716 International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering

ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp 716-719

#020410358 Copyright 2011 CAFET-INNOVA TECHNICAL SOCIETY. All rights reserved
Investigations on simply supported concrete bridge deck slab for IRC vehicle
loadings using finite element analysis

Kanchan Sen Gupta
Senior Lecturer, Civil Engineering Department, Malda Polytechnic, Govt. of West Bengal, Malda, WB, India 732102,
Email kanchan.sngpt@gmail.com
Somnath Karmakar

Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Department, NIT Durgapur, WB, India- 713209,
Email som_civil07@rediffmail.com

ABSTRACT : This paper presents the results related to finite element analysis (FEA) of simply supported reinforced
concrete bridge deck of different span lengths (3 m to 10 m) and constant width of 12 m, with and without footpath
under eleven possible Indian Road Congress (IRC) vehicle load cases. So, in total 88 no of cases were analyzed.
Dimension of deck slabs are taken from standard drawings of the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways-1991. Under
condition A (including footpath, carriageway-width 7.5 m), due to edge loading, maximum FEA bending moments are
similar to IRC bending moments for the span up to 4 m for few cases. However, for larger spans, the IRC bending
moments are less than FEA bending moments by 5 to 20%. Under condition B (without footpath, carriageway-width 9.6
m), due to edge loading, IRC bending moments are less than FEA bending moments by 4 to 30%. Under centered
loading, the IRC bending moments are similar to FEA bending moments for span up to 4 m under few cases and less
than FEA bending moments by 4 to 23% beyond 4 m. As per IRC, one lane of Class-70R or two lanes of Class-A and
one lane of class-70R with one lane of class-A or 3 lanes of class-A are to be considered as design live load for
condition A and B respectively. FEA result agrees with IRC for condition B but FEA design bending moment occurs
under IRC Class-AA Wheeled load or Tracked load for condition A.

KEY WORDS: Concrete bridge deck slabs; Finite element analysis; Vehicle loadings; Highway; Simply supported.

INTRODUCTION
In India, in the case of bridge 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 in clause 305.16.2 (1) of IRC: 21 2000.
M. Mabsout et al. ( 2004 ) investigated the effect of
vehicle loads on simply supported deck slabs using FEA
based software ( SAP 2000 ) 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: (i)
Centered loading condition where design trucks are
assumed to be traveling in the center of each lane and (ii)
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. 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 10.4 m 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 analytical
investigation 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
717
Investigations on simply supported concrete bridge deck slab for IRC vehicle
loadings using finite element analysis
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering
ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp 716-719
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.

STANDARD DIMENSION OF DECK SLABS
Based on the Standard Drawings of MORT & H (1991),
dimensions of deck slabs are taken as follows:

Span
(m)
Avg. O/A Depth
(mm)
Thickness of Wearing coat
(mm)
3 375 56
4 425 56
5 475 56
6 525 56
7 575 56
8 675 56
9 745 56
10 825 56


IRC VEHICLE LOADS WITH THE MINIMUM
SPACING BETWEEN ADJASCENT TRUCKS
1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.
Here two conditions are considered:
f) Condition A is for including footpath i. e.
carriage-way width of 7.5 m and consists of edge
loading [load cases 1(a), 1(b), 1(c)] and centered
loading [load cases 3(a), 3(b), 3(c) and 3(e)];
g) Condition B is for without footpath i. e. carriage-
way width of 9.6 m and consists of edge loading
[load cases 2(a), 2(b), 2(c)] and centered loading
[load cases 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(d) and 3(e)]

Loading diagram for case 1(a) & 2(a) for span 6 m are
given below:


FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

M. Mabsout et al. (2004) in his study considered all
elements to be linearly elastic, and the analysis assumed
small deformations and deflections. The concrete slabs
were modeled using quadrilateral shell elements (SHELL,
SAP 2000) with six degrees of freedom at each node.
Hinges were assigned at one bearing location and rollers
at the other to simulate simple support conditions. The
element size of 0.3 x 0.3 m was adopted.
Xiaoming S. H. et al. (2004)

while investigating the
distribution factors of the live load moment in seven
bridges, modeled the deck slab using four-node shell
elements with six degrees of freedom per node (ANSYS
5.7). The shell elements accounted for both membrane
and bending stiffnesses, and considered in and out of
plane bending.
David V. J. et al.

adopted quadrilateral shell elements
(SAP 2000) to model the deck slab for evaluating a
Reinforced Concrete Slab (RCS) bridge. Only the
concrete slab was modeled and the reinforcing steel was
ignored.
R. Michael Biggs (2000) adopted the quadrilateral shell
elements for modeling the reinforced-concrete slabs. In
this investigation, the general FEA programme ANSYS
rel. 10.0, developed by ANSYS. Inc. was used to analyze
each span of concrete deck slab for eleven no. of load
cases. All elements are considered as linearly elastic,
718 Kanchan Sen Gupta, Somnath Karmakar
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering
ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp 716-719
isotropic. The standard element named SHELL93 (a 8
noded shell element having 6 DOF per node) of size 0.4 m
x 0.4 m is used for modeling the deck slab. Modulus of
elasticity and Poissons ratio are considered as 25 x 10
6

kN/m
2
and 0.15 respectively. Hinges were assigned at one
support and rollers at the other to simulate simple support
condition.

ANALYSIS RESULTS
The maximum bending moments in kN-m/m for FEA and
IRC equation are given in Table 1.




Table 1 Maximum Bending Moment (kN-m/m) along span

Span
(m)
Type Load Case
1(a) 1(b) 1(c) 2(a) 2(b) 2(c) 3(a) 3(b) 3(c) 3(d) 3(e)

3.0
FEA 41.88 32.91 31.76 43.17 46.41 33.47 41.84 32.88 31.85 33.30 46.03
IRC 41.57 32.73 26.30 41.57 36.87 28.11 41.57 32.73 26.30 27.23 40.00
R.F. 0.993 0.995 0.828 0.963 0.794 0.840 0.994 0.995 0.836 0.818 0.869

4.0
FEA 63.70 50.94 44.16 68.25 69.21 49.31 62.92 50.33 43.92 48.71 57.83
IRC 58.22 50.94 36.87 58.22 53.06 42.03 58.22 50.33 36.87 39.81 52.42
R.F. 0.914 1.000 0.835 0.853 0.767 0.852 0.925 1.000 0.840 0.817 0.906

5.0
FEA 81.41 68.33 55.01 90.36 93.03 65.51 80.02 67.61 54.41 63.33 66.64
IRC 69.07 64.70 45.19 71.55 67.84 54.38 69.07 64.70 45.19 53.35 61.72
R.F. 0.849 0.947 0.822 0.792 0.729 0.830 0.863 0.957 0.831 0.842 0.927

6.0
FEA 96.65 84.16 65.00 111.58 116.04 81.77 94.68 82.78 64.00 77.54 75.15
IRC 84.31 73.00 52.29 91.72 80.84 65.97 84.31 73.00 52.29 66.90 68.44
R.F. 0.872 0.867 0.805 0.822 0.697 0.807 0.891 0.882 0.817 0.863 0.911

7.0
FEA 111.20 99.13 74.83 130.76 139.41 98.03 108.45 96.71 73.45 91.97 82.22
IRC 98.32 87.89 61.74 110.80 104.20 79.61 98.32 87.89 61.74 79.61 75.10
R.F. 0.884 0.867 0.825 0.847 0.748 0.812 0.907 0.909 0.817 0.866 0.914

8.0
FEA 125.60 113.60 85.51 149.22 163.19 115.80 121.96 110.26 83.68 107.53 89.83
IRC 110.12 100.44 69.08 127.71 149.14 92.71 110.12 100.44 64.78 89.71 80.78
R.F. 0.877 0.884 0.808 0.856 0.914 0.801 0.903 0.911 0.774 0.834 0.899

9.0
FEA 139.87 127.93 94.26 166.51 184.92 130.43 135.98 123.86 92.34 120.90 97.50
IRC 121.84 112.60 88.26 144.55 168.00 117.25 121.84 112.60 84.90 117.95 86.68
R.F. 0.871 0.880 0.936 0.868 0.909 0.899 0.896 0.909 0.919 0.976 0.889

10.0
FEA 154.05 142.14 104.74 182.98 208.39 152.12 149.17 137.49 105.36 140.78 105.38
IRC 133.25 124.41 92.51 161.00 188.24 127.36 133.25 124.41 88.36 127.21 92.63
R.F. 0.865 0.875 0.883 0.880 0.903 0.837 0.893 0.905 0.839 0.904 0.879


Bending stress contour diagrams for 6 m span under load cases 1(a) and 2(a) are given below:





Fig 4. Bending Stress contour diagrams for 6 m span under load cases 1(a) and 2(a)

719
Investigations on simply supported concrete bridge deck slab for IRC vehicle
loadings using finite element analysis
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering
ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp 716-719
CONCLUSION
The paper presented the results of an investigation of
concrete bridge deck slabs using finite-element analysis.
Simply supported deck slabs were considered for various
span lengths & load cases. Total 88 load cases were
analyzed and maximum bending moments along span
were compared with those obtained from Cl. 305.16.2.(1)
of IRC : 21 2000.

Based on the results of this investigation, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
(i) Under condition A, as per Table 2 of IRC 6: 2000, load
case 1(b) or 1(c) or 3(c) is to be considered as design live
load. But FEA results showed that:
(a) for 3 m span, the design i. e. maximum bending
moment occurs under load case 3(e),
(b) for spans beyond 3 m, the design bending moment
occurs under load case 1(a).

Again calculations based on IRC equation showed that
design bending moment occurs under load case 1(a) or
3(a), both giving the same value.
(ii) Under condition B, as per Table 2 of IRC 6 : 2000,
load case 2(b) or 2(c) or 3(d) is to be considered as design
live load.

FEA results showed that the design i. e. maximum
bending moment occurs under load case 2(b), which
means that the FEA results agree with IRC.
Again IRC based calculations showed that the design
bending moment occurs under load case 2(a) or 3(a) up to
span of 7 m and under load case 2(b) beyond 7 m. So, the
IRC equation based results agree with Table 2 of IRC 6:
2000 beyond 7 m span.

Therefore, design bending moment should be checked for
(i) one lane of IRC Class AA Tracked load placed close
to one edge & at the centre of the slab and one lane of
IRC Class AA Wheeled load at the centre of the slab
under condition A and
(ii) one lane of IRC Class AA Tracked load placed close
to one edge and at the centre of the slab for span up to
7 m under condition B.

Also the suggested reduction factors (R. F.), given in
Table 1, can be applied to the FEA bending moments to
give results similar to IRC bending moments.













REFERENCES
[1] David V. Juregui, P.E., A.M. ASCE; Alicia Licon -
Lozano; and Kundan Kulkarni, Higher Level
Evaluation of a Reinforced Concrete Slab Bridge ",
Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, March /April
2010, 172 182.
[2] Frederick, G. R. (1997) Experimental and analytical
investigation of load distribution in concrete slab
bridges. Spring Conf., Society for Experimental
Mechanics, Bellevue, Wash.
[3] IRC: 6 2000, Standard specifications and code of
practice for Road Bridges, Section: II Loads and
Stresses, Fourth Revision.
[4] IRC: 21 2000, Standard specifications and code of
Practice for Road Bridges, Section: III Cement
Concrete (Plain and Reinforced), Third Revision.
[5] M. Mabsout; K. Tarhini; R. Jabakhanji; and E.
Awwad, "Wheel Load Distribution in Simply
Supported Concrete Slab Bridges ", Journal of Bridge
Engineering ASCE, March / April 2004, 147155
[6] Ministry of Road Transport & Highway (MORT &
H) (1991), Standard Drawings for Road Bridges ",
Drg. Nos. SD/107 to SD/122.
[7] R. Michael Biggs, Graduate Research Assistant;
Furman W. Barton, Ph.D., P.E. Faculty Research
Scientist; Jose P. Gomez, Ph.D., P.E, Senior Research
Scientist; Peter J. Massarelli, Ph.D., Faculty Research
Associate; Wallace T. McKeel, Jr., P.E., Research
Manager, Final Report, Finite Element Modeling of
Reinforced Concrete Bridge Decks ", Virginia
Transportation Research Council In Cooperation with
the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal
Highway Administration, Charlottesville, Virginia,
September 2000, VTRC 01-R4
[8] Shekar, Y., Azizinamini, A., Barnhill, G., and
Boothby T. (1993). Performance of concrete slab
bridges. Final Rep., NDOR Project No. RES / 99,
Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb.
[9] Sujata Roy and Ganesh Thiagarajan, Nonlinear
Finite- Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete
Bridge
[10] Approach Slab ", Journal of Bridge Engineering,
ASCE, November / December 2007, 801 806.
[11] Xiaoming Sharon Huo, M.ASCE; Edward P.
Wasserman, M.ASCE; and Pingsheng Zhu,
Simplified Method of Lateral Distribution of Live
Load Moment ", Journal of Bridge Engineering,
ASCE, July / August 2004, 382 390.