Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

8.

MOVING LOAD ANALYSIS ON SEGMENTAL BRIDGES


One of the main loads on a bridge structure is the vehicular load moving through the bridge
superstructure. This loads generate moments and shear forces across the bridge structure. The
bridge should be well analysed and designed to resist this forces. IRC 6:2014 lists out the
different types of vehicular loads to be considered for the analysis of moving load. Inadequate
analysis of vehicular loads can lead to the failure of the entire bridge.

8.1 METHODOLOGY

The types of vehicular load considered for the present study are:

8.1.1 Class 70R wheeled vehicle

The arrangement of axle loads and their positions are as shown in the Fig.8.1.

80 kN 120 kN 120 kN 170 kN 170 kN 170 kN 170 kN


3.96m 1.52m 2.13m 1.37m 3.08 1.37
m m

Fig.8.1 Live Load Class 70R wheeled

8.1.2 Class A wheeled vehicle


The arrangement of axle loads and their positions are as shown in the Fig.8.2.

27 kN 27 kN 114 kN 114 kN 68 kN 68 kN 68 kN 68 kN
1.1m 3.2m 1.2m 4.3m 3m 3m 3m

Fig.8.2 Live Load – Class A wheeled


In order to study the effect of vehicular load two different parametric studies were conducted:

I. Varying number of spans – No. of spans of the bridge superstructure is varied


from two to five.
II. Varying length of the span – Span length of the bridge superstructure is varied
from 40m to 80m at 10m intervals.

8.2 MODELLING OF BRIDGE


The bridge considered for the study is a two lane continuous segmental bridge of span 50m
each constructed using span by span approach. The height of the bridge is taken as 3m and

- 45 -
width of the deck is taken as 10m. Cross section of the bridge superstructure for moving load
analysis is as shown in the Fig.8.3. M50 grade concrete and Fe540 grade steel is used for the
superstructure of the bridge. Vehicular load and impact factor is calculated and provided over
the bridge deck as per IRC 6:2014. Typical model of a segmental bridge modelled in Midas
Civil is shown in the Fig.8.4.

Fig.8.3 Cross section of the bridge for moving load analysis (All dimensions in m)

Fig.8.4 Mathematical model of segmental bride superstructure


Since the bridge is two lane, following live load combinations are considered as per IRC
6:2014:

i. Class 70R Wheeled


ii. Class A wheeled – 2 lanes

8.3 RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS


The results and observations for both the parametric studies are presented in this section.
8.3.1 Varying number of spans
Analysis was performed on all the different models using Midas Civil. The maximum values
of bending moment and shear forces for different spans are as shown in the Table 8.1 & Table
8.2 respectively.

- 46 -
Table 8.1 Maximum values of BM for different spans in kN-m
No.of Dead Load Class 70R Class A – 2 Lane
spans Sagging Hogging Sagging Hogging Sagging Hogging
2 40471 38253 9328 10314 9397 11009
3 43036 40389 9778 9724 9884 10456
4 41374 40135 9664 10067 9725 10766
5 41756 40125 9714 10013 9734 10668

Table 8.2 Maximum values of SF for different span in kN


Dead Load
No. of spans Class 70R Class A – 2 Lane
+ve -ve
2 5975 5558 1063 1220

3 6069 5414 1049 1241

4 6012 5411 1082 1255

5 6012 5395 1081 1226

Observations from the current study is as follows:


i. Two lane class A develops higher bending moment than single lane class 70R.
ii. Two lane class A develops higher shear force than single lane class 70R.

8.3.2 Varying length of the spans


Analysis was performed on all the different models using Midas Civil. The maximum values
of bending moment for different span length are as shown in the Table 8.3.

Table 8.3 Maximum values of BM for different span lengths in kN-m


Span Dead Load Class 70R Class A – 2 Lane
length (m) Sagging Hogging Sagging Hogging Sagging Hogging
40 26041 25255 7129 7616 7226 8494
50 40471 38253 9328 10319 9379 10097
60 58094 53940 11538 12451 11835 14719
70 78907 73324 13739 15687 15864 20678
80 102914 93404 16872 21453 20159 26873

- 47 -
The variation of sagging and hogging bending moment for different span lengths are shown in
the Fig.8.5 and Fig. 8.6 respectively.

25000
Sagging Moment (kN-m)
20000

15000

10000 70R
5000 2_Class_A

0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Span (m)

Fig. 8.5 Variation of sagging bending moment w.r to span


30000
Hogging moment (kN-m)

25000
20000
15000
10000 70R
2_Class_A
5000
0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Span (m)

Fig.8.6 Variation of hogging bending moment w.r to span


The maximum values of bending moment for different span length are as shown in the Table
8.4 and its variation is shown in the Fig.8.7.

Table 8.4 Maximum values of SF for different span lengths in kN


Dead Load
Span length (m) Class 70R Class A – 2 Lane
+ve -ve
40 4950 4533 967 1029
50 5975 5558 1063 1242
60 6998 6581 1231 1463
70 8021 7604 1484 1656
80 9044 8627 1588 1815

- 48 -
1950

1800

Shear Force (kN)


1650

1500

1350
70R
1200
2_Class_A
1050

900
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Span (m)

Fig.8.7 Variation of shear force w.r to span


Observations from the current study is as follows:
i. At smaller spans bending moment developed due to two lane class A and class
70R are comparable.
ii. At higher spans two lane class A develops higher bending moment than single
lane class 70R.
iii. Two lane class A develops higher shear force than single lane class 70R.
iv. The bending moment developed due to class 70R and class A increases with
increase in span length.
v. The shear force developed due to class 70R and class A increases with increase in
span length.

- 49 -