See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304395832

Behaviour of Skew Bridge Using Grillage

Anology Method

Conference Paper · March 2016

CITATION READS

1 96

3 authors, including:

Hardik Solanki
PARUL UNIVERSITY
9 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SELF SENSING CONCRETE View project

Blast Resistant Building View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hardik Solanki on 25 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Behaviour of Skew Bridge Using Grillage
Anology Method
Punit Patel
P.G. Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering
Parul Institute of Engineering & Technology
Wagodia - 391760, Vadodara, Gujarat, India
E-mail ID punitrpatel06@gmail.com

Asst. Prof. Hardik Solanki Bhanuprasad N Kadia

Asst. Prof., Dept. of Civil Engineering Dy. Executive Engineer
Parul Institute of Engineering & Technology Design R & B Circle, Gandhinagar
Wagodia - 391760, Vadodara, Gujarat, India E-mail ID bnkadia@gmail.com
E-mail ID hardil.solanki@paruluniversity.ac.in

ABSTRACT HEADING

In this study summarizes the analysis of skew bridge with the different skew angle consists of 0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°. In the present
study an attempt has been made to study a single-span T-Beam Reinforced Concrete Girder under Indian Road Congress (IRC)
loading. For this study, Dead Load, Vehicular Live Load, along with live load combination is considered. T-Beam girder of 20 m
span length with 2 lane of carriage way width is 7.5 m considered. Analysis is done using Staad Pro Software. To determine effect of
skew ness on the general behavior of bridge. The analysis result show maximum bending moment, torsional moment and shear force
compared with different skew angle.

KEY WORDS: Skew Bridges; Skew angle; T-beam; referred for load considerations while designing and
bridge decks; span length. analysis of bridge. The main objective of this study is
to finding the similarities and differences between
skew bridge and normal bridge under IRC live load.
INTRODUCTION

Newly designed bridge are often skew. This is DEAD LOAD CONSIDERATION
due to space construction in congested urban area.
Skew bridge allow a large variety of solution in
roadway alignments. This contribution to a small A As Per IRC: 6 (2014) – Clause 203
environments impact for new road construction project.
It can also be needed due to geographical constraints The dead load carried by a girder or member
such as mountainous terrains. However, the force flow shall consist of the portion of the weight of the
in skew bridge is much more complicated than right superstructure which is supported wholly or in part by
bridge. In addition skew bridges are common at the girder or member including its own weight. The
highway interchange, river crossing and other extreme following unit weights of materials shall be used to
grade changes where skew geometry is necessary due determining loads, unless the unit weights have been
to space limitations. One of the most important steps in determined by actual weighing of representative
the process of analysis and designing a bridge is to samples of the materials in question, in which case the
determine the most appropriate live load representing actual weights as thus determined shall be used.
to a high certainty, the expected normal traffic loads
that might go over the bridge. These expected live
loads vary from a country to country, depending upon
many parameters such as degree of locality, the volume
of traffic, the nature of the expected major traffic
passing over the bridge. In India, IRC: 6 standards is

1
 TABLE I. UNIT WEIGHT AS P ER I RC

Sr. Weight
Materials
No. (t/m³)
1 Concrete (Asphalt) 2.2
2 Concrete (Breeze) 1.4
3 Concrete (Cement-Plain) 2.5
Concrete (Cement-Plain with
4 2.5
Plums)
5 Concrete (Cement-Reinforced) 2.5
Fig. 2. Cross Section of Minimum Clearance For Multilane Bridges
6 Concrete (Cement-Prestressed) 2.5
5. The minimum Clearance, f, between outer edge of
7 Concrete (Lime-Brick Aggregate) 1.9
wheel and the roadway face of the kerb and the
8 Concrete (Lime-Stone Aggregate) 2.1 minimum clearance, g, between the outer edged of
passing or crossing vehicles on multi-lane bridges
shall be;
LIVE LOAD CONSIDERATION
TABLE III. MINIMUM C LEARANCE FOR MULTILANE B RIDGES

A. AS PER IRC: 6 (2014) – CLAUSE 204 Clear

g f
Width
5.3 to 6.1 Varies from 0.4 m
I. IRC Class A Loading m to 1.2 m 150 mm for all
Above 6.1 carriageway width
1.2 m
This loading is to be normally adopted on all m
roads on which permanent bridges and culverts are
constructed. 6. Axle loads in tonne. Linear Dimensions in metre.

II. IRC Class 70R Loading

This loading is to be normally adopted on all

roads on which permanent bridges and culverts are
constructed. Bridges designed for Class 70 R loading
should be checked for Class A Loading also as under
certain conditions, heavier stresses may occur under
class A loading.
Fig. 1. Elevation Of Irc Class A Wheeled Loading

Notes:
1. The nose to tail distance between successive trains
shall not be less than 18.5 m.
2. For single lane bridges having carriage way width
less than 5.3 m, one lane of class A shall be
considered to occupy 2.3 m. Remaining width of
carriageway shall be loaded with 500 kg/m².
3. For multi-lane brides each class a loading shall be
considered to occupy single lane for design
purpose.
4. The ground contact area of wheels shall be as
under:

TABLE II. GROUND CONTACT AREA FOR IRC CLASS A

WHEELED LOADING Fig. 3. Elevation of IRC Class 70R Loading
Ground Contact Area
Axle Load (Tonne) Notes:
B (mm) W (mm)
11.4 250 500 1. The nose to tail spacing between two successive
6.5 200 280 vehicles shall not be less than 90 m for tracked
2.7 150 200 vehicle and 30 m for wheeled vehicle.

2
2. For multi-lane bridges and culverts, each Class 70R Vehicles accordance with the curve in Fig. 5 for spans
loading shall be considered to occupy two lanes and in excess of 12 m.
Steel Bridge
no other vehicle shall be allowed in these two lanes.
The passing or crossing vehicle can only be allowed 3. For Tracked
on lanes other than these two lanes. Vehicles 10 Percent for all span
3. The maximum loads for the wheeled vehicle shall 4. For Wheeled 25 percent up to a span of 23 m and in
be 20 tonne for a single axle or 40 tonne for a bogie Vehicles accordance with the curve in Fig. 5 for spans
of two axles spaced not more than 1.22 m centres. in excess of 23 m.
4. Class 70R loading is applicable only for bridges
having carriageway width of 5.3 m and above. LOAD COMBINATIONS
5. The minimum clearance between the road face to
the kerb and the outer edge of the wheel or tracked, A. As Per IRC: 6 (2014) – Table 1
‘C’, shall be 1.2 m.
6. Axle load in tonnes. Linear dimension in meters. For this case study, following load combination is
taken: Service I: 1.0 DL + 1.0 (LL + IM)
IMPACT LOAD
GENERAL DESIGN DATA
A As Per IRC: 6 (2014) – Clause 208
1 Effective Span of Bridge 20.000 m
I. For Class A Loading 2 Clear Carriage Way Width 7.50 m
3 Total Width 8.250 m
The impact fraction shall be determined from 4 Depth of Slab 0.250 m
the following equations which are applicable for spans 5 Depth of Girder 2.000 m
between 3 m and 45 m, for beyond 45 m refer Fig. 4. 6 Width of Girder 0.325 m
7 Width of Kerb 0.375 m
8 Depth of Kerb 0.550 m
9 Centre to Centre Distance Between 2.500 m
Longitudinal Girders
10 Centre to Centre Distance Between 5.000 m
Cross Girders
11 Numbers of Longitudinal Girders 3 Nos.
12 Numbers of Cross Girders 5 Nos.
13 Grade of Concrete M 30
14 Grade of Steel Fe 415
15 Live Load Considered
IRC Class A Wheeled Loading – For 2 Lanes
IRC Class 70R Wheeled Loading – For 1 Lane
16 Impact Factor
For IRC Class A Wheeled Loading 1.173
For IRC Class 70R Wheeled Loading 1.250

Fig. 4. Impact Fraction Graph As Per IRC

II. For Class 70R Loading

A. For Span Less than 9 m

1. Tracked 25 Percent for spans up to 5 m linearly

reducing to 10 Percent for span up to 9 m
2. Wheeled 25 Percent
B. For Span 9 m or more
Reinforced Concrete Bridges
Fig. 5. Cross Section Of T-Beam Bridge
1. For Tracked 10 percent up to a span of 40 m and in
Vehicles accordance with the curve in Fig. 5 for spans
in excess of 40 m.
2. For Wheeled 25 percent up to a span of 12 m and in

3
 Fig. 9. Screenshot of 45° Skew Bridge Generating Model

Fig. 6. Screenshot of 0° Skew Bridge Generating Model

Fig. 10. Screenshot of 60° Skew Bridge Generating Model

ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Analysis is done manually for IRC Live Load STAAD

PRO Software is use for analysis purpose. The
following are analysis summary including load
combinations defined as per each code.

A Results for IRC Live Load

Fig. 7. Screenshot of 15° Skew Bridge Generating Model
I. Class A Loading

TABLE IV. SUMMARY OF OUTER GIRDER AS PER I RC DESIGN

LOAD COMBINATION

SKEW OUTER GIRDER

ANGLE B.M S.F T.M
( KN.m ) ( KN ) ( KN.m )
0° 3600.13 831.427 219.105
15° 3497.55 861.896 542.14
30° 3204.56 921.152 927.868
45° 2687.36 1081.895 1150.451
Fig. 8. Screenshot of 30° Skew Bridge Generating Model 60° 2189.56 1071.484 1089.345

TABLE V. SUMMARY OF INNER GIRDER AS P ER IRC DESIGN

LOAD COMBINATION

INNER GIRDER
SKEW
ANGLE B.M S.F T.M
( KN.m ) ( KN ) ( KN.m )
0° 3565.634 740.299 94.174
15° 3451.848 732.758 508.195
30° 3145.805 757.598 909.62
45° 2599.931 790.392 1158.112
60° 2076.844 912.940 1144.614

4
 II. Class 70 WHEEL Loading

TABLE VI. SUMMARY OF O UTER GIRDER AS PER I RC DESIGN

LOAD COMBINATION

SKEW OUTER GIRDER

ANGLE B.M S.F T.M
( KN.m ) ( KN ) ( KN.m )
0° 3851.10 905.18 226.87
15° 3759.26 984.86 595.54
30° 3440.21 1075.03 1006.77
45° 2891.10 1127.87 1241.19
60° 2396.03 1163.21 1182.39 Fig. 12. Comparision Of S.F For Class A Loading

TABLE VII. SUMMARY OF O UTER GIRDER AS PER I RC DESIGN

LOAD COMBINATION

SKEW INNER GIRDER

ANGLE B.M S.F T.M
( KN.m ) ( KN ) ( KN.m )
0° 3771.871 827.679 204.146
15° 3684.574 814.138 645.056
30° 3379.90 843.742 1017.291
45° 2832.120 876.582 1280.763
60° 2415.570 1017.337 1273.15
Fig. 13. Comparision Of T.M For Class A Loading

Fig. 11. Comparision Of B.M For Class A Loading

Fig. 14. Comparision Of B.M For Class 70 Wheel Loading

5
 REFERENCES

[1] IRC 6 – 2014 “Standard Specifications and

Code of Practice for Road Bridges”, Section
II, Loads and Stresses, Indian Roads
Congress, New Delhi, India, 2014.

[2] N. Krishna Raju, “Design of Bridges”.

[3] V. K. Raina, “Concrete Bridges Handbook”.

[4] V. K. Raina, “Concrete Bridge Practices –

Analysis, Design and Economics”.

[5] C. S .Surana and R. S. Aggrawal “Grillage

Analogy in Bridge Deck Analysis”.
Fig. 15. Comparision Of S.F For Class 70 Wheel Loading
[6] Bridge Design using the STAAD.Pro/Beava”,
IEG Group, Bentley Systems, Bentley
Systems Inc., March 2008.

[7] Ali R. Khaloo And H. Mirzabozorg “Load

Distribution Factors In Simply Supported
Skew Bridges” Journal Of Bridge Engineering
© Asce / Jul/Aug 2003

Fig. 16. Comparision Of T.M For Class 70 Wheel Loading

CONCLUSION

I. Bending moment decreases with increasing skew

angle, it decreased around 40.47 % as compared to
right bridge in case of class A loading.
II Bending moment decreases with increasing skew
angle, it decreased around 36.86 % as compared to
right bridge in case of class 70 Wheel loading.
III Shear Force increase with increasing skew angle, it
increase around 20.657% as compared to right bridge
in case of class A loading.
IV Shear Force increase with increasing skew angle, it
increase around 20.417 % as compared to right bridge
in case of class 70 Wheel loading.
V Torsion moment increase with increasing skew angle
up to 45° around 86.405 % and it decrease after 45°
around 6.47 % in class A Loading.
VI Torsion moment increase with increasing skew angle
up to 45° around 82.89 % and it decrease after 45°
around 5.32 % in class 70 Wheel Loading.

View publication stats