SLAB BRIDGES

ORIENTATION

Straight Skew
 Types of Concrete Deck Sections

1. Solid slab 2. Composite of in situ concrete

in-filling precast beams

4. Voided of precast box beams

3. Voided slab
post tensioned transversely
Behaviour, Modeling and Analysis

Behaviour
- Understood by the deformation profile of bridge under loading

Cell Distortion in multi cellular decks

Differential deflection of precast beams

Behaviour, Modelling and Analysis

Modelling
Simple
Mathematical Numerical
Rigorous
 Mathematical Models

Analysis is done after making a mathematical model of

the bridge deck depending on the force transfer and force
flow.

Typical mathematical models

1.Simple beam
2.Plate
3.Grillage
 Mathematical Models – Beam models

• Applicable for narrow slab bridges – Predominant one way action

• Adopted mainly for pedestrian bridges

Governing equation

∂ 4 wx
EI = p( x)
∂x 4
Mathematical Models- Plate model

Governing equation

 ∂4w ∂4w ∂4w 

D 4 + 2 2 2 + 4  =q
 ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y 

D - flexural rigidity of plate

q- intensity of load
 Mathematical Models- Orthotropic Plate Theory

Applicability- Flexural stiffness differ in two directions

 Mathematical Models- Orthotropic Plate Theory
∂4w ∂4w ∂4w
Governing equation - Dx 4 + 2 B 2 2 + Dy 4 =q ( x, y )
∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y
where 2 Bυ= Dy υ+Dx
x y +D4 t

Ex h3 E y h3
Dx = ; Dy =
12 (1 − υx υy ) 12 (1 − υx υy )
flexural rigidities of plate

2 Dυ (
t υ 1 − D xDy
= ) x y torsional rigidity of plate
 Mathematical Models- Grillage Analogy

Original solid slab Corresponding grillage mesh

 Mathematical Models- Grillage Analogy

 A computer-aided method for analysis of bridge decks

 The deck is idealized as a series of ‘grid’ elements (or
grillages), connected and restrained at their joints.
 Each element is given an equivalent bending and torsional
inertia to represent the portion of the deck which it
replaces.
 Bending and torsional stiffness in every region of the slab
are assumed to be concentrated in the nearest equivalent
grid element.
 Restraints, load and supports may be applied at the joints
between the members, and members framing into a joint
may be at any angle.
Mathematical Models- Grillage Analogy

Solid Slab
 Mathematical Models- Grillage Analogy
Voided slabs

d
Numerical Methods (rigorous)

Finite element method:

•Plate considered as an assemblage of elements

•Displacement at the nodes evaluated using energy theorems
•Stress field in the elements obtained from the displacements.

Finite strip method :

•Structure discretized in one direction(width) and is assumed

to be continuous in other direction (longitudinal).
•Displacement function will be continuous in longitudinal
direction and discrete in width direction.
 01

Analysis of slabs under point loads

Cl. 305.16, IRC 21 (2000)

Annexure B-3, IRC 112 (2011)

“The effect of concentrated loads on slabs spanning in

one or two directions or on cantilever slabs may be
calculated from the influence fields of such loads or by
any other rational method. A value of 0.15 may be
assumed for Poisson’s ratio.”

For solid slabs spanning in one direction, the ‘effective

width’ method may be used.
 02
Effective width method for estimating
longitudinal moments in slabs under
point loads
Slabs simply supported on two opposite edges

effective width = b

What does b/B

depend on ?
 03
Effective width method for estimating
bending moments in slabs under point
loads
Slabs simply supported on two opposite edges
x = 0.1 L
B = 0.1 L

b/B depends on x/L ?

 04

b/B increases as x/L increases,

up to mid-span
 05
Effective width method for estimating
bending moments in slabs under point
loads
Slabs simply supported on two opposite edges

b/B depends on B/L ?

 06

b/B increases as x/L increases

b/B decreases as B/L increases

Effective width be = b + bw

= k (1 - x/L) + bw

function of B/L
 07
b/L = k (x/L) (1 - x/L) Cl. 305.16.2, IRC 21 - 2000
Cl. B3.2, IRC 112 - 2011

B/L k x/L b/B

0.1 0.40 0.1 0.36
0.25 0.75
0.50 1.00
0.5 1.72 0.1 0.31
0.25 0.645
0.50 0.86
1.0 2.48 0.1 0.22
0.25 0.46
0.50 0.62
2.0 3.00 0.1 0.135
0.25 0.25
0.50 0.375
 08
b/L = k (x/L) (1 - x/L)
0.30

0.25

0.20
c = (x/L)(1 - x/L)

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
x/L
 09
b/L = k (x/L) (1 - x/L) Cl. 305.16.2, IRC 21 - 2000
Cl. B3.2, IRC 112 - 2011
B/L k s.s. k cont.

0.1 0.40 0.40

0.2 0.80 0.80
0.3 1.16 1.16
0.4 1.48 1.44
0.5 1.72 1.68
0.6 1.96 1.84
0.7 2.12 1.96
0.8 2.24 2.08
0.9 2.36 2.16
1.0 2.48 2.24
 10
b/L = k (x/L) (1 - x/L) Cl. 305.16.2, IRC 21 - 2000
Cl. B3.2, IRC 112 - 2011
B/L k s.s. k cont.

1.1 2.60 2.28

1.2 2.64 2.36
1.3 2.72 2.40
1.4 2.80 2.48
1.5 2.84 2.48 2.50 ?
1.6 2.88 2.52
1.7 2.92 2.56
1.8 2.96 2.60
1.9 3.00 2.60
>=2.0 3.00 2.60
 11
b/L = k (x/L) (1 - x/L)
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
Simply
k

1.4
supported
slabs 1.2
1.0
oo Continuous
0.8
slabs
0.6
0.4
0.2
Cl. 305.16.2, IRC 21 -2000
0.0
Cl. B3.2, IRC 112 - 2011
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
B/L
 12
Effective width method for estimating
bending moments in slabs under point
loads
Cl. 305.16, IRC 21
Cl. B3.2, IRC 112

Effective width be = b + bw = k x (1 - x/L) + bw

bw is the width of the concentrated area of the load, i.e., the
dimension of the tyre or track contact area over the road surface of
the slab in a direction normal to the span plus twice the thickness
of the wearing coat or surface finish above the structural slab.

wearing coat

bw RC slab
 13
Effective width method for estimating
bending moments in slabs under point
loads
Cl. 305.16, IRC 21
Cl. B3.2, IRC 112
Effective width be = b + bw = k x (1 - x/L) + bw
The calculated effective width
(1) should not exceed the actual width of the slab cast insitu or
width of precast slab unit.
(2) should not exceed half the above value plus distance of the
load from the unsupported edge in case of loads positioned near
the edge.
(3) in the case of two or more adjacent loads, should be taken as
the sum of the calculated effective widths for each load minus
the width of the overlap, provided the slab is also analysed for
the two loads acting separately.
 14
Cl. 305.16.3, IRC 21
Cl. B3.3, IRC 112

DISPERSION OF LOADS ALONG SPAN

The effect of contact of wheel or track load in the direction of the
span shall be taken as equal to the dimension of the tyre contact
area plus twice the overall depth of the slab inclusive of the
thickness of the wearing surface.

wearing coat

RC slab
contact length
Modelling of RC Culvert Slab Bridge in SAP2000 2

span = 5.4m, width =

12m
plate-shell element
(300×300×thickness)
 3

Longitudinal bending moments due to DL

Simplified Analysis results

(kNm/m):
1) at centre: 43.7 ; 2) at edge:
32.4
 4

Transverse bending moments due to DL

Simplified Analysis results

(20%) (kNm/m):
1) at centre: 8.74 ; 2) at edge:
 5

Twisting moments due to DL

Simplified Analysis results

(kNm/m):
1) at centre: 0.0 ; 2) at edge:
 6

Arrangement of IRC Class AA tracked vehicle loads

 7

Longitudinal bending moments due to LL

Simplified Analysis results

(kNm/m):
1) at centre: 101.5 ; 2) at edge:
 8

Transverse bending moments due to LL

Simplified Analysis results (30%)

(kNm/m):
1) at centre: 30.35 ; 2) at edge:
30.35
 9

Twisting moments due to LL

Simplified Analysis results

(kNm/m):
1) at centre: 0.0 ; 2) at edge:
 10
Deformed Shape under combined DL + LL
 11

Longitudinal bending moments due to DL+LL

Simplified Analysis results

(kNm/m):
1) at centre: 145.2 ; 2) at edge:
 12

Transverse bending moments due to DL+LL

Simplified Analysis results

(kNm/m):
1) at centre: 39.2 ; 2) at edge:
 13

Twisting moments due to DL+LL

Simplified Analysis results

(kNm/m):
1) at centre: 0.0 ; 2) at edge:
 14

Twisting moment (at location of max. long. moment)

 DESIGN OF RC SLAB CULVERTS
•
•For culverts and minor bridges of total length less than 60m, the
width between the outermost faces of the bridge should be the full
formation width of the approaches, but not less than 12m for roads on
National Highways (Cl. 112.1, IRC 5).
• Minimum width of kerb of 500 mm and height of 300 mm above
the top of the deck are desirable.
• Raised footpaths need not be provided for culverts and minor
bridges having total length less than 30m, unless such footpaths exist
on the approaches.
 DESIGN OF RC SLAB CULVERTS

• The deck slab for 2-lane carriageway should be designed for the
worst effect of
(a) one lane of IRC Class AA / 70R tracked vehicle
(b) one lane of IRC Class AA / 70R wheeled vehicle
(c) two lanes of Class A loads
• In general, it is seen that Class AA wheeled vehicle will give max.
bending moment due to live load for spans up to 4m, and Class AA
tracked vehicle for larger spans.
 DESIGN OF RC SLAB CULVERTS

• For maximum shear, it is seen that Class AA wheeled vehicle

governs the design for all spans.
•The design transverse bending moment (distribution steel) should be
taken as 0.3 times the longitudinal moment due to live load plus 0.2
times that due to other loads (such as dead load, shrinkage,
temperature, etc). (Cl. 305.18, IRC 21). Revised as :
• The transverse reinforcement (distribution steel) should be atleast
20 percent of the main reinforcement. (Cl. 16.6.1.1, IRC 112).
Reference:
“Standard plans for 3.0 to 10.0m RCC solid slab superstructure with
and without footpaths for highways”, MORTH (Roads Wing), 1991.
 GENERAL
ARRANGEMENT
DRAWING
wearing course:
either 56mm thick
asphalt concrete or
75mm thick cement
concrete

DETAILS OF DECK
AND APPROACH
SLABS
DETAILS OF ABUTMENTS AND WING WALLS
 Design Data
Clear Span 5.0 m

Width of bridge (without footpath) 12.0 m

Exposure condition ‘Moderate’ (Table 14.1, IRC 112)

Width of bearing 400 mm

Wearing course 56 mm thick asphalt

Use M25 concrete & Fe 415 steel

(As per durability requirements in table no. 14.2, IRC 112)
 Design and detail of RC deck slab

Preliminary dimension
•Assume slab thickness ≈ span / 11 = 550 mm (at centre) & sloping
to 400 mm (at kerb).

•Effective depth (assuming 20φ bars & clear cover 50 mm)

d= 490 mm at centre
= 340 mm at edge.

•Effective span = c/c span = 5000 + 400 = 5400 mm (smaller)

= clear span + effective depth = 5490 mm
(Cl. 7.6.1.1, IRC 112)
 Geometry of deck slab

Deck slab Approach slab

5.4 m

D1 = 550
D2 =400
12 m
Cross section
Dead load effects
11.88 (1.23) kN/m2 Self wt. of RC slab
(wearing coat)

L =5.4 m
340 mm

 5.4 
11.88 − 0.34  = 28.1 kN/m
S.F.D  2 
(2.91 kN/m)

 5.4 2 
11.88  = 43.28 kNm/m
 8 
  (4.49 kN/m)
B.M.D
 Live Load – Class AA tracked
 Class AA Load effects

•Impact factor fraction

•Load position for maximum effects

• for maximum moment

for maximum shear

 Load position for maximum B.M

550 1200 850 1200 850

505
454

2175 2050 2506

 454 + 505 
3600 + 2 ×  56 +  = 4672
 2 
864.5 kN
Including impact

L = 5400 mm
Load position for maximum S.F

4672 864.5 kN
340

4672
x = 340 + = 2676
2
Live load - Class AA (wheeled)
 Dispersion width- for class AA wheeled

300 300 300

1200 300

1900 600 1000 600

Load position for maximum effects –
class AA wheeled
Maximum B.M

Position of
x = 2100 wheel load
500 kN (Including impact)

2412
Load position for maximum effects –
class AA wheeled

Shear Force

Position of
x = 946 wheel load
500 kN

340 2412
Class A & Class B Loading
Class A & Class B Loading
 Dispersion width for class A two lane loading
1200
500 500 500 500
150

950 1800 1700 1800

Load position for maximum effects –
class A two lane loading
Maximum B.M

x = 2100 Position of
wheel load 636 kN (Including impact)

2542
 Load position for maximum effects –
class A two lane loading

Shear Force
Position of
x = 1011 wheel load
636 kN

340 2542
 Summary of analysis results

Loading Max. B.M (kNm/m) Max. S.F (kN/m)

Class AA - tracked 98.4 64.8

Class AA - wheeled 84.1 72.1

Class A (2 lanes) 77.4 55.9

Grillage Analysis
Bending moment diagram
(Class AA tracked)
 Results from Grillage Analysis (Bending moment)

Max. Bending Moment (kNm/m)

Loading Considering
Torsionless Considering Effective width
torsional
grillage full torsion method
modifier 0.2

Class AA - tracked 123.6 114.6 97.5 98.4

Class AA - wheeled 110.4 102 85.8 84.1

Class A (2 lanes) 104.3 95.2 79.1 77.4



Results from Grillage Analysis (Shear force)

Max. Shear force (kNm/m)

Loading Considering Considering

Torsion less Effective width
torsional full torsion
grillage method
modifier 0.2

Class AA - tracked 81.8 81.8 82.5 64.8

Class AA - wheeled 82.7 83.5 86.4 72.1

Class A (2 lanes) 67.0 69.3 72.0 55.9

Plate element model
(Longitudinal bending moment – Class AA tracked)
 Results from plate element model

Longitudianal B.M. Transverse B. M.

Loading
(kNm/m) (kNm/m)

Class AA - tracked 103.7 35.9

Class AA -
92.1 38.3
wheeled

Class A (2 lanes) 88.5 33.5

Reference:
“Standard plans for 3.0 to 10.0m RCC solid slab
superstructure with and without footpaths for highways”,
MORTH (Roads Wing), 1991.
Reinforcement
detailing for 5.0m
span
Reinforcement
detailing for 5.0m
span
Working stress method
IRC 21: 2000 & Annexure A4 of IRC 112: 2011
Load combinations & permissible stresses
(Table 1, IRC 6: 2010)
 Permissible stresses in concrete
Table A4.2, IRC 112
Table 9, IRC 21

Properties /
permissible M15 M20 M25 M30 M35 M40 M45 M50 M55 M60
stresses

1. Modulus of
elasticity Ec – 26 27.5 29 30.5 31.5 32.5 33.5 35 36 37
design value (GPa)

2. Permissible
direct comp. stress 3.75 5 6.25 7.5 8.75 10 11.25 12.5 13.75 15
σcbc (MPa)
3. Permissible
flexural comp. 5 6.67 8.33 10 11.67 13.33 15 16.67 18.3 20
stress σ cbc (MPa)
Permissible stresses in steel
Table A4.4, IRC 112
Table 10, IRC 21
Type of stress in steel Permissible stress in
Bar grade
reinforcement MPa
Fe 240 Tension in flexure, shear 125
Fe 415 of combined bending 200
Tension in flexure or
240
Fe 500 combined bending
Tension in shear 200
Fe 240 115
Fe 415 Direct compression 170
Fe 500 205
Fe 240 95
Tension in helical
Fe 415 reinforcement 95
Fe 500 95
Permissible shear stresses in concrete
Table A4.6, IRC 112
Table 12B, IRC 21
 Design constants

For singly reinforced sections,

1
k b =
K Where, m = 10
σ st
1+
mσ cbc
M
=
Rσ
b k=j2 0.5 cbc b b Where, jb = 1 − kb / 3
bd
M
A st =
σ st jb d
Longitudinal Bending moment,
M = MDL + MLL = 146 kNm/m
kb = 0.294
jb = 0.902
Ast required = 1954 mm2 (20Φ @ 160 mm)

Transverse Bending moment,

M = 0.2 MDL + 0.3 MLL
= 39 kNm/m
Ast required = 515 mm2 (10Φ @ 125 mm)
 Check for shear

Design shear force = VDL + VLL =103.1 kN/m

Nominal shear stress ζv= 0.30 MPa

For M25 concrete, ζc = 0.31 MPa

ζv < ζc Hence OK
Limit states method
IRC 112: 2011
 Ultimate limit states

 Limit state of equilibrium: When subjected to various

design combinations of ultimate loads the bridge or any of
its components, considered as rigid body, shall not become
unstable.

 Limit state of strength: The bridge or any of its

components shall not lose its capacity to sustain various
ultimate load combinations by excessive deformation,
transformation into a mechanism, rupture, crushing or
buckling.
 Serviceability limit states

 Stress limitation: Concrete and steel stresses should be

within permissible stresses. (Cl. 12.2)

 Limit state of cracking: The cracking is kept within acceptable

limits of crack widths (Cl. 12.3.4). Allowable crack width
depends on exposure conditions.

 Limit state of deformation: The deformation of bridge shall

not affect the proper functioning of its elements,
appurtenances and riding quality. Deformations during
construction shall be controlled to achieve proper geometry
of the structure.
 Load factors
(Annexure B, IRC 6: 2010)

 Partial safety factor for verification of equilibrium (Table 3.1)

 Partial safety factor for verification of structural strength

(Table 3.2)

 Partial safety factor for verification of serviceability limit state

(Table 3.3)

 Combination for base pressure and design of foundation

(Table 3.4)
Annexure B, IRC 6: 2010
(Annexure B, IRC 6: 2010)
Annexure B, IRC 6: 2010
Annexure B, IRC 6: 2010
Annexure B, IRC 6: 2010
Serviceability combinations
Annexure B, IRC 6: 2010
Materials (Section 7, IRC 112)
Stress strain relationship for concrete in compression for design
 Design based on strength

Design bending moment =1.35 DL + 1.75 Surfacing + 1.5 LL

= 214.2 kNm/m
A st f ck  R  Mu (Parabolic stress
= 1 − 1 − 4.598  R= block)
bd 2f y  f ck  bd 2

Ast Required = 1522 mm2

20 mm Φ @ 200 mm spacing (A st = 1570 mm2)
Parabolic stress Bilinear stress Uniform stress block
block block
Ast req. (mm2) 1522 1528 1518

A = 589 mm2 (Cl. 16.5.1.1) A = 8500 mm2 (Cl. 16.5.1.1)

Transverse reinforcement = 20% of Longitudinal
reinforcement (Cl. 16.6.1.1)
A st required = 349 mm2
10mm Φ @150 mm spacing

Minimum top reinforcement = 25% of main reinforcement.

(Cl. 16.6.1.3)
A st required = 357.7 mm2
10 mm Φ @ 200 mm spacing

Maximum spacing as per Cl, 16.6.1.1

Check for shear (Cl. 10.3.2)
Design shear force Ved = 1.35 VDL + 1.75 VSurfacing + 1.5 VLL
= 151 kN
K = 1.694
ρ1 = 0.00373

Design shear resistance, VRd.c = 164 kN

VRd.c ≥ VEd

Hence shear reinforcement not required

 Serviceability
Section 12, IRC 112

Stress check (Cl 12.2)

Permissible stresses
 Concrete = 0.48 fck = 12 MPa
 Steel = 0.8 fy = 332 MPa

Crack width (Cl. 12.3.4)

Allowable crack width = 0.3 mm (Table 12.1)

Deflection (Cl. 12.4.1)

Allowable vehicular deflection = span/800 = 6.75 mm
h−x
3
Method Main Crack Max. Max. Deflectio Transverse
reinforcem width Stress in stress n due to reinforcem
ent (DL+ concrete in steel live load ent
LL) (MPa) (MPa) (mm)

IRC 21
20 Φ @ 160 0.27 7.06 197 1.9 10 Φ @ 125
(WSM)
IRC 112 -
20 Φ @ 200 0.32 9.07 244 1.9 10 Φ @ 150
strength
IRC 112 -
20 Φ @ 160 0.27 8.28 195 1.9 10 Φ @ 125
serviceability