.73%) when contrasted with Courbon's strategy and
increment in result contrasted with Guyon-massonet technique by (26.93%) for Shear
Constrain.

 Pallvi rai,(2016)[10] To shield connect from blast loading, there is need to consider blast
loading at the period of design of structure. For viably existing structures, retrofitting
system can be gotten or an effect limit can be made all through the structure. It was
found from the result that a typical T-Beam bridge will bomb due to effect stack
associated by an impact of 226.8 kg of explosive above and underneath the augmentation
deck. Some bit of the augmentation is depended upon not to bomb after utilization of
effect load if region of effect is near the portion. In case affect happens close support, a
segment of the props on various extents are typical not, It can be settled from this audit a
common T-Beam connect with solid segments besides, wharfs is not prepared for
restricting specific impact stacking.

 Sandesh Upadhayaya,(2016)[11] To obtain even better working results the T-beam

configuration deck slab can be subjected to pre/post tensioning. The pre-stressing force
can be applied more conveniently and computation of required jacking force is also
simple. This problem can be overcome with greater ease in case of T-Beam deck slab
configuration.

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 9

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

 Phani Kumar.Ch,(2016)[12] The different span depth proportion are taken for the
analysis of box bridge spans, and for every one of the cases, deflection and stresses are
inside as far as possible, As the profundity of box brace diminishes the prestressing
power diminishes and of links abatements. New code(IRC:112)requires expanded cover
for pre tensioned stands and post tensioned channels, which will prompt expanded
thickness of networks and deck slab.

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 10

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

CHAPTER 3

OBJECTIVE AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 OBJECTIVES

 To concentrate the conduct of basic simple RCC T-beam beam and Box Girder bridge
under standard IRC loading, and the comparing analysis depends on the analytical
modeling by FEM for various spans in CSI Bridge software
 To study the deck slab interaction with the loading considered as IRC Codes.
 To evaluate the suitability of the bridges for short as well as long spans
 To evaluate code expressions for live-load distribution factors for concrete girder bridges.

3.2 METHODOLOGY

3.2.1 DEAD LOAD ANALYSIS

Dead load response can be straight forwardly taken from the CSI-Bridge 2016 model or can be
physically figured by considering the dead load because of superstructure (Brace, Stomach and
Deck piece). Longitudinal moments are figured similarly by duplicating responses with the
longitudinal unconventionality which is the separation between the centerline of wharf and
bearing. The response on each bearing because of brace, stomach and deck piece and because of
Superimposed Dead Load, SIDL (wearing coat and crash hindrance) is discovered
independently.

3.2.2 LIVE LOAD ANALYSIS- The live load for each heap mix can be computed physically
and in addition with the assistance of a CSI-Connect display. For the CSI-Connect display
vehicle definitions must be given according to IRC 6-2010, for the heap counts and position of
load must be inputted according to IRC 6-2010. A point important is that CSI-Connect requires

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 11

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

the separation to the centerline of the furthest wheel far from the inception along the transverse
course, while amid manual figuring of transverse minutes the unconventionality of the focal
point of gravity from the centerline of the carriage-way is utilized. According to IRC6-2014 for
2lane and carriage way width 5.3m (1.2x2+2.9=5.3) basic load blends are conceivable.
 One Class70R + One Class A
 Three Class A

One Class 70R; this configuration is checked for criticality as it generates maximum transverse
moment. The reactions on each bearing are noted down from the CSI-BRIDGE model for design
of bent cap and for the calculation of transverse and longitudinal moments.

3.2.3 LOAD COMBINATIONS-

The following load combinations will be considered in the analysis for determination of
critical values of bending moment and shear force.

1. DL + SIDL (without live load)

2. DL + SIDL + LL-70R + Longitudinal Frictional Strengths

3. DL + SIDL + LL-70R+Class A + Longitudinal Frictional Strengths

4. DL + SIDL + LL-3 Class A + Longitudinal Frictional Powers

5. DL + SIDL + LL-70R + Longitudinal Frictional Powers + Wind

6. DL + SIDL + LL-70R+Class A + Longitudinal Frictional Powers +Wind

7. DL + SIDL + LL-3 Class A + Longitudinal Frictional Powers + Wind

8. DL + SIDL + Long. Seismic Drive (without live load)

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 12

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

9. DL + SIDL + 20% LL-70R + Long. Frictional Strengths + Long. Seismic Constrain

10. DL + SIDL + 20% LL-70R+Class A + Long. Frictional Strengths + Long. Seismic

Force
11. DL + SIDL + 20% LL-3 Class A+ Long. Frictional Powers + Long. Seismic Constrain

12. DL + SIDL + Long. Frictional Strengths + Trans. Seismic Compel (without live load)

13. DL + SIDL + 20% LL-70R+Long. Frictional Strengths + Trans. Seismic Constrain

14. DL + SIDL + 20% LL-70R+Class A + Long. Frictional Strengths + Trans. Seismic

Drive
15. DL + SIDL + 20% LL-3 Class A+ Long. Frictional Strengths + Trans. Seismic forces

Just 20% of Live Load is taken for the load combination including Seismic powers under The
presumption that exclusive 20% of the live load follows up on the super-structure in case of an
Earthquake. (IRC 006-2014). The vertical force, flat constrain in transverse and longitudinal
course and Moments in transverse and longitudinal heading are discovered for these heap blends
at the base of wharf and base of establishment. All heap cases are checked on the off chance that
they are inside allowable points of confinement of worries in steel and concrete.

3.2.4 BENT DESIGN

The area of concrete required for pier to resist axial load is calculated by isolating the most
extreme axial load an incentive among all the heap blends by the permissible stress in concrete
for the individual load case. The range of steel gave regardless might not be under 0.3% of the
gross sectional region of concrete (IRC 21-2000). The cross-sectional range of longitudinal

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 13

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

reinforcement should not be under 0.8% nor over 8% of the gross cross-sectional zone. (IRC 21-
2000). According to code, the measurement of transverse reinforcement of any sort should not be
short of what one quarter the distance across of the biggest longitudinal bar in that region of the
section and for no situation under 8mm.
The pitch of transverse reinforcement won't not outperform 300mm or the base of the smallest
parallel estimation of the area or 12 times the width of the tiniest longitudinal support in the
section. It may be seen that allowable stress in steel additionally cement is extended by 33% for
wind stack case and significantly for seismic cases. Base of the adjust and all moment are
recalculated for lever arm remove by the depth of the footing.

3.2.6 DESIGN OF BENT CAP

Here only the critical reactions on bearings on one side of the Bent along the transverse direction
are considered for each load case. Bent cap is designed at the face of the bent, which have higher
values of shear force and moment and at a distance ‘d’ away from the face of the bent, where d is
the effective depth, where the forces and moments are lower thereby reducing the reinforcement
required. Checks for corbel action are performed where, if a/d >1, the bent cap is designed as a
cantilever beam. The impact factor is calculated for class 70R and class A vehicle, and the total
shear force and bending moment are adjusted accordingly. The shear force and bending moment
due to self-weight of bent cap, bearing pedestal, dirt wall and centrifugal forces are also
calculated and added to the obtained values. For the torsion (longitudinal moment) values in the
bent cap, the equivalent bending moment and equivalent shear force are calculated as per IRC
21-2000, and the values are added to the values of shear force and bending moment already
calculated. Design is carried out at bent face and at ‘d’ distance away from face of the bent by
considering the maximum value of shear force and bending moment by working stress method
where,
Effective depth required, dreq = (M/Qb)1/2
where dreq- Effective depth required
M – Bending Moment at the section
Q = (1/2) x j x k x σcbc
j = 1 – (k/3)

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 14

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

k = (280/(3 x σcbc)) / (280/(3 x σcbc) + σst)

σcbc & σst are the permissible flexural strength in steel and concrete respectively.
Area of steel required, Ast req = M / ( σst x j x d)
Note : Value of Q & j varies for each load case as permissible stresses in steel and concrete are
increased for wind by 33% and seismic case, it is increased by 50%. Side face reinforcement of
0.05% of gross area is provided on each face. The sections are also designed for shear and
torsion by providing the appropriate reinforcement as per the design procedure in IRC 21-2000

Figure 3.1.6. Steps to model the bridge in CSI-BRDIGE 2016

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 15

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

CHAPTER 4

MODELING OF T-BEAM AND BOX GIRDER

4.1 Modeling of Girder Bridges

(a) T- Beam (b) Box girder

Figure 4.1.T-Beam Bridge and Box Girder

4.1.2 . 3D VIEW OF GIRDER BRIDGES

a) T-Beam b) Box Girder

Figure 5.1.2. 3D view of T-Beam

Bridge and Box Girder

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 16

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

4.1.3 LOAD ANALYSIS

The various load cases considered for the design on the superstructure are:
 Dead Load (Girder + Deck Slab + Diaphragm)
 Super-imposed Dead Load ( Crash Barrier + Wearing Coat)
 Live Load Cases
 Class 70R eccentric
 Class 70R on the inner girder
 Class 70R + 1 Class A

The live load cases shown above are for a 2 lane carriage way. The live load combinations may
be changed based on the carriageway width as per IRC 6-2014. The shear force and bending
moment for each of these load cases are determined at a distance, ‘d’ away from the support m,
at 0.25leff from the support and at the mid-span. The section is designed for the flexure
requirement at mid-span. The longitudinal reinforcement obtained may be curtailed at a section
of 0.25leff from the support based on the moments at that section.

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 17

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

CHAPTER-5
ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF T-BEAM BRIDGE AND BOX GIRDER
BRIDGE
FOR 20 m SPAN

Table 5.1 Specification of T-Beam and Box girder

Specifications T-Beam/Box Girder
Span of the Bridge 20 m
Width of the Bridge 7.2 m
Over all depth 1.52 m
Number of Lane 2
Lane width 3.6 m
Centerline offset 1.8 m
Number of interior girder 3
Girder width 10.98 m
Slab thickness 0.305 m
Diaphragm thickness 0.3 m
Diaphragm depth 1m
Abutment depth t3 1.52 m
Abutment width t 2 1.22 m
Class AA; Class70R;
Vehicles IRC
Class A
Dead, Move (linear
Load case static),Wind load Effect
and Torsion

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 18

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

Table 5.1(a) Dead load moment of T-Beam and Box girder

Layout line distance Moments (kN-m)
T-Beam Box girder
0 -824 -1998
10 3582 5376
20 -6444 -8895
30 3582 5376
40 -824 -1998

Dead load moment

12000
10000
8000
6000
Moment

4000
2000
0
-2000
-4000
-6000
-8000
1 2 3 4 5
BOX GIRDER -1998 5376 8895 5376 -1998
T-BEAM -824 3861 -6444 3861 -824
LAYOUT LINE
0 10 20 30 40
DISTANCE

Figure 5.1. Variation of dead load moment in T-Beam and Box Girder

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 19

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

Table 5.2 Dead load moment of T-Beam and Box girder(entire section plus all girder)
Layout line distance Moment kN-m

T-Beam Box Girder

0 -202 -338
2.5 813 863
5 -1100 -912
7.5 815 863
10 -202 -338

Dead Load Moment

2000
1500
1000
500
Moments

0
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
1 2 3 4 5
BOX GIRDER -338 863 -912 863 -338
T-BEAM -202 813 -1100 815 -202
LAYOUT LINE
0 10 20 30 40
DISTANCE

Figure 5.2. Variation of dead load moment in T-Beam and Box Girder Plus all Girder

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 20

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

Table 5.3 Live load moment of T-Beam and Box girder

Layout line distance Moment KN-m

T-beam Box Girder

0 0 0
10 3225 518
20 33 75
30 3225 519
40 0 25

Live Load moment

7000
6000
5000
Moment

4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1 2 3 4 5
BOX GIRDER 0 3239 65 3239 0
T-BEAM 0 3225 33 3225 0
LAYOUT LINE DISTANCE 0 10 20 30 40

Figure 5.3. Variation of Live load moment in T-Beam and Box Girder

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 21

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

Table 5.4. Live load moment of T-Beam and Box girder Plus all girder

Layout line distance Moment kN-m

T-Beam Box Girder

0 32 25
10 750 518
20 54 75
30 750 519
40 32 25

Live Load moment

1400
1200
1000
Moment

800
600
400
200
0
1 2 3 4 5
BOX GIRDER 25 518 75 519 25
T-BEAM 32 750 54 750 32
LAYOUT LINE
0 10 20 30 40
DISTANCE

Figure 5.4. Variation of Live load moment in T-Beam and Box Girder Plus all Girder

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 22

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

Table 5.5 Wind load moment of T-Beam and Box girder

Layout line distance Moment KN-m

T-Beam Box Girder

0 -1979 -4797
10 9268 13412
20 -15467 -21349
30 9268 13412
40 -1979 -4797

Wind Load moment

30000
20000
10000
Moment

0
-10000
-20000
-30000
-40000
1 2 3 4 5
BOX GIRDER -4797 13412 -21349 13412 -4797
T-BEAM -1979 9628 -15467 9268 -1979
LAYOUT LINE
0 10 20 30 40
DISTANCE

Figure 5.5. Variation of Wind load moment in T-Beam and Box Girder

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 23

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

Table 5.6. Wind load moment of T-Beam and Box girder

Layout line distance (m) Moment kN-m

T-Beam Box Girder

0 -486 -811
10 1956 2072
20 -2641 -2190
30 1956 2072
40 -486 -811

Wind Load moment

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
Moment

0
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
-6000
1 2 3 4 5
BOX GIRDER -811 2072 -2190 2072 -811
T-BEAM -486 1956 -2641 1956 -486
LAYOUT LINE
0 10 20 30 40
DISTANCE

Figure 5.6. Variation of Wind load moment in T-Beam and Box Girder Plus all Girder

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 24

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

Table 5.7. Torsion load moment of T-Beam and Box girder

Layout line distance (m) Moment kN-m

T-Beam Box Girder

0 -1.79 -4.09
10 -1.89 4.3
20 -1.99 2.07
30 1.86 2.24
40 1.726 2.4

Torsion Effect

50
40
30
Moment

20
10
0
-10
1 2 3 4 5
BOX GIRDER -4.09 -4.3 2.07 2.24 2.4
T-BEAM -1.7 -1.89 -1.99 1.86 1.76
LAYOUT LINE
0 10 20 30 40
DISTANCE

Figure 5.7. Variation of Torsion load moment in T-Beam and Box Girder

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 25

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

Table 5.8. Torsion load moment of T-Beam and Box girder Plus all Girder

Layout line distance (m) Moment kN-m

T-Beam Box Girder

0 -2.4 8.3
10 -3.3 -14
20 88.9 174.4
30 -0.8 14
40 2.43 -8.3

Torsion Effect
300
250
200
Moment

150
100
50
0
-50
1 2 3 4 5
BOX GIRDER 8.3 -14 174 14 -8.3
T-BEAM -2.4 3.3 88.9 -0.8 2.43
LAYOUT LINE
0 10 20 30 40
DISTANCE

Figure 5.8. Variation of Torsion load moment in T-Beam and Box Girder Plus all Girder

Dead load moment (figure 5.1 to figure 5.2) because of accepted sufficient segment has been
computed and examined with graph. The analysis demonstrates T-Beam Girder has delivered
less moment than Box Girder unit. This implies T-Beam Girder has less substantial area than
Box Girder.
Live load moment (figure5.3 to figure5.4) examined with graph. The analysis indicated T-Beam
Girder has less moment than Box Girder unit. Most extreme moment of box girder is 3239m and
lesser T-Beam moment is 3223m.

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 26

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

Wind load moment and Torsion impact of Box Girder additionally more as contrast with T-beam
as indicated by length. However, wind load moment for unloaded span is 2.04kn\m2 (from IS
875 section iii).

FOR 30 m SPAN:

Table 5.9 Specification of T-Beam and Box girder for 20m Span
Specifications T-Beam/Box Girder
Span of the Bridge 30 m
Width of the Bridge 7.2 m
Over all depth 1.52 m
Number of Lane 2
Lane width 3.6 m
Centerline offset 1.8 m
Number of interior girder 3
Girder width 10.98 m
Slab thickness 0.305 m
Diaphragm thickness 0.3 m
Diaphragm depth 1m
Abutment depth t3 1.52 m
Abutment width t 2 1.22 m
Class AA; Class70R;
Vehicles IRC
Class A
Dead, Move (linear
Load case static),Wind load Effect
and Torsion

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 27

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

Table 5.10. Dead load moment of T-Beam and Box girder

Layout line distance (m) Moment kN-m

T-Beam Box Girder

0 -2377 -7210
15 8438 1728
30 -16196 -34725
45 9122 18659
60 -2377 -7210

Dead Load moment

30000
20000
10000
Moment

0
-10000
-20000
-30000
-40000
1 2 3 4 5
BOX GIRDER -3815 10762 -19506 10762 -3815
T-BEAM -2377 8438 -16196 9122 -2377
LAYOUTLINE DISTANCE 0 15 30 45 60

Figure 5.10. Variation of Dead load moment in T-Beam and Box

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 28

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

Table 5.11. Dead load moment of T-Beam and Box girder

Layout line distance Moment kN-m

T-Beam Box Girder

0 -2377 -3815
15 8483 10762
30 -16196 -19506
45 9122 10762
60 -2377 -3815

Dead Load moment

30000
20000
10000
Moment

0
-10000
-20000
-30000
-40000
1 2 3 4 5
BOX GIRDER -3815 10762 -19506 10762 -3815
T-BEAM -2377 8438 -16196 9122 -2377
LAYOUTLINE DISTANCE 0 15 30 45 60

Figure 5.11. Variation of Dead load moment in T-Beam and Box Plus Girder

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 29

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

Table 5.12. Live load moment of T-Beam and Box girder

Layout line distance (m) Moment kN-m

T-Beam Box Girder

0 0 0
15 5706 5738
30 17 35
45 5706 5739
60 0 0

Live Load moment

8000
7000
6000
Moment

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1 2 3 4 5
BOX GIRDER 36 1192 52 1191 36
T-BEAM 0 5706 17 5706 0
LAYOUT LINE
0 15 30 45 60
DISTANCE

Figure 5.12. Variation of Live load moment in T-Beam and Box

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 30

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

Table 5.13. Live load moment of T-Beam and Box girder

Layout line distance Moment kN-m

T-Beam Box Girder

0 8.6 0
15 1247 5738
30 9.5 35
45 1247 5739
60 8.6 0

Live load Moment

8000
7000
6000
MOMENT

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1 2 3 4 5
BOX GIRDER 0 5738 35 5739 0
T-BEAM 8.6 1247 9.5 1247 8.6
LAYOUT LINE
0 15 30 45 60
DISTANCE

Figure 5.13. Variation of Live load moment in T-Beam and Box Plus all Girder

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 31

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

Table 5.14. Wind load moment of T-Beam and Box girder

Layout line distance (m) Moment kN-m

T-Beam Box Girder

0 -5704 -9157
15 20251 25830
30 -38870 -46815
45 20251 25830
60 -5704 -9157

Wind Load Moment

40000
30000
20000
10000
Moment

0
-10000
-20000
-30000
-40000
-50000
-60000
1 2 3 4 5
WIND LOAD MOMENT
9157 25830 -46815 25830 -9157
ON BOX GIRDER
WIND LOAD MOMENT
-1141 4116 -8152 4121 -1141
ON TBEAM
LAYOUTLINE DISTANCE 0 15 30 45 60

Figure 5.14. Variation of Wind load moment in T-Beam and Box Plus all Girder

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 32

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

Table 5.15. Wind load moment of T-Beam and Box girder

Layout line distance (m) Moment kN-m

T-Beam Box Girder

0 -114 -1937
15 4116 5230
30 -8152 -7631
45 4121 5783
60 -1141 -1937

Wind load moment

15000
10000
5000
Moment

0
-5000
-10000
-15000
-20000
1 2 3 4 5
BOX GIRDER -1937 5230 -7631 5783 -1937
T-BEAM -1141 4116 -8152 4121 -1141
LAYOUT LINE
0 15 30 45 60
DISTANCE

Figure 5.15. Variation of Wind load moment in T-Beam and Box Plus all Girder

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 33

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

Table 5.16. Torsion moment of T-Beam and Box girder

Layout Line Distance (m) Moment KN-m

0 -2.5 -9.9
15 -2.58 -63
30 2.59 215
45 2.58 55
60 2.56 6.8

Torsion Effect
300
250
200
Moment

150
100
50
0
-50
-100
1 2 3 4 5
BOX GIRDER -9.9 -63 215 55 6.8
T-BEAM -2.5 -2.58 2.59 2.58 2.56
LAYOUT LINE
0 15 30 45 60
DISTANCE

Figure 5.16. Variation of Torsion moment in T-Beam and Box Plus all Girder

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 34

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

Table 5.17. Torsion moment of T-Beam and Box girder

Layout line distance (m) Moment kN-m

T-Beam Box Girder

0 -2.5 2.15
15 -2.58 3.2
30 2.59 6.2
45 2.58 3.16
60 2.56 -1.3

Torsion Effect
70
60
50
40
Moment

30
20
10
0
-10
1 2 3 4 5
BOX GIRDER 2.15 3.2 6.2 3.16 -1.3
T-BEAM -2.5 -2.58 2.59 2.58 2.56
LAYOUT LINE
0 15 30 45 60
DISTANCE

Figure 5.17. Variation of Torsion load moment in T-Beam and Box Plus all Girder

Dead load moment (figure 5.2 to 5.2.1) , Live load moment (figure 5.2.2 to 5.2.3), Wind load
moment (figure 5.2.4 to 5.2.5) and Torsion effect (5.2.6 to 5.2.7) due to assumed adequate
section has been calculated and studied with graph. The analysis shows T-Beam girder has
produced less moment than Box girder. As span is increased as all moments are increased.

Graph shows that if span increased as Box girder gives you better result as compare to T-Beam

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 35

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

FOR 40 m SPAN

Table 5.18 Specification of T-Beam and Box girder

Specifications T-Beam/Box Girder

Span of the Bridge 40 m
Width of the Bridge 7.2 m
Over all depth 1.52 m
Number of Lane 2
Lane width 3.6 m
Centerline offset 1.8 m
Number of interior girder 3
Girder width 10.98 m
Slab thickness 0.305 m
Diaphragm thickness 0.3 m
Diaphragm depth 1m
Abutment depth t3 1.52 m
Abutment width t 2 1.22 m
Class AA; Class70R;
Vehicles IRC
Class A
Dead, Move (linear
Load case static),Wind load Effect
and Torsion

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 36

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

Table 5.18 Dead moment of T-Beam and Box girder

Layout line distance (m) Moment kN-m

T-Beam Box Girder

0 -4941 -7210
20 15526 1728
40 -28276 -34725
60 14921 18659
80 -4937 -7210

Dead Load moment

40000
20000
0
Momemt

-20000
-40000
-60000
-80000
1 2 3 4 5
BOX GIRDER -7210 1728 -34725 18659 -7210
T BEAM -4941 15526 -28276 14921 -4937
LAYOUT LINE
0 20 40 60 80
DISTANCE

Figure 5.18 Variation of Dead load moment in T-Beam and Box

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 37

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

Table 5.19. Dead moment of T-Beam and Box girder

Layout line distance (m) Moment kN-m

T-Beam Box Girder

0 -988 -1526
20 2702 3492
40 -4975 -5916
60 2929 3754
80 -987 -1509

Dead load moment

8000
6000
4000
2000
Moment

0
-2000
-4000
-6000
-8000
-10000
-12000
1 2 3 4 5
BOX GIRDER -1526 3492 -5916 3754 -1509
T-BEAM -988 2702 -4975 2929 -987
LAYOUT LINE
0 20 40 60 80
DISTANCE

Figure 5.19. Variation of Dead load moment in T-Beam and Box Plus all Girder

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 38

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

Table 5.20. Live load moment of T-Beam and Box girder

Layout line distance (m) Moment kN-m

T-Beam Box Girder

0 4.5 45
20 8386 1682
40 8.9 50
60 8570 1715
80 0 46

Live load moment

12000
10000
8000
MOMENT

6000
4000
2000
0
1 2 3 4 5
BOX GIRDER 45 1682 50 1715 46
T-BEAM 4.5 8386 8.9 8570 0
LAYOYUT LINE
0 20 40 60 80
DISTANCE

Figure 5.20. Variation of Live load moment in T-Beam and Box Girder

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 39

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

Table 5.21. Live load moment of T-Beam and Box girder

Layout line distance (m) Moment kN-m

T-Beam Box Girder

0 57 -30
20 1676 -699
40 38 -1255
60 1715 -1753
80 54 -2163

Live load moment

2000
1500
1000
500
Moment

0
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
1 2 3 4 5
BOX GIRDER -30 -699 -1255 -1753 -2163
T-BEAM 57 1676 38 1715 54
LAYOUT LINE
0 20 40 60 80
DISTANCE

Figure 5.21. Variation of Live load moment in T-Beam and Box Girder Plus all Girder

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 40

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

Table 5.22. Wind load moment of T-Beam and Box girder

Layout line distance (m) Moment kN-m

T-Beam Box Girder

0 -11860 -17305
20 33003 41481
40 -67864 -83342
60 35812 4473
80 -11850 -17304

Wind load moment

100000
50000
0
Moment

-50000
-100000
-150000
-200000
1 2 3 4 5
BOX GIRDER -17305 41481 -83342 4473 -17304
T-BEAM -11860 33003 -67864 35812 -11850
LAYOUT LINE
0 20 40 60 80
DISTANCE

Figure 5.22. Variation of Wind load moment in T-Beam and Box Girder

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 41

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

Table 5.23. Wind load moment of T-Beam and Box girder

Layout line distance (m) Moment kN-m

T-Beam Box Girder

0 -2372 -3662
20 6486 8290
40 -11940 -14200
60 7039 9010
80 -2371 -3623

Wind Load moment

20000
15000
10000
5000
Moment

0
-5000
-10000
-15000
-20000
-25000
-30000
1 2 3 4 5
BOX GIRDER -3662 8290 -14200 9010 -3623
T-BEAM -2372 6486 -11940 7039 -2371
LAYOUT LINE
0 20 40 60 80
DISTANCE

Figure 5.23. Variation of Wind load moment in T-Beam and Box Girder Plus all Girder

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 42

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

Table 5.24. Torsion moment of T-Beam and Box girder

Layout line distance (m) Moment kN-m

T-Beam Box Girder

0 -7.5 1.03
20 -7.5 9.73
40 -7.2 8.9
60 3.9 -9.21
80 4.3 -9.5

Torsion effect
100
80
60
Moment

40
20
0
-20
1 2 3 4 5
BOX GIRDER 1.03 9.73 8.9 -9.21 -9.5
T-BEAM -7.5 -7.5 -7.2 3.9 4.3
LAYOUT LINE
0 20 40 60 80
DISTANCE

Figure 5.24. Variation of Torsion moment in T-Beam and Box Girder

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 43

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

Table 5.25. Torsion moment of T-Beam and Box girder

Layout line distance (m) Moment kN-m

T-Beam Box Girder

0 2.03 -89
20 -9.16 -136
40 191 243
60 6.3 79
80 -2.3 94

Torsion effect
600
500
400
Moment

300
200
100
0
-100
-200
1 2 3 4 5
BOX GIRDER -89 -136 243 79 94
T-BEAM 2.03 -9.16 191 6.3 -2.3
LAYOUT LINE
0 20 40 60 80
DISTANCE

Figure 5.25. Variation of Torsion moment in T-Beam and Box Girder Plus all Girder

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 44

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION

Service Dead Load bending moments, live load moments, Wind load moments and Torsion
moments are for T-Beam girder are lesser than Box Girder Bridge. Which allow designer to have
heavier section for T-Beam Girder than Box Girder for 30m and 40m spans.

For 20m spans T-Beam Girder is more economical but if span is more than other span so, Box
Girder is always suitable. This type of Bridge lies in the high torsional rigidity available because
of closed box section.

Moments for both has been evaluated and conclusions drawn that T-Beam Girder has more
capacity for 20 m span.

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 45

 Analysis and Design of Concrete T-Beam Girder Bridge and Box Girder Bridge: A Comparative Study 2017

REFERENCES

1. N.K Paul,S.Shah, “Improvement of Load Carrying Capacity of a RCC T-Beam Bridge

Longitudinal Girder by Replacing Steel Bars with S.M.A Bars”, World Academy of
Science, Engineering and Technology 2011.
2. R.Shreedhar, “Analysis of T-Beam bridge using FEM”, International Journal of
Engineering and Innovative Technology (IJEIT), September 2012, Volume 2, Issue 3.
3. Amit Saxena,Dr.Savita Maru, “Comparative study of the analysis and design of T-Beam
Girder and Box Girder Superstructure”, International Journal of Engineering and
Innovative Technology(IJEIT),April-May 2013, Volume 1,Issue 2.

4. Mahesh Pokhrel, “Comparative study of RCC T-Girder bridge with different codes”,
Thesis, Feb-2013.
5. M.G Kalyanshetti, “Study of effectiveness of Courbn’s theory in the analysis of T-Beam
bridge”, International Journal of Engineering Research, Volume 4, March 2013.
6. Supriya Madda, Kalyanshetti M.G, “Dynamic Analysis of T-Beam Bridge
Superstructure”, International Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology (IJEIT),
2013, Volume 3.
7. Rajmoori, Arun Kumar, “Design of Prestress Concrete T-Beam”, International Journal of
Scientific Engineering and Research, 8 August 2014, Volume 2.
8. Manjeetkumar, M Nagarmunnoli, “ Effect of Deck Thickness in RCC T-Beam Bridge”,
International Journal of Structural and Civil Engineering Research, Feb-2014, Vol. 3.
9. Praful NK, Balaso Hanumant, “Comparative Analysis oF T-BEAM Bridge by Rational
Method and STADD PRO”, International Journal of Engineering Science & Research
Technology, June 2015.
10. Pallvi Rai, Rajneesh Kumar, “Analysis of T-Beam Bridge Subjected to Blast Loading
using FEM-SPH Coupling”, Journal of Civil Engineering and Environmental Technology,
March 2016, Issue 3, Vol. 3.

11. Sandesh Upadhayay K, “ A Comparative Study of T-Beam Bridge for Varying Span
Lenghts” , International Journal of Research in Engineering Technology, June 2016, Issue
6, Vol. 5.
12. Phani Kumar Ch., S.V.V.K, “Analysis and Design of Prestressed Box Girder Bridge by
IRC: 112-2011”, International Journal of Constructive Research in Civil
Engineering(IJRCC), 2016, Issue 2, Vol.2.

JUIT, Waknaghat Page 46