CHAPTER - 1

INTRODUCTION

Culvert consist of two horizontal and two vertical slabs built monolithically
are ideally suited for road or railway bridge crossing with high embankment
crossing stream with limited flow. If the discharge in a drain or channel crossing a
road is small, and if the bearing capacity of the soil is low, and then the box culvert
is an ideal bridge structure. This is a reinforced concrete rigid frame box culvert
with square or rectangular openings are used up to spans of 4m. The height of the
vent generally does not exceed 3m.

1.1 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVE

This project describes about the analysis and design of the “DECK SLAB
CULVERT in order to reduce the traffic intensity under critical site environment.
The primary objective of the project is to learn the philosophy of any analysis and
design of reinforced concrete structures. The main objective of this project is to
make an attempt application of fundamentals of the theoretical knowledge obtained
during the course a particular problem in the field.

1.2 DECK SLAB

In India, in the case of culvert deck slabs spanning in one Direction, the
bending moment per unit width of slab caused by the IRC vehicle loads can be
calculated by estimating the width of slab that may be taken as effective in
resisting the bending moment due to the loads and accordingly the deck slab is
designed for that bending moment. The method of assessment of the effective
width is given of IRC: 21 – 2000.

1
 M. Mabsout et al. (2004) investigated the effect of vehicle loads on simply
supported deck slabs using FEA based software (SAP2000) for different span
lengths, slab width with and without footpaths. Slabs are loaded with highway
design truck HS20 placed at critical locations in the longitudinal direction of each
lane. Two possible transverse truck positions were considered: Centered loading
condition where design trucks are assumed to be traveling in the center of each
lane and edge loading condition where the design trucks are placed close to one
edge of the slab with the absolute minimum spacing between adjacent trucks.

For slabs without shoulders, where the edge load condition is critical, and
for one-lane bridges, AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials) moment overestimates the FEA moments (30%) for short
spans (up to 7.5 m) and agrees with the FEA for longer spans. For more than one
lane, AASHTO agrees with the FEA for short spans (less than 10.5 m) and
underestimates FEA (15 to 30%) for longer spans. Reinforced concrete slab
bridges with shoulders on both edges tend to increase in load – carrying capacity.
Therefore, the edge + truck load condition was found to be critical for bridges with
shoulders on both free edges where AASHTO agrees with the FEA for short spans
( up to 7.5 m ) and underestimates the FEA by 25% for longer spans, regardless of
the number of lanes. Therefore, a suggested 20% reduction factor is applied to the
FEA moments for span lengths greater than 10.5 m, in combination with at least
two lanes, will tend to give results similar to those of AASHTO moments.

2
 The AASHTO LRFD procedure gives higher bending moments than
AASHTO standard specifications as well as the FEA results. The AASHTO LRFD
procedure gives design bending moments closer to the FEA results subject to edge
+ truck load conditions. Frederick (1997) presented the results of an experimental
and FEA investigation of load distribution in a concrete slab bridge. A typical 8.5
m span, simply supported deck slab with a 10.4m width was considered. The
design live load bending moments were calculated using AASHTO standard
specifications provisions.

A one-fifteenth size scale concrete model was constructed and tested in the
laboratory. Design trucks were positioned one at a time along the center of each of
the three lanes. The FEA results correlated well with the test data and were less
than AASHTO empirical equation. Shekar et al. (1993)performed extensive
experimental and analyticalinvestigation to evaluate the load-carrying capacity of
existing reinforced concrete slab bridges. The experimental phase of the
investigation consisted of field testing of six slab bridges.

The test data compared favorably with FEA results and verified that concrete
slab bridges have the strength necessary to resist highway loading. David et al.
(2010) performed finite element analysis on a reinforced concrete slab bridge.
Only the concrete slab was modeled and the reinforcing steel was ignored. The
slab moments from FEA agreed reasonably well with the experimental moments.
Finite Element Method is used to investigate the effect of IRC vehicle loads on
simply supported concrete deck slab for different span length and constant width of
12 m with and without footpaths.

3
1.3 IRC CLASS VEHICLE LOADS

Vehicle Load Placed Close to One Edge of the Slab with Footpath
a) One lane of IRC Class AA Tracked Load.
b) One lane of IRC Class 70R Tracked Load.
c) Two lanes of IRC Class A.
Vehicle Load Placed Close to One Edge of the Slab without Footpath
a) One lane of IRC Class AA Tracked Load.
b) One lane of IRC Class 70R Tracked Load and one
Lane of IRC Class A Load.
c) Three lanes of IRC Class A Load.
Vehicle Load Placed at the Centre of the Slab
a) One lane of IRC Class AA Tracked Load.
b) One lane of IRC Class 70R Tracked Load.
c) Two lanes of IRC Class A Load.
d) Three lanes of IRC Class A Load
e) One lane of IRC Class AA Wheeled Load.

1.4 GENERAL INFORMATION

The New Mexico Department of Transportation uses the Current
Edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and the current
interims as the primary standards for the design of bridges in the State of New
Mexico.
However, under certain circumstances it may be preferable to base design on the
Seventeenth Edition of the AASHTO Standard Specification for Highway Bridges
instead. One such circumstance would be when rehabilitating or widening an

4
existing bridge which was originally designed using the AASHTO Standard
Specifications.
The State Bridge Engineer’s approval needs to be obtained prior to using the
Standard Specification. It is assumed that users of this manual are familiar with the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and with current bridge design
practice, methods, and procedures.

1.5 PURPOSE OF MANUAL

The purpose of this manual is to supplement the AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications and all interims. It is NOT intended to replace the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications or any other design guide or
regulatory code. The intent is to provide guidance as well as an interpretation of
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications specific to New Mexico bridge
design practice so that uniformity in bridge design procedures will be attained.
This manual is intended to provide general guidance, and not solutions that are
specific to any project. New bridge design information is continually developing.
This information is usually the result of specific project experiences, ongoing
research, and information published by other agencies. In order to incorporate this
new information into future designs, NMDOT will revise this document as
necessary. An effort has been made to incorporate project experience, design
preferences and selected research into this edition.
 Design Innovation

Although much of this Guide is devoted to the presentation of standardized design

techniques and construction practices, this in no way implies that the NMDOT
Bridge Bureau will not use innovative approaches. Quite the opposite is true. The
presentation and implementation of ideas that will save construction time, save

5
money or will improve quality are encouraged. Innovative ideas do however need
to be presented to and approved by the State Bridge Engineer prior to
implementing them.

1.6 DESIGN METHOD

The information presented on the various bridge elements and the design
example Calculations are based on Load and Resistance Factor (LRFD)
methodology. The main objective of LRFD is to proportion structures so that for
all limit states, the summation of factored loads (Also multiplied by load
modifiers) are less than the factored resistance of the structure. Limit states
identified by the AASHTO LRFD Specifications include service, strength, fatigue
and fracture, and extreme events. Imperial units are to be used in all bridge design
drawings.
 Standards and Design References
The design of highway bridges is to be in accordance with
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Other necessary or useful
documents are:
1. NMDOT Standard Specifications for Highway and Bridge
Construction, Current Edition (herein after referred to as the NMDOT
Standard Specifications).
2. AASHTO Roadside Design Guide.
3. AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.
4. NMDOT Materials Geotechnical Manual (the most recent edition).
5. NMDOT Drainage Design Guidelines for Local Roads with Low
Traffic Volume.
6. NMDOT Drainage Manual

6
 7. Any applicable NMDOT Special Provisions and Supplemental
Specifications.
8. Design Directives issued by the State Bridge Engineer.
 Software
A variety of computer programs and software are available for
the design of bridge elements. While the design of modern highway bridges
necessitates that such programs be used, the NMDOT does not endorse or advocate
the use of any particular set of programs. The bridge designer is responsible for
checking the reliability and accuracy of the data generated by any program or
software.

1.7 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

In the design of a bridge, the design team must contend with a number of
design features and parameters. Some features (e.g. vertical clearance) have
standard minimum requirements and are addressed in subsequent sections. Others,
such as design speed, typical section, clear zone requirements, sidewalks,
screening fence, etc. must be coordinated with the Project Development Engineer.
 Clearance Requirements at Grade
Separation Structures the bridge designer must satisfy
both on bridge and under-bridge clearance requirements. The on-bridge horizontal
clearance is discussed in 1.7.4 Bridge Widths. The following discussions on
clearances pertain to under-bridge clearance requirements. Clearance requirements
are defined in the AASHTOLRFD Bridge Design Specifications, the AASHTO
Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, and the AASHTO Road side
Design Guide.

7
  Horizontal Clearances
At highway overpass structures, it is generally desirable
to provide an under-bridge horizontal clearance from the edge of a traffic lane to
an obstruction (pier, abutment or embankment slope) equal to the clear zone
distance specified in the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide. When providing this
clear zone distance is impractical, clearance requirements should be established by
the design team and obstructions shielded by a traffic barrier. The clearance should
never be less than the full shoulder width plus 2 feet.
 Vertical Clearances
Vertical clearances, specified in the AASHTO Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, are based on the Functional
Classification of the Highway. For interstate highways, AASHTO specifies a
minimum structure clearance of 16 feet plus a recommended 6 inches for future
overlay, for a total clearance of 16’-6”. In New Mexico this clearance is provided
at all grade separation structures. However, if site conditions dictate, the vertical
clearance at structures crossing secondary roadways (local roads and streets) may
be reduced to 15’-3” with approval from the State Bridge Engineer and the District
office. This lower clearance allowance is based on the 14 foot legal limit for truck
heights, 9 inches for some additional clearance, and 6 inches for future overlay.

Typical highway clearances are shown in Figure 1.3A. An additional

circumstance where a deviation from the standard 16’-6” clearance might be
warranted is the case of a grade separation structure without an interchange where
no suitable detour route is available for over height loads. Many roundabouts do
not provide an adequate turning radius for larger or longer trucks, and may not be
considered adequate for detours. Clearance requirements in such circumstances
need to be determined site specifically, and should be based on the height of the
8
permit vehicles that regularly use the route. Some important interchanges may
require greater clearances. All deviations from the standard clearance should be
coordinated with the State Bridge Engineer.
 Posting Requirements
A vertical clearance sign denoting the minimum vertical
clearance shall be posted for overhead structures with a minimum vertical
clearance of less than 16 feet. Clearance signs are not required to be posted on
overpass structures that have vertical clearances of 16 feet or greater.
 Crash Wall Requirements

Piers supporting bridges over railways should be protected

from damage by the redirection and deflection of railroad equipment. The
American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association (AREMA)
recommends using either crash walls or piers of heavy construction for piers
having a clear distance of less than 25 feet from the centerline of a track. The
AREMA states that piers are of heavy construction if they have a cross sectional
area equal to or greater than that required for the crash wall and the larger of its
dimensions is parallel to the track. Because some railroad companies have a
specific interpretation of ‘heavy construction,’ the definition should be checked
with the particular railroad company.
 Waterway and Free Board Requirements
For bridges over waterways the NMDOT Drainage Bureau
will prepare and issue a drainage report. This report will contain information on the
50-year, 100-year and 500- year flood events. The NMDOT Drainage Bureau
policy establishes the design flood for interstate bridges in urban areas as the 100-
year event. For all other bridges the design flood is the 50-year event. Refer to the
latest edition of the NMDOT Drainage Design Criteria for further information.

9
Waterway data shown on the plans should be shown for the 50-year, 100-year and
500-yearflood events. The data must be shown either on the bridge layout sheet or
the general notes sheet, and include cross-references. Required waterway data is
listed. Many rivers are controlled by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Section
404 Permit Program.
Contractors are advised of construction restraints imposed by the 404 permit
in notes furnished by the Drainage Engineer. These notes should be shown with the
waterway data.
 Free Board
Free Board shall be 2’ above the design flood high water
elevation, whether this is for the 50 or 100 year event. If the design flood is the 50
year event, Free Board for the 100-year event shall be equal or greater than zero.
(Water should not extend above the bottom of the girders) There are no Free Board
requirements for the 500-year event. Regardless of the free board requirement, the
minimum clearance under the bridge and the channel is to be four feet. This is to
help in maintenance such as cleaning of the channel. Clearances less than approved
by the District Office and State Bridge Engineer.
 Protection of Embankments
Embankment slopes should be protected from roadway
runoff erosion. Rundowns or other catchment devices should be provided where
necessary to convey the runoff to the bottom of embankment slopes. Standard
details of rundowns for bridges are shown on NMDOT’s website (dot.state.nm.us)
under the Standard.
 Waterways
Embankments in stream beds should be protected from
stream flow erosion by wire enclosed riprap or an approved equal. Requirements
for riprap are generally contained in the project drainage report. Riprap should
10
extend a minimum of 2 feet above design flood elevation and should be buried in
the stream bed to the contraction scour depth if possible.

1.8 CULVERT DESIGN PROCESS

The process of bridge design can usually be divided into the following
phases:
 Culvert Type Selection and Layout Preparation
 Foundation Investigation and Analysis
 Detailed Design and Plan Development
 Checking, Reviews, and Approvals
The following sections briefly discuss each of these phases. Bridge Type Selection
and Layout Preparation
In selecting the culvert structure type, the following should be considered:
 Functional Requirements
 Economics
 Future Maintenance
 Construction Feasibility
 Aesthetics
 Accelerated Bridge Construction.
The functional requirements for the structure are obtained from the
sources listed above as well as discussions with the project development engineer
and, when available, design inspection reports. When selecting the structure type,
all feasible alternates should be given preliminary consideration. For major
structures, a formal comparison between the two most promising types should be
prepared. Layout Preparation is the preparing of the bridge layout and transverse
section sheets. Before preparing final layout sheets and proceeding with design and

11
plan development, designers should ensure that final information has been received
for the typical sections, the alignment and/or interchange geometry. The drainage
report should also be finalized.
A checklist of contents to be shown on the bridge layout sheets
(also known as structure location sheets) is contained in Section. Contents to be
shown on the transverse bridge section are listed in. As was discussed earlier, the
Bridge Type Selection and Layout Preparation phase occurs prior to the
Preliminary Design Inspection. After this phase is completed, the layout sheets are
submitted to the State Bridge Engineer for approval of the selected bridge type and
to the bridge foundation engineer to initiate foundation exploration work

1.9 FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS

Foundation Investigation and Analysis is the responsibility of the

NMDOT Geotechnical Section. A thorough discussion of this work is beyond the
scope of this section and the reader should refer to the NMDOT Materials
Geotechnical Manual for greater detail.
The interactive nature of this process, however, is worthy of discussion and
will be the focus of this section. To ensure the success of the project, the bridge
design engineer and the project foundation engineer should actively communicate
throughout the design of the bridge.
This communication should be initiated during the Bridge Type Selection
and Layout Preparation phase of the project. At that time, discussions between the
bridge design engineer and the project foundation engineer should be held. Design
parameters and site conditions may be reviewed and any foundation conditions that
could affect the selection of the structure type should be identified. For cost
estimating and preliminary design, a probable foundation type can usually be

12
identified. After the Bridge Type Selection and Layout Preparation phase, the
completed bridge layout and transverse section sheets are submitted to the
Geotechnical Section. The\ Geotechnical Section will use these layout sheets to
plan the subsurface investigation of the site and to request field borings from the
Geotechnical Exploration Unit. Following completion of site and laboratory testing
of subsurface samples, the Geotechnical Section will begin foundation design and
preparation of the Foundation Report. Interaction with the bridge design engineer
is also required during this phase.
To complete the bridge design, the Geotechnical Section will need
loading information, both vertical and horizontal, from the bridge design engineer.
For structures that are "fixed" against horizontal movement (i.e., integral abutment
structures), the design process is iterative. Additionally, the project foundation
engineer should be apprised of construction phasing or other design constraints,
since such features should be "designed around." The foundation investigation and
analysis phase of the project culminates with completion and distribution of the
Final Foundation Report. The bridge design engineer utilizes the information
contained in the report for completing structural design and preparing plans for the
bridge's substructure elements.
 Detailed Design and Plan Development
Detailed design and plan development is the most time
consuming phase of bridge design. During this phase, design of each structural
Element is completed and detailed construction plans are developed. Because this
phase is so labor intensive, it is important not to begin work until consensus on the
proposed structure type and layout is obtained. At the Preliminary Design
Inspection, all design team members had an opportunity to review and comment on
the proposed structure type and layout. By a separate submittal, the State Bridge
Engineer also had an opportunity to review and comment on the plans. There
13
fore,after the Preliminary Design Inspection, detailed superstructure design may
begin and can run concurrently with the Foundation Investigation and Analysis
phase. Substructure design and detailing should be delayed until after the
Foundation Report has been prepared.
 Checking, Reviews and Approvals

Quality control checking by the Bridge Bureau and the

formal review and approval process by the State Bridge Engineer is discussed
in this section. A systematic quality control process should be an integral part of
the design procedure. Checks should be completed at appropriate times throughout
the design process. For example, design computations prepared for the bridge type
selection should be checked before the bridge layout sheets are drawn. Likewise,
the layout sheets should be checked before detailed design and plan preparation
Begins. In this way, each step is verified before the next step begins, and time lost
In correcting errors is minimized. A qualified person, other than the primary design
engineer, checks the design and quantity computations and the plan sheets. When
Checking design computations and design plans, all entries are reviewed. The
following guidelines may be used when checking calculations and plans:
o When checking calculations, concurrence with the entry is indicated
by a check mark.
o When checking plans, concurrence with the entry is noted by
highlighting the entry in yellow.
o An exception with the entry is noted in red for both plans and
calculations.
o All omissions are also noted in red.

14
 o All exceptions to computations on plan sheets should be verified by
the primary design engineer before they are used to make plan
revisions.
The approval of the State Bridge Engineer is required at two
stages of plan development. First, approval on bridge type and bridge layout
should be obtained before detailed design and plan development work begins.
Second, approval of completed plans should be secured before the project is let.
Approval of Bridge Type Selection and layout is usually solicited prior to or with
the Pre-final Design Inspection submittal.
Approval of final plans must be secured shortly after the PS&E review.
Bridge plans are not final until the State Bridge Engineer or Bridge Bureau Unit
Supervisor has signed them. A set of completed plans also needs to be submitted to
the foundation engineer so that he can perform a final review of the foundation
details and ensure that the recommendations contained in the foundation report
have been correctly interpreted and incorporated into the plan set.
A set of completed plans is usually submitted to the foundation engineer for
review at the same time that a set is submitted to the State Bridge Engineer. After
review, the foundation engineer will initial the bridge layout (or structure location)
sheets, indicating concurrence with the foundation information contained in the
plans.

15
 CHAPTER - 2

METHODOLOGY

2.1 GENERAL

Methodology involves the various methods involved in the

Analysis and design of the structural elements of the deck slab culvert.

2.2. DESCRIPTION

 Site selection

 Planning

 Designing(manual)
o Design of Deck slab
o Design of Abutment
o Design of Footing

16
 CHAPTER - 3

STRUCTURAL DESIGN

3.1 DESIGN OF DECK SLAB

Design Data

Carriage way = 2 lane (7.5m)

Foot path = 1.5m

Thickness of wearing coat = 75mm

Width of bearing = 570 mm

Materials M25and Fe415 HYSD bars. Loading IRC class AA tracked

vehicle.

Permissible stresses

m = 10

σcbc = 8.3 N/mm2

σst = 200 N/mm2

n = 0.29

j = 0.90

Q = 1.1

17
Depth of Slab and Effective span

Assume thickness of slab = 90mm for per meter length

Clear span = 8.83 x 90

= 794.7mm = 800mm

Over all depth = 800mm

Effective depth = 800 – d’

= 800 – (30 + (20/2))

= 760mm

Cover = 30mm diameter of bar = 20mm

Effective span

(i) clear span + effective depth = 8.83 + 0.8 = 9.63m

(ii) C/C distance of bearing + clear span = 8.83 + 0.57 = 9.4m

Effective span = 9.4m

Dead load and Live load Calculation

Dead load For Bending Moment

Dead weight of deck slab = (0.8 x 24) = 19.2 KN/m2

Dead weight of wearing coat = (0.75 x 22) = 1.65KN/m2

Total dead load = 19.2 + 1.65 = 20.85 KN/m2

18
Dead load bending moment = WL2/8

= (20.85 X 9.42) /8

= 230.51 KNm

Live load For Bending Moment

Live load will be maximum for IRC class AA Tracked vehicle

(1) For tracked vehicles = 25% for span up to 5m

For span 9.4 m

= 10 – [(15/4) x0.4]

= 8.5%

Tracked vehicle is placed symmetrically on the span

Effective length of the load = 3.6 + 2(0.5+0.08)

= 4.76m

Effective width of slab = Kx [1- (x/l)] + bw

B = 11.4m

L = 9.4m

K = B/L = 11.4/9.4 =1.5

For simply supported = 2.84

(IRC 21 page no 53)

Bw = dimensions of tiers

19
Bw = 0.850 + (2 x 0.008) = 1.01m

Effective width of slab = (2.84 x 4.7) [1- (4.7/9.4)] + 1.01

= 7.684m

Net effective width of dispersion = 9.734m

Impact = 8.5%

Total load of two tracked with impact = 700 x (100+8.5)/100

Total load with impact = 760 KNm

Average intensity of load

= total load with impact / (effective length of load x net weight of dispersion)

= 760 / (4.76 x 9.734)

= 16.40 KN/m2

Maximum bending moment due to live load

= [(W x Ln / 2)(L / 2)] – [W Ln2 / 8]

= [(16.40 x4.76 /2) (9.4/2)] – [16.40 x 4.762 / 8]

= 137 KNm

Total bending moment = MD + ML

= 230.51+ 137

= 367.51 KNm

20
Shear Force Due to Class AA Tracked Vehicle

BW = Kx [1- (x/l)] + bw

BW = (2.84 x 2.38) [1-(2.38/9.4] + 1.01

BW = 6.05m

Net effective dispersion = 8.108m

Total load of two lane with impact = 700 x [108.5/100]

= 760 KN

Average intensity of load = 760 / (4.76 x 8.108)

= 19.692 KN/m2

Maximum bending moment due to shear force

S.F = W Ln X (L – X) /L

= 19.692 x 4.76 [(9.4 – 4.76)/9.4]

= 46.26 KN

Dead load due to shear force = WL / 2

= 19.6 x 9.4 / 2

= 92.12 KN

21
 Total design shear force

= 92.12 + 46.26

= 138.38 KN

Design of Deck Slab

d = [M / (Q b)] 1/2

d = [367.5 x 106 / (1.1 x 1000)] 1/2

d = 578.005 mm

Effective depth provided = 760m

Ast = M / (σstx j x d)

= 367.5 x 106 / (200 x 0.9 x 760)

AST = 2686.403 mm2

Use 20mm diameter of bars

Area of bars = x 202 / 4

= 314.16 mm2

Spacing = (314.16 / 2686.40) x 1000

= 116.94 mm 115mm

Use 20mm diameter of bars @ C/C spacing 115mm for main

reinforcement

22
 Distribution reinforcement

M = 0.3 ML + 0.2 MD

= (0.3 x 137) + (0.2 x 230.51)

M = 87.202 KNm

Ast = M / (σstx j x d)

= 87.202 x 106 / (200 x 0.9 x 760)

Ast = 637.144 mm2

Use 12mm diameter of bars

Area of bars = x 122 / 4

= 113.09 mm2

Spacing = (113.09 / 637.144) x 1000

= 177.5 mm 175mm

Use 12mm diameter of bars @ C/C spacing 175mm For Distribution

reinforcement

Check for Shear

= V / bd

(IRC 21- 2000, page no =35)

= 138.38 x 103 / (1000 x 760)

= 0.18 N/mm2

23
 c = K1 x K2 x cd

K1 = (1.14 – 0.7d)

= [1.14 – (0.7 x 0.76)]

K1 = 0.608 0.5

K2 = (0.5 + 0.2 p)

p = 100Ast / bd

p = 100x314.16 / (1000 x 760)

p=0.4

K2 = 0.5 + (0.2 x 0.4)

K2 = 0.58

c = 0.4 IRC 21, 1987

c = 0.608 x 1 x 0.4

c = 0.2432

Hence Safe

24
Figure 3.1 Deck Slab Reinforcement Details

25
3.2 DESIGN OF ABUTMENT

Design Data

Density of the soil = 18 KN/m3

Coefficient of friction = 0.6

Angle of repose of the soil = 30o

Live load on bridge IRC class AA tracked vehicle

Span of the bridge = 9.4m

Angle of friction between soil and concrete ) = 18o

Deck slab is 800mm thickness.

Analysis

The stability of the abutment is verified

Self Weight of Abutment

Self-weight of abutment = 24[(0.57x4) + (0.57x3.2) + (0.5x4x2.309)

+ (0.5x0.3x3.2)]

= 24(9.202)

= 220.848 KN

Dead Load of Super Structure

Dead load = [(0.9x9.4x0.45x24) + (9.4x0.8x11.4x24)

26
 + (9.4x0.08x11.14x22)]

= 2286.208 KN

Figure 3

Dead loads per meter run of abutmen t= 2286.208/ 2= 1143.10 KN

Dead loads per meter run of abutment

= 1143.10 / 11.14

= 102.61 KN

Figure 3.2 Cross Section of Abutment

Reaction due to Live load

Live load reaction = 700 [(9.4 – (3.6/2)) / 9.4]

= 565.95 KN

Total load = 220.848 + 102.61 + 565.95

= 889.408 KN

Earth Pressure

= 30o

27
 Tan = 2.309 / 4

= 24.78o

Earth pressure = 0.5 x 18 x 42 cos 24.78o

Ka

Ka = 0.99 / (0.605 +0.8)

Ka = 0.704

Earth pressure = 0.5 x 18 x 42 x cos 24.78= 92.07 KN

Horizontal component of earth pressure

= 92.07 cos ( )

= 92.07 cos (18 + 24.78)

= 66.82 KN

Vertical component of earth pressure = 92.04 sin 54.78 = 75.48 KN

= 75.48 + 889.408 = 964.808 KN

= 66.82 KN

Resultant = = 967.118 KN

Check Against Overturning

28
 The earth pressure is assumed to act at a height of 0.42h = 0.42x4

= 1.68m

Moments having overturning effect = 1.68 x 6.602

= 110.9136 KN

Restoring moments

= (0.57 x 4 x1.68 x 24) + (0.5 x 2.309 x 3.2 x24x 0.57) +

(0.57 x 3.2 x 24 x 1.6) + (0.5 x 0.3 x 4 x24)

= 1703.37 KNm

Factor of safety against overturning = 1703.37 / 110.9136

= 15.35 2

Therefore, the abutment is safe against overturning.

Check against Sliding

Factor of safety = (0.57 x 889.408) / 66.02

= 7.5 > 2

Therefore, the abutment is safe against sliding.

Maximum and Minimum Base Pressures

Distance of the resultant from the toe = (1703.37 – 110.9136) /967.118

= 1.60m

Eccentricity of the resultant from the Centre of the base

29
 e = (3.27/2) – 1.64

e = 0.035 < b/6

Therefore,

Maximum pressure Pmax = (884.408/3.27)[1 + ((6x0.035)/3.27)]

Pmax = 289.45 KN/m2

Minimum pressure Pmin = (884.408/3.27)[1 - ((6x0.035)/3.27)]

Pmin = 254.522 KN/m2

Stresses are within limits as the compressive stress for concrete is

2000KN/m2.

Hence Safe

30
Figure 3.3 Abutment Reinforcement Details

31
 CHAPTER - 4

CONCLUSION

The design of deck Slab Culvert is design with following

elements. The deck slab, and abutment and footing .the design of river across

culvert more beneficiaries at the heavy traffic area. In this design project we have

done the design features of the river across culvert. We have planned to prepare the

analysis of the structure.

32
REFERENCES

1. Phatak D.R., “Bridge Engineering”, SatyaPrakashan, New Delhi, 1990.

2. Ponnuswamy S., “Bridge Engineering”, Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi, 1996.

3. Rajagopalan. N. “Bridge Superstructure”, Alpha Science International, 2006

4. Johnson Victor D., “Essentials of Bridge Engineering”, Oxford and IBH

Publishing Co., New Delhi, 1990.

5. Jagadeesh .T.R. and Jayaram.M.A, "Design of Bridge Structures", Prentice Hall

of India Pvt. Ltd, Learning Pvt. Ltd., 2013

6. Krishnamurthy, D., “Structural Design & Drawing – Vol. II and III, CBS
Publishers, 2010.

7. Shah V L and Veena Gore, “Limit State Design of Steel Structures” IS800-
2007, Structures Publications, 2009.

8. Krishnaraju, N. “Structural Design & Drawing, Universities Press, 2009.

9. Punmia, B.C., Ashok Kumar Jain, Arun Kumar Jain, “Comprehensive Design of
Steel Structures, Laxmi Publications Pvt. Ltd., 2003

33
10. Mallick, D.K. and Gupta A.P., “Reinforced Concrete”, Oxford and IBH
Publishing Company,1997

11. Syal, I.C. and Goel, A.K., “Reinforced Concrete Structures”, A.H. Wheelers &
Co. Pvt. Ltd., 1998

12. Ram Chandra.N. andVirendraGehlot, “Limit State Design”, Standard Book

House, 2004.

13. Subramanian. N., "Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures", Oxford

University, New Delhi, 2013.

14. Coates R.C, Coutie M.G. and Kong F.K., “Structural Analysis”, ELBS and
Nelson, 1990

15. Pandit G.S. & Gupta S.P. "Structural Analysis – A Matrix Approach", Tata
McGraw Hill 2004.

16. William Weaver Jr. & James M. Gere, "Matrix Analysis of Framed Structures",
CBS Publishers and Distributors, Delhi, 2004

17. Gambhir. M.L., "Fundamentals of Structural Mechanics and Analysis"., PHI

Learning Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2011.

18. Jain, A.K., “Limit State Design of RC Structures”, Nemchand Publications,

Roorkee, 1998

34
19. Sinha, S.N., “Reinforced Concrete Design”, Tata McGraw Hill Publishing
Company Ltd., New Delhi, 2002

20. UnnikrishnaPillai, S., DevdasMenon, “Reinforced Concrete Design”, Tata

McGraw Hill Publishing Company Ltd., 2009

21. Punmia.B.C., Ashok Kumar Jain, Arun Kumar Jain, “Limit State Design of
Reinforced Concrete”,Laxmi Publication Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2007.

22. Bandyopadhyay. J.N., "Design of Concrete Structures"., Prentice Hall of India

Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2008.

23. IS456:2000, Code of practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete, Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2000

24. SP16, IS456:1978 “Design Aids for Reinforced Concrete to Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, 1999

25. Shah V L Karve S R., "Limit State Theory and Design of Reinforced
Concrete", Structures Publications, Pune, 2013

35