Published by : International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)

http://www.ijert.org ISSN: 2278-0181

Vol. 8 Issue 07, July-2019

Design and Analysis of Bridge Girders using

Different Codes
Ravikant Jagdish Chand
PG Student, Associate Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering,
Chandigarh University, Mohali, Chandigarh University, Mohali,
Punjab, India. Punjab, India.

Abstract:- The bridges are the super passage or a pathway structure is always important and the scope of research. In
over the obstacle without changing the alignment of the way this study we select the span of length 25 m. Therefore,
beneath. The present study considers the design of bridge these two factors are important i.e. codal provision and the
girders both longitudinal girders and cross girders. The span design details.
of the bridge is taken as 25m in which girders are constructed.
The size of longitudinal girders is taken as2000x500 mm and
The design of the girders is carried out with IRC codes,
cross girders is 1500x250 mm. There are three longitudinal Euro codes and AASHTO specifications using STAAD
girders are considered having spacing 2600 mm c/c and cross Pro. This study compares the shear force, bending moment
girders are considered as 5000mm c/c. The design of girders is and area of steel in the design of bridge girders i.e.
carried out using the software STAAD Pro. In this study of longitudinal girders and cross girders due to the application
bridge girder design, three same models are prepared in the of different loading according to IRC codes, Euro codes
STAAD pro and then there loadings are changed according to and AASHTO specifications
IRC codes, Euro codes and AASHTO
specificationsrespectively. According to these different II. LITERATURE REVIEW
loading we found the shear force, bending moment and area The study of different journals, thesis and design aspects
of steel in longitudinal girder as well as cross girder. The were done. They consider IS codes, IRC codes, Euro codes,
analysis is conducted in STAAD Pro and analysis results are AASHTO specifications and ACI codes.
compared with tables and graphs. An important research paper on “Analysis of Bridge girder
-2 way Beams” has been published by Vijay Kumar, S.P. &
Keywords: Bridge Girder, Longitudinal Girders,Cross Girder, Mohan K. (2017) found that when we are using cross
STAAD Pro, etc.
beams or girders the deflection, bending moment & shear
I. INTRODUCTION force will reduced as compare to the design of girder
Bridge is a structure constructed to provide a passage over bridge without cross beams or girders.
the obstacle such as road crossing, river crossing, railway Saxena A. & Dr. Maru S. (2013) publish an important
crossing, valley etc. Design of bridge structure is depends research paper on “Comparative Study of the Analysis and
upon the use of bridge or function of the bridge. It also Design o T-Beam Girder and Box Girder Super Structure”
depends upon the nature of the region where bridge to be describe that the T- beam girder is economical than the box
constructed. It depends upon the site conditions, girder but box girder is more suitable for long span bridges.
construction material used in the bridge construction, Because of their close box sections they have high torsional
construction methods and financial conditions etc. Due to rigidity.
so speedy growth and development of the technology, the Chu, K.H. (1971) published “Simply Supported Curved
traditional bridges are replaced by the cost effective and Box Girder Bridge” with the help of finite element method.
new designer bridges. There structure designs are designed A study of “Dynamic & Impact Characteristics of
so that they has a new look or appearance and there cost of Continuous Steel Beam Bridge Decks and Slant-legged
the structure is also economical. For the solution of this Rigid Frame Bridges” was carried out by Wang & Herang
problem, structural engineers found these two structural (1992). In 2011, N.K. Paul published “Three Dimensional
systems of reinforced cement concrete. These are Finite Element Model and Test Them with Loading System
• Girder bridges of Two Point” to check their behavior of structure of the
• Prestressed Bridges longitudinal girders of RCC T-beam bridges.
• Arc Bridges
• Rigid Frame Bridges III. METHODOLOGY
Because we are comparing Girders, so we talk about i. Description of Bridge Super Structure
Girders. The geometry of girders is very simple and also The bridge structure considered in this case study has a
easy in construction. Design of bridge structure is very length of 25 m simply supported over the piers or
important task for a structural engineer. It is also a complex abutments of the bridge substructure. The thickness of deck
task of structural engineers. There are some important slab is 250 mm in all respects. Sizes of longitudinal girders
factors in case of bridge designing such as span, live load, and cross girders are considered as 2000x500 mm &
dead load, length and height. These factors affect the whole 1500x250 mm respectively.
concept of the design and selection of the system of

IJERTV8IS070188 www.ijert.org 470

(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)
Published by : International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
http://www.ijert.org ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 8 Issue 07, July-2019

Fig. 1 Cross Section of Super Structure assumed

ii. Design Analysis

The design of bridge girders has been performed for dead and live laods. Dead load of the slab is assumed as 7.5 KN/m² where
as dead load of members are considerd in STAAD Pro. For live loads IRC codes, Euro codes and AASHTO Specifications has
been prefred and model has been created in STAAD Pro. Schematic diagrams and loadings followed from IRC codes, Euro
codes and AASHTO Specifications are shown below
Loadings

IJERTV8IS070188 www.ijert.org 471

(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)
Published by : International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
http://www.ijert.org ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 8 Issue 07, July-2019

Fig. 2 IRC Class A Loading (Extracted from IRC 6-2010)

Fig. 3HL-93Loadingfrom AASHTOLRFD Bridgedesign specification

Fig. 4 Model 1 and 2 Loadings from Euro Codes

IV. RESULT ANALYSIS

i. Live Load
Bending moments, shear forces and deflections due to live load of vehicle loading of all codes i.e. IRC Codes, Euro codes and
AASHTO Specifications has been calculated and presented graphicaly as shown below

IJERTV8IS070188 www.ijert.org 472

(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)
Published by : International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
http://www.ijert.org ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 8 Issue 07, July-2019

LIVE LOAD SHEAR FORCES COMPARISON

OF LONGITUDINAL GIRDER
700

SHEAR FORCE (KN)

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100
0.0L 0.1L 0.2L 0.3L 0.4L 0.5L
IRC Codes 378.89 378.89 304.12 153.08 4.77 3.87
AASHTO Specifications 342.56 319.31 309.06 216.66 193.41 -63.23
Euro Codes 601.41 601.41 601.41 536.95 536.95 658.5
Fig.5 Live load shear forces comparison of longitudinal girder

Shear forces due to live loads on longitudinal girder has due to IRC loadings as compare to the shear force
been calculated and compared with graph. This analysis produced due to AASHTO Specification loadings. Other
shows, at the edges longitudinal girder produced more side from this, longitudinal girder produced much more
shear force due to IRC loadings as compare to the shear shear force due to Euro codes loadings as compare to both
force produced due to AASHTO Specification loadings but of them.
near mid span longitudinal girder produced less shear force

LIVE LOAD SHEAR FORCES COMPARISON OF

CROSS GIRDER
140
SHEAR FORCE (KN)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.0L 0.1L 0.2L 0.3L 0.4L 0.5L
IRC Codes 3.09 3.09 3.09 3.09 3.09 3.09
AASHTO Specifications 52.99 48.15 43.31 38.48 33.64 28.81
Euro Codes 119.27 119.27 119.27 119.27 119.27 119.27
Fig.6 Live load shear forces comparison of cross girder

Shear force on cross girder due to vehicle loadings of represented. The analysis of this comparison shows shear
different codes i.e IRC codes, Euro codes and AASHTO force on the cross girder is more due loadings of Euro
specifications has been calculated and graphicaly codes as compare to others.

IJERTV8IS070188 www.ijert.org 473

(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)
Published by : International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
http://www.ijert.org ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 8 Issue 07, July-2019

LIVE LOAD BENDING MOMENTS

COMPARISON OF LONGITUDINAL GIRDER
BENDING MOMENT (KN-m)
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0.0L 0.1L 0.2L 0.3L 0.4L 0.5L
IRC Codes 0 947.06 1793.34 2554.73 2716.44 2726.18
AASHTO Specifications 0 826.42 1594.43 2224.65 2737.24 2654.06
Euro Codes 0 1502.12 3005.66 4053.18 5395.56 6744.28
Fig.7 Live load bending moment comparison of longitudinal girder

Bending moment on longitudinal girder is calculated and IRC Code loading and AASHTO Specifications increases
analysis is shown with graph. Bending moment produced gradually with respect to length of girder but in other hand
due to different loadings are compared and analyzed. The bending moment produced due to the Euro code loading
analysis shows that the bending moment produced due to increases rapidly with respect to length.

LIVE LOAD BENDING MOMENTS

COMPARISON OF CROSS GIRDER
BENDING MOMENT (KN-m)

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
0.0L 0.1L 0.2L 0.3L 0.4L 0.5L
IRC Codes 0 1.61 3.22 4.82 6.43 8.03
AASHTO Specifications -6.82 19.47 43.25 64.52 83.27 99.51
Euro Codes -19.99 42.03 104.05 166.07 228.10 290.12
Fig.8 Live load bending moment comparison of cross girder

Bending moment on cross girder is calculated and analysis is shown with graph. Bending moment produced due to different
loadings are compared and analyzed. The analysis shows that as we change the loadings from IRC codes, AASHTO
Specifications and Euro codes the rate of increment in bending moment increases respectively.

IJERTV8IS070188 www.ijert.org 474

(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)
Published by : International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
http://www.ijert.org ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 8 Issue 07, July-2019

LIVE LOAD DEFLECTION COMPARISON OF

LONGITUDINAL GIRDER
60

DEFLECTION (MM)
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0L 0.1L 0.2L 0.3L 0.4L 0.5L
IRC Codes 0 7.95 15.09 20.62 24.02 25.00
AASHTO Specifications 0 7.54 14.37 19.8 23.31 24.45
Euro Codes 0 14.34 27.39 38.14 45.40 48.09
Fig.9 Live load deflection comparison of longitudinal girder

LIVE LOAD DEFLECTION COMPARISON OF

CROSS GIRDER
50
DEFLECTION (MM)

40
30
20
10
0
0.0L 0.1L 0.2L 0.3L 0.4L 0.5L
IRC Codes 23.99 24.00 24.01 24.01 24.02 24.02
AASHTO Specifications 23.12 23.18 23.22 23.27 23.30 23.31
Euro Codes 44.88 45.02 45.15 45.26 45.35 45.4
Fig.10 Live load deflection comparison of cross girder

The deflection produces in longitudinal and as well as cross ii. Area of Steel
girder due to IRC codes and AASHTO Specifications are Design of bridge girders is conducted in STAAD Pro using
some what same but deflection due to Euro codes are different vehicle loadings of IRC Codes, AASHTO
almost double as compare to the other two codes. The Specifications and Euro Codes. Maximum value of steel
behaviour and pattran of deflection is same in all results of area required is considered in longitudinal girder as well as
deflection. cross girder.

IJERTV8IS070188 www.ijert.org 475

(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)
Published by : International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
http://www.ijert.org ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 8 Issue 07, July-2019

COMPARISON OF STEEL IN LONGITUDINAL

GIRDER

Euro Codes

AASHTO Specifications

IRC Codes

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

AASHTO
IRC Codes Euro Codes
Specifications
AREA OF STEEL (mm2) 3928.57 3771.43 9654.86

Fig.11 Comparison of steel in longitudinal girder

COMPARISON OF STEEL IN CROSS GIRDER

Euro Codes

AASHTO Specifications

IRC Codes

0 500 1000 1500

AASHTO
IRC Codes Euro Codes
Specifications
AREA OF STEEL (mm2) 471.42 452.57 1206.86

Fig.12 Comparison of steel in cross girder

The graphs presented above shows the comparison of area 3. Design of bridge girders (up to 25m) using IRC
of steel required in the girders due to different loadings codes are most economical and safer as compare
applied as shown above. The analysis results that design of to the other two i.e. AASHTO specifications and
Euro codes provides very much steel as compare to the Euro codes.
other two design codes i.e. IRC codes and AASHTO 4. IRC codes have the best combination of loading
specifications. and design methods as compare to the other two
V. CONCLUSION i.e. AASHTO specifications and Euro codes.
5. Since the design of bridge girder using IRC codes
Different loadings are taken from IRC codes, AASHTO acquire minimum value of deflection and bending
specifications and Euro codes. The conclusion of above moment so therefore IRC Class A loading is the
analysis is as follows most economical and optimum loading for the
1. In comparison of all three codes, Euro code design of bridge girder in INDIA.
designs are over reinforced as compare to the
other two i.e. IRC codes and AASHTO REFERENCES
specifications. [1] Kumar R Ajith. , Dr. J. K. Dattatreya (2015):- "Study on the
2. In design of bridge girders with Euro codes shear Structural Behavior and Design of a Typical Single Cell Post
Tensioned Concrete Box Girder Bridge". Journal of Civil
forces, bending moment and deflection are almost
Engineering and Environmental Technology, Volume 2, Number
double as compare to the other two i.e. IRC codes 11; April – June, 2015
and AASHTO specifications.

IJERTV8IS070188 www.ijert.org 476

(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)
Published by : International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
http://www.ijert.org ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 8 Issue 07, July-2019

[2] Saxena Amit, Dr. Savita Maru (2013):- "Comparative Study of

the Analysis and Design of T-Beam Girder and Box Girder
Superstructure". IJREAT International Journal of Research in
Engineering & Advanced Technology, Volume 1, and Issue 2,
April-May, 2013.
[3] B. Paval (2015):- "Analysis of Multi-Cell Prestressed Concrete
Box-Girder Bridge". International Journal of Engineering
Technology Science and Research IJETSR, ISSN 2394 – 3386
Volume 3,
[4] Bhadauria D. S. and Dr. Rakesh Patel (2017):- “Comparative
Study of RCC Bridge for Central Zone of India for Different
Sections of Girder”. International Journal for Scientific Research
& Development, Volume 5, and Issue 4, 2017.
[5] Eurocode 1(EN 1991-2(2)) Action on structures part 2: Traffic
loads on bridges.
[6] Eurocode 2(EN 1992-2) Design of concrete structures part 2:
Concrete bridges design and detailing rules.
[7] AASHTO (2010), "AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications", 5th Edition, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington DC.
[8] Chu, K. H. and Pinjarkar, S. G. (1971) “Analysis of Horizontally
Curved Box-Girder Bridges,” Journal of the Structural Division,
Vol. 97, No. 10.
[9] Schlaich, J., and Scheef, H. (1982) “Concrete BoxGirder
Bridges”, International Association for Bridge and Structural
Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland
[10] Sami M. Fereig (1994),”Preliminary Design of Precast
Prestressed Concrete Box Girder Bridge.” PCI Journal
[11] 25. M. Qaqish, Al-Balqa Applied University, JORDAN (2008),
“Comparison between One Dimensional and Three Dimensional
Models of Two Continuous Spans of Box Girder Bridges” ICCBT
2008 - C - (42) – pp463-482
[12] Chan, T.H.T., and O’Connor, C. (1990a). “Wheel Loads from
Highway Bridge Strains: Field Studies.” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 116, No. 7.
[13] Chan, T.H.T., and O’Connor, C. (1990b). “Vehicle Model for
Highway Bridge Impact.” Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 116, No. 7.
[14] Wang, T.L., and Huang, D.Z. (1992). “Computer Modeling
Analysis in Bridge Evaluation.” Report No.
FL/DOT/RMC/0542(2)-4108, Structural Research Centre, Florida
Department of Transportation, Tallahassee.
[15] Dr.Maher Qaqish, Dr.Eyad Fadda and Dr.Emad Akawwi (2008),
“Design of T-Beam Bridge by Finite Element Method and
AASHTO Specification” KMITL Sci. J. Vol.8 No.1.
[16] N. K. Paul, S. Saha (2011), “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 51
[17] D Johnson Victor (2007), “Essential of Bridge Engineering”6th
edition
[18] V. K. Raina, (2007)“Concrete Bridge practice analysis, Design
and Economics”, 2nd edition
[19] N. Krishna Raju, (2010), “Design of Bridges”, 4thedition
[20] T. R. Jagadeesh & M. A. Jayaram, (2010), “Design of Bridge
Structures”, 2nd edition
[21] IRC 6-2010, “Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for
Road Bridges”, Section II, loads and stresses, The Indian Roads
Congress, New Delhi, India, 2010.
[22] IRC: 21-2000, “Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for
Road Bridges, Section III, Cement Concrete (Plain and
Reinforced)”, The Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi, India,
2000.
[23] IRC:SP: 54-2000 “Project Preparation Manual for Bridge”, The
Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi, India, 2000.

IJERTV8IS070188 www.ijert.org 477

(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)