1AStructE/TD-CC/2020/01 TS A CSC Oats bral STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND CODE OF PRACTICE FOR ROAD BRIDGES (2 40 | AWMOA) L102-9:981 VOLUME 1 OF 2 : COMMENTARY Cis Indian Association of Structural Engineers TAStructEJAStructE/TD-C¢/2020/01 COMMENTARY WITH WORKED EXAMPLES FOR IRC : 6-2017 Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges Section Il : Loads & Load Combinations (Seventh Revision) November, 2020 Volume 1 of 2 : Commentary laStructB INDIAN ASSOCIATION OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERSCommentary with Worked Examples for IRC : 6-2017 (Volume 1 of 2: Commentary) All rights reserved. No part of this publication can be reproduced in any form or by any means without the prior permission of the publisher. Edition : November, 2020 Price : Rs. 1200/- + GST @ 18% Published by : Indian Association of Structural Engineers K-69A, Basement, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 (India) Tel. : +91-11-45794829 E-mail : [email protected] Website: www.iastructe.co.in ‘Maansee Printers Pocket B-35D, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095 ‘Mobile : +91-9810125541 E-mail : [email protected](Commentary with worked Examples for IRC8-2017 (Volume 1 of 2: Commentary) Foreword The Code IRC:6-2017 for "Loads & Load Combinations" is one of a series of structural codes being prepared by the Indian Roads Congress. For Highway Bridge Designers, this code is the bible and it is not possible to practice bridge engineering in India without having any knowledge about this code. IRC codes may not be always user friendly and easy to use. There is always a demand to have some uch resource document will resource document which makes the use of code easy. also ensure better compliance of the code. war The Indian Association of Structural Engineers (IAStructE) has been deliberating the subject for quite some time. It was realised that there is need to provide Commentary to BIS and IRC codes and also few illustrative worked examples highlighting the application of these codes. These guidelines may be used by structural engineers in performing the structural design works. It will help in better code complianceand in minimising design errors. IRC:6-2017 was picked up by the Publication of LAStructE as one of the code for preparation of Commentary to begin with, Other codes will follow suit. The work of preparing the initial draft of this, guideline was entrusted to a team of experts led by the undersigned. A brain storming session was conducted in November 2019, wherein the draft was widely circulated and responses from the user taken. The initial draft was reviewed by a team of expert panel, which was led by Prof. Mahesh Tandon. The document is finally printed in two volumes. Volume-1 gives the commentary while Volume-2 gives illustrative worked examples. I take this opportunity to thank alll the contributors for sparing their valuable time in bringing out this important guideline. I am sure this guideline will be found useful by all stakeholders (Clients, Design Consultants, Independent Engineers, Proof Consultants, Contractors, Academicians) involved in the infrastructure sector. Happy Reading! ae Alok Bhowmick President, [AStructE,‘Commentary with worked Examples for IRC6-2017 (Volume t of 2 : Commentary) Message from Chairman, Publication Committee Dear Colleagues, It is my pleasure to write this message while presenting to you this important publication titled “Commentary on IRC-6-2017, Standard Specifications & Code of Practice for road bridges, Section-II Load é& Load combinations”. In India we have several codes of practices é& standards prepared by various institutions including Indian Road Congress (IRC). However, record of code compliance is not very encouraging. One of the reasons for it is non availability of simple comprehensive code commentaries. Code commentaries help Engineers to understand the intent and meaning of various clauses of code. Itimproves code compliance. Codes can serve the desired purpose only when implemented properly. In view of this Indian Association of Structural Engineers decided to prepare and publish the commentary on this IRC code. It was also decided to publish it in two volumes. Volume-1 being the commentary and Volume-2 worked examples to explain further how to use these clauses. Publication Committee identified Mr. Alok Bhowmick to lead this project. Later an expert panel consisting of Mr. Alok Bhowmick, Prof. Mahesh Tandon, Mr. Rajiv Ahuja, Mr. G L Verma, Mr. Partha Pratim Banerjee & Dr. Lakshmy Parmeswaran was formed. I am happy that expert panel has done a fabulous job in completing this commentary with worked examples in time. It has gone through several consultations & review process. A workshop to discuss it was also organised in New Delhi. My thanks are also due to all members of Publication committee and Governing Council members of IAStructE for reviewing the document and sending the comments for its improvement. I am sure these guidelines will helpall structural engineers involved in design & construction of road bridges to implement the IRC-6-2017 in aneffective manner. Do send your feedback & suggestions for itsimprovement. Best regards, Lo et Manoj Kumar Mittal Past President, IAStructECommentary with worked Examples for IRC:6-2017 (Volume 1 of 2: Commentary) About this Guideline Like many current national codes in India, the IRC code on Loads and Load Combinations (namely IRC:6-2017) isa code without a published commentary. For any structural design code, itis important for the practicing structural engineers to have a thorough understanding of the principles, the true interpretation and background of the codal clauses, which will ensure better compliance of the code. Its often found that many of the clauses presented in the code pose difficulty to some designers at least initially for its correct application. For young engineers particularly, the unfamiliarity with the codal clauses poses huge prablemsin ensuring correct interpretation and application ofthe code, This is the backdrop to the publication of this guideline, titled ‘Commentary for IRC:6-2017" by the Indian Association of Structural Engineers (LAStructE). The association recognised this need and had set up a task group to prepare the base documentin two volumes: a, Volume-1:Commentary b. Volume-2:lllustrative Worked Examples. “The first draftof this document, including proposed comments on the code was prepared by a group of engineers led by Mr Alok Bhowmick, Other members of the group were Mr Rajiv Ahuja and Dr Lakshmy Parameswaran. ‘The team was assisted by many engineers, list of which is given below. The draft document was widely circulated amongst the structural and bridge engineering fraternity and a brain-storming session was organised by LAStructE in the month of November 2019, which was attended by more than 40 participants. Many engineers, who could not attend the Brain-Storming session sent their comments thru’ email. Thereafter an expert committee was constituted by IAStructE under the convenorship of Prof, Mahesh Tandon, MD of Tandon Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and past president LAStructE to give final shape to this guideline, after going through al the comments received during and after the brain-storming session. Other members ofthis expert committee are: Mr Alok Bhowmick (MD, B&SEngincering Consultants vt, Ltd. and President, IAStructE), b. MrRajv Ahuja (Independent Consultantand GC Member, IAStructE), € MrGLVerma (Director, EPC Consultants Pvt.Ltd), 4. MrPartha Pratim Banerje (Technical Director, Ayesa)and e.DrLakshmy Parameswaran (Chief Scientist, CSIR-CRRI} Mr Jatin Singla (Student Engineer, B&SECPL) assisted the team for the preparation of illustrative worked examples, It was decided by the expert committee to segregate comments on the existing code from the Commentary and Worked Examples. Comments on the existing code are proposed to be compiled in a separate volume and handed over to IRC for consideration of B-2 Committee of IRC. The expert panel was assisted by several engineers, listed below. ‘This publication will assist practicing bridgeand structural engineers in building confidence in thecode, which offers tools for the design of economic and innovative bridge structures. The document is rich in theoretical explanations, and draws on much experience of the authors. Worked examples further illustrate the application of the code and should promote better understanding. As members of the Expert Panel, we would like to thank all the authors, peer reviewers and members of the joint Task Force for working efficiently and effectively in producing these documents. wiQ nn ssstont Suc Eres ‘The Commentary and the Worked Examples will prove to be an authentic companion to IRC:6-2017 and deserve * : Pow per Prof. Mahesh Tandon Er. Alok Bhowmick Er. Rajiv Ahuja Mb, Tandon Consultants Pvt Lid.and President-IAStructE and Independent Consultantand GCMember,IAStructE MD, BASEngineering ConsultantsPvt.Ltd. GC Member, IAStructE Pony Latehmny «| 2 Foes set Ex Partha Pratim Banerjee ErGLVerma DrLakshmy Parameswaran Technical Director, Ayesa and «MD, EPCConsultantsPvt.Ltd.and Chef Scientist, CSIR-CRRI and Member,LAStructE Fellow lAStructE Fellow Struct Participants and contributors inthis guideline: ‘+ MrManoj Mittal + MrVipul Ahuja + MrSitaram Aggarwal + DrSKDhawan + DrDulalGotdar + MrT Viswanathan + MrAKBanerjee + MrSanjayJain + MrSoumyaa Dixit + MrHarpreetSingh ‘+ MrArpitSinghal + MrAdityaSharma + Mr Amitabha Ghoshal + DrNirmalyaBandopadhyay + MrNiravMody + MrMMGhosh + MrVarunGarg + MrKNSarvanan + MrAnirbanSengupta + MsMousumi De + MrDeepak Kulkarni + MrAhmed Bilal + MrDevjyotiPaul + MrAchintKumar + MrMohamed Azarudeen + Mr Ashish Vishnoi + MrVivekPathak + MrShubham Rastogi + MrPadamKumar + MrSuraj Mehra + MrBhumiReddyMaheswaraReddy + MrDSuresh + MsShreya Chandra + DrDurgeshCRai + MrPradhyumna ast + MrSanthosh Kumar + MsB.Shobhana + MrDevangPatel + MrRizwan + MrNishad Kulkarni +) Mr Ashish Kumar + MrTampreetSinghGill + MrUmeshSharma + MrjatinSingla + Mr Abhishek Sharma + Mr Ashutosh Mathur + MrPrtam ash + Mr.NeerajSharma Disclaimer/ Copyright: Indian Association of Structural Engineers Ail rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the Indian Association of Structural Engineers (IAStructE). ‘The opinions reflected in this document are those ofthe authors and the LAStructE cannot be held liable for any view expressed therein. Aladvice or information from the [AStructE is intended for those who will eluate the significarce and limitations ofits contentsand take responsiility forts use and application. No liability (including for negligence) forany loss resulting from such advice or information is accepted. Readers should note that all codes md standards published by the Indian Roads Congress are subject to revision from time to time and therefore this guideline isapplicableand relevant to the latest publication of the code available at the time of publication ofthis document, Readers must ensure that they arein possession of the latest version ofthe code for practical application. vilCommentary with worked Examples for IRC:6-2017 (Volume 1 of 2: Commentary) Contents SINo. Particulars Page No. 1 Introduction 1 2 Scope 2 3 Clause 201 Classification 3 4. ‘Clause 202 Loads, Forces and Load Effects 5 5. Clause 203 Dead Load 7 6. Clause 204 Live Loads 8 7, Clause 205 Reduction in the Longitudinal Effect on Bridges Accommodating 2 ‘more than Two Traffic Lanes 8 Clause 206 Foot Over Bridges, Footway, Kerb, Railings, Parapet and 1B Crash Barriers 9, Clause 207 Tramway Loading 7 10. ‘Clause 208 Impact 18 1 Clause 209 Wind Load 20 12 Clause 210 Horizontal Forces due to Water Currents 25 13. Clause2n1 Longitudinal Forces 29 14. Clause 212 Centrifugal Forces 39 15, Clause 213, Buoyancy 40 16. Clause 214 Earth Pressure a V7. Clause 215 ‘Temperature 46 18. Clause217 Secondary Effects 31 19. Clause 218 Erection Effects and Construction Loads. 52 20. Clause 220 Barge Impact on Bridges st 21. ‘Clause 221 ‘Snow Load 59 22 Clause 222 Vehicle Colision Loads on Supports of Bridges, Flyover Supports 60 and Foot over Bridges 23, Clause 223 Indeterminate Structures and Composite Structures «2 24 ANNEXUREA: Hypothetical Vehicles for Classification of Vehicles and a Bridges (Revised) 25. ANNEXUREB: — Combination of Loads for Limit State Design 7 26, ANNEXUREC: — Wind Load Computation on Truss Bridge Superstructure 79 27. ANNEXUREE: Classification of inland Waterways of India aCommentary with worked Examples for IRC:6-2017 (Volume 1 of 2: Commentary) Introduction Introduction ‘The origin of the code IRC‘ is traced back to the 1st draft “Standard Specifications & Code of Practice for Road Bridges", prepared by the Bridge Sub-committee of the Indian Roads Congress along with the explanatory notes, which was originally printed as Paper No. 112in Vol. Xof the Journal of IRC in 1946, and discussed in the Jaipur session of IRC in February 1946. ‘The code was eventually first published in December 1958. A close lookat the development ofthis code from 1958 till date reveals many interesting facts. a, a. ‘The coverage of this code has shrunk with the passage of time. In 1958, this code covered not only the Loads and Load Combinations, but also covered design of structures including stresses, with working stress design philosophy. The title of the code was "Loads & Stresses’, Subsequently the design related provisions were shifted from IRC%6 to IRC:21 and IRC:18 for reinforced concrete structures and prestressed concrete structures respectively and scope of this code was restricted to Loads and Stresses and Load Combinations only. With the introduction of limit state design philosophy in IRC further changes were introduced in the code. Seismic design was taken out from IRC:6and a separate guideline introduced in IRC (i.e. IRCSP:114) Provisions of the code pertaining to carriageway live loads have remained more or less static since its first publication in 1958, IRC Loading Class AA, Class A and Class B existed even in 1958 !!. Only additions in the loading over the years are the following i, 70R Loading (Introduced in 1964) ii, Congestion Factor (Introduced in 2011) ii, SV loading (Introduced in2014), iv. Fatigue Load (Introduced in2014) Other transient loads of rare occurrence such as accidental load due to Vehicle collision onbridge supports, crash barriers and bargeimpact loadingare later additions. Wind loading, Earth pressure loading and Seismic loading provisions have undergone significant changes over the years, Major changes in wind loading clause were introduced in 2007. Earth pressure clause has undergone major revision in the year 2014, Seismic loads have undergone modifications several times, starting from 2008 (post Bhuj-Earthquake).. In the recent past (June 2018), seismic induced loading provisions were taken out from this code and placed ina separate guideline (IRC-SP:114-2018). ‘The code as printed covers all amendments upto March 2017 only. Number of changes were brought about subsequent to March, 2017, till the date of publication of this guideline. These changes are available in the form of amendments and will be incorporated in next@ inn Asstt rca Ege Scope The 'Scope' of this code has not changed since its first publication in 1958, In the present version of the code, coverage includes, in addition to traditional dead loads, imposed loads and carriageway and footpath live loads, the force effects due to vehicle collisions, barge impact, settlement and thermal loads causing stress in the structure, Earthquake induced forces are not covered in this code. Reference may be made to IRCSP:114 for earthquake induced forces. Wave pressure on bridge and aero-elastic instability developed force effects are not covered in this code. Specialist literatures may be referred whenever such forces are encountered, ‘Some of the provisions of this code (e.g, Wind Clause) are applicable for normal span bridges with individual span length upto 150m or for bridges with height of pier upto 100m. 2 Scope‘Commentary with worked Examples for IRG:6-2017 (Volume 1 of 2: Commentary) 201.1 Clause No. 201 Clause 201 : Classification For the purpose of this code, bridges are classified according to the loads they are designed tocarry. Design of bridges is primarily governed by the live load models representing truck traffic. IRC loading models are hypothetical loads, developed from historical sources. The design live loads were introduced in the pre-independence period in 1935. Over the years additional load models in terms of SV load and congestion factors have been introduced, to take into account effect of the increased loads with passage of time. Class 70R loading and Class AA loadings were termed as “The Indian Road Congress Heavy Loading”. In 1958, when the code was first published, Class 70R loading did not exist at that time. Class AA loading was there, which was restricted to be adopted within certain municipal limits; in certain existing or contemplated industrial areas; in other specified areas; and along certain specified highways. Class 70R loading came into existence with effect from 1966 and it was made clear to the designers that where class 70-R is specified as loading, it shall be used in place of Class AA loading Class A and Class B loadings came into existence way back in 1943. Class A loading was termed as “The Indian Road Congress Standard Loading”, which was to be adopted for all roads in which permanent bridges are to be constructed, other than those which are specified for Class AA. Class B loading was termed as “The Indian Road Congress Light Loading”, which was to be adopted for temporary structures. Structures made with timber were considered as temporary structures for the purpose of loading. In the 5th revision of the code in 2010, IRC decided to design all permanent bridges for Class 70-R loading, which was earlier considered for only bridges in restricted areas under certain municipal limits (sameas for Class AA loading). It is a common practice currently to design bridges for either Class A or Class 70-R or a combination of Class A with Class 70R loading, In addition, new bridges may also be designed for Special Vehicle (SV) loading and/or loads with congestion factor, wherever required and wherever specified by concerned authorities. SV loading and Congestion Factors are ‘optional loads’, to be applied judiciously for bridges, depending upon the bridge location and type of traffic that is likely to ply over the bridge. The code clearly puts the onus on the authorities, for deciding whether a particular bridgeis to be designed for these optional loads or not. Class B loading was originally meant to be adopted for design of temporary structures & for bridges in specified areas. The clause content was modified in 2010 during the 5th revision ofthe code. Atpresent, Class B loading is prescribed for timber bridges only.D ean rset ot rc Es 201.2 201.3 There may be few existing bridges in service, which were constructed prior to 1958, when the IRC:6 came into existence. Such Existing bridges need to be given a classification number based on the highest standard of load that the bridge can carry. Incase the bridge is not safe for loads specified in clause 201.1 above, these bridges shall be checked for the Safe Loading Capacity under loading class given in Annexure-A and highest loading class may be specified for which the bridge is safe. The types of loadings given in Annexure A may also be used to design bridges for the category other than the loading given in Clause 201.1 if decided by concerned authorities who may specify the design loading in Scope of Work. ‘There may be few existing bridges in service, which were constructed prior to 1958 for tramway loading only and not for Class A/Class B or Class AA loadings. Such Existing bridges also need to be given a classification number based on the highest standard of load that the bridge can carry. For bridges constructed after 1958, bridges designed to carry tram cars are supposed to be designed also for loads as specified in clause 201.1, hence this clause isnotapplicablefor such bridges. Clause No. 201‘Commentary with worked Examples for IRC:6-2017 (Volume 1 of 2: Commentary) 202.1 Notes: Clause No, 202 Clause 202 : Loads, Forces and Load Effects Dead Load “G” in this clause includes dead load of the bridge components (superstructure, substructure and foundations etc.), superimposed dead loads (SIDL) of railing, crash barrier, utilities carried over bridge structure, surfacing/ wearing coat, backfill weight and weight of soil coming on the structure, These loads are treated as “Permanent Loads” in Table B.1 to Table B.4 of Annexure Bof this, code. Permanent loads also include Snow Load, G, (Clause 221), Backfill weight, Deformation Effects, F, (Clause 216), Secondary Effects F, (Clause 217), Grade Effects G,and Earth Pressure F,, due to backfill but excluding Live load surcharge effects (Clause 214), Live Load Q includes carriageway traffic loads given in Clause 204, Reduction in Longitudinal Effects (Clause 205), Footway and Kerb loading (Clause 206) and Tramway loading (Clause 207). Impact loading (Clause 208) Q,,, is part of Live loads. These loads come under “ Variable Loads” specified in Table B.1 to Table B.4 of Annexure B. Apart from these, “Variable Loads” also include other associated loads like Longitudinal forces (F,/F,/F) given in Clause 211, Centrifugal Forces (Clause 212), Wind loads (Clause 209), Construction Dead loads and live loads (Clause 218) and Thermal Loads (Clause215) and Liveload surcharge effects (Clause 214.1.1.3) Vehicle Collision loads V, (Clause 206 & Clause 222), Impact due to floating bodies, Barge Impact, F., (Clause 220) are grouped as “Accidental Loads” in Table B.1 to Table B.4 of Annexure Bof this code. Hydrodynamic Effect Table B.1 to Table B.4 Water Current Forces, F,. (Clause 210), Wave Pressure, F,,, (IRCSP:114) and Buoyancy are clubbed under “Hydraulic Loads” of Annexure B of thiscode. Seismic induced effects are to be calculated as per IRC:SP:114-2018. 1. AsperNote 1, the snow loads are to be taken based on ‘actual obseroations' or past records. In India, geographic locations with snow fall are sparse and hardly any historical data about depth of snowfall is available from these areas. It is therefore difficult to collect these real data forbridge design. 2. Temperature Effects can be assessed for the applicable data given in Clause 215. 3. Wave forces are applicable to bridges located off-shore, in sea or in rivers where tidal variation exists, The IRC code has not yet specified this loading. Specialist literature needs to be referred for computation of these forces till IRC comes out with provisions for calculations of loads due towave forces.Q tan ssc sutton 202.2 4. — Grade efects are “Permanent Loads” and will develop only when bearings are aligned parallel to longitudinal grade or cross fall. Vertical load on bearing then can be resolved into two components-one along the grade/ bearing surface and the other perpendicular to the _grade/bearing surface. When bearings are placed in horizontal direction and bottom surface of superstructure isalso horizontal, grade effects will not exist. This clause is further elaborated and expanded in Annex-B of the Code where loading combinations for Verification of Equilibrium, Ultimate Limit state for verification of Structural strength, Serviceability Limit state and Design of Foundations have been specified. Table-1 is applicable only for structural design of bridges designed with working stress method. This clause is now redundant for concrete and steel bridges, since such bridges are to be designed with Limit State design philosophy as per the latest version of these codes, The code for Brick, Stone and Cement Concrete Block Masonry (IRC:40) is still following working stress approach, for design of which Table-1 becomes applicable. Timber Bridges are also added in this category of Bridges for which Table-1 is stated to be applicable, though there is no IRC code for design of timber bridges. For bridges designed as per limit state philosophy, Annex-B has been introduced in the code, explaining the load combination principle and partial safety factors for various load combinations. For Checking the base pressure in open / well foundations and for geotechnical capacity of pile foundations, load combinations given in IRC:78-2014 have to be followed. The IRC:78 load combination will be applicable till such time when Limit State method is included in the Foundation Code. IRC has finalised the limit state version of the code, which will be published soon for use. However, for structural design of foundations, Limit State Method only has tobe followed, for which, load combinations given in IRC:6 (Annex-B) shall be followed. Clause No, 202,‘Commentary with worked Examples fr IRC:6-2017 (Volume 1 of 2: Commentary) Clause No. 203, Clause 203 : Dead Load This clause deals with the unit weight of materials for the computation of dead loads to be assumed in the design of bridges. ‘The use of the term ‘dead load in this clause not only means self-weight of main structural components (such as girders, deck slab, pier caps, piers ...etc.), but also covers ‘superimposed dead loads’, such as handrails, crash barrier, wearing. surface, footpath, service loads, backfill weight, weight of soil coming on structure ...etc.@ ian ssosston ct rece Eines 2041.1 204.3 Clause 204 : Live Loads The first publication of IRC:6 was in 1958, with loading models developed from historical sources. The design live loads (i. Class AA, Class A, Class B) were taken same as introduced by Britishers way back in 1935 and have never been updated. Class 70R tracked and wheeled loading isa later addition in 1966. ‘The IRC loadings are hypothetical loads, which do not have any relations with the vehicles currently used in the country. They are however proposed with the objective of covering the worst combination of axle loads and axle spacing likely to arise from the various types of vehicles that arenormally expected to use the road. Class 70R (Wheeled & Tracked Type): The wheeled vehicle of Class 70R is a truck-train loading of 7 axle. It weighs 100T and is 13.4m long (front wheel to rear wheel). The tracked vehicle of Class 70R isa military tank with a gross weight of 70T witha track length of 4.57m. (15 ft), whereas the tank length is 7.92m (26 ft.). Notes below Fig.1 gives various assumptions and conditions for using this loading in the bridge. Class A (Vehicular loading) : This is a truck-train loading of a four axle truck followed by two trailers, each trailer having two axles. It weighs 55.4T and is 18.8m long. Notes below Fig.2, Table-2 & Table-3 give various assumptions and conditions for using this loading in the bridge. Class B (Vehicular loading): This is equal to 60 percent of Class A loading. Notes below Fig.4, Table-4 & Table-5 give various assumptions and conditions for using this loading in the bridge. Class AA (Military loading): This is a military tank with a gross weight of 70T and a track Jength of 3.6m, whereas the tank length is 7.2m. Details of this loading is given in Annex-A. Clause 104.3 of IRC:5 pertains to Width of carriageway and hence reference is made to this clause. As per clause 104.3 of IRC:5, the minimum width of carriageway for one-lane and two-lane bridge shall be 4.25m and 7.5m respectively. The carriageway width shall be increased by 3.5m forevery additional lane of traffic. The upper limit of carriageway width for given number of lanes is worked out based on following principle: — Outer to Outer width of Class A Loading =2.3m — Minimum clear gap between two class A vehicle = depending upon carriageway width = varying from 0.4m to 1.2m — Minimum clearance from kerbs =0.15m (Cause Wo, 204Commentary with worked Examples for IRO:6-2017 (Volume 1 of 2 : Commentary) 204.4 Clause No, 204 — Maximum Carriageway Width which can allow for'N' number of Lanes, CW <2.3 x (NH) +g xN +015 x2 — Hence forN=1,g=0.4m,CW<23%2+0.4*1+0.15*2=5.3m go 1.2m, CW<23%x3+1.2%2+0.15x2=9,6m = 1.2m, CW<23x44+1.2%3+0.15%2=13.1m, = 1.2m, CW <2.3%5+12%4+0.15%2=16.6m = 1.2m, CW<23*6+1.2%5+0.15%2=201m = 1.2m, CW<23*7+1.2%6+0.15%2=23.6m ‘The code recommends to check the bridges for Class AA loading also, wherever Class 70R loading is specified and vice versa. Worst of these two loadings shall be considered for the purpose of design Illustrative Worked Example highlighting methodology for live load positioning to obtain the design forcesin simply supported and continuous spansis given in Volume 2 of 2of this Guideline (ie. Worked Example No. 204-1 to 204-3). Bridges in some of the select corridors in India are subjected to much higher axle loads than. whats legally permitted as per Motor Vehicle act. These bridges are therefore subjected to higher loads than they were actually designed for. Though legally, for any load plying beyond the legal limits, permission has to be obtained from MoRT&H, but there is lack of regulation on the subject and the ground reality is higher loads do ply on roads without very effective checks and controls. Moreover heavily loaded commercial trucks are found to be traversing in tandem, one after the other, without much gap and in case of traffic jam over bridges, the cumulative effect of these loads in many occasions are found to be higher than the effect of hypothetical vehicles considered in the design. In order to account for this overloading and increase in commercial traffic density, the concept of congestion factor loading was introduced in IRC:6 in the year 2011, for select corridors. All bridges need not take into account the congestion factor in design. Concerned. authorities shall take the call based on the locality where the bridge is to be constructed on. the basis of guidelines as given in this clause. In case of multi-lane bridges, where congestion factor is to be considered, the reduction factor as per clause 205 is also applicable. Further, It may be noted that temperature effects shall not be included while considering LL with congestion factor. While applying this load combination however, bearing frictional force shall not be ignored, though the footnote under Table B.1 includes frictional forcesas partof temperature forces. Congestion factor as given in Table of the code has been evolved on the basis of desk study conducted for various simply supported spans having span length ranging from 10m to 75m, with commercial vehicles GVW 40.2 tonnes (ie. articulated heavy vehicle with 2 axleQ nn sort ot rca Ener 204.5.1 2045.3 tractor and 3 axle trailer) and GVW 49 tonnes (i. articulated heavy vehicle with 3 axle tractor and 3 axle trailer), by considering an overloading factor of 1.4 0n these loads and by considering minimum spacing between rear and front axles of two successive GVW vehicles as 20m in moving traffic case and 4m in crowded traffic jam case (refer Annex-3, IRC:SP:37). Congestion factor shall be applied only when all carriageway lanes are occupied with live loads. The vehicles on the bridge are considered to be either stationery or moving at very low speed. No transverse eccentricity, no centrifugal forces and no braking/tractive force shall therefore be considered when congestion factor is considered. Vehicles carrying Overweight consignments threaten bridge safety and contribute to fatal accidents. Considering the increased frequency of these vehicles due to exponential growth of infrastructure in the country, need was felt to incorporate a provision in the code for Special Vehicle. For this purpose, a desk study was conducted by Ministry of Road ‘Transport & Highways way back in 2011-12, wherein broadly the entire spectrum of multi- axle hydraulic trailer vehicles operational in the country at the time of study were considered for studying the impact of these loads on bridges. The study report in two volumes, titled "Consultancy Services For Assessment of Adequacy of Road Bridges to Carry Over Weight Cargo Using Multi-Axle Hydraulic Trailers’ was accepted by MoRT&H, which formed the basis for issuance of a guideline for movement of OWC/ODC by MoRT&H vide letter no, RW-NH-35072/1/2010-S&R(B) dated 20th May 2014. Based on these study reports, a representative Special Vehicle load of 385 Tonne was evolved, which represents infrequent heavy overloads carried using multi-axle hydraulic trailers. Such ‘Over-Dimensioned and Over-Weight vehicles "can be authorised to travel on particular routes of the highway network’, after ascertaining the condition of the existing bridge and after review of the capacity of the bridge to carry such heavy loads. It may be noted that SV loading is applicable only for bridges having two lane carriageway or more. Reduction factor given in clause 205 shall not be applied for design of structures carrying SV load, in case of single multi-lane undivided carriageway with symmetrical or unsymmetrical configuration. For dual multi-lane carriageways, where the two carriageways are structurally independent (SI. No.3 of Fig. 6B), Reduction factor given in clause 205 shall not be applied for design of structures carryingSV load. For dual multi-lane carriageways, where the two carriageways are structurally independent for superstructure but the substructure and foundation is common (SI. No4 of Fig. 6B), Reduction factor given in clause 205 shall not be applied for design of superstructure carrying SV load. For design of substructure and foundation, reduction factor shall be applicable for the carriageway carrying normal live loading only. It may be noted that effect of thermal load need not be taken in this situation for the substructure and foundation, sinceSV loading is there in one carriageway. 10 Clause No. 204Commentary with worked Examples for IRC:6-2017 (Volume 1 of 2: Commentary) 04.5.4 204.6 Clause No, 204 For dual multi-lane carriageways, where the two carriageways are structurally connected (Gl. No. 5 of Fig. 6B), Reduction factor given in clause 205 shall be applicable for the carriageway carrying normal live load only. No reduction factor shall be applied for carriageway carryingSV loading. It may be noted that effect of thermal load need not be taken in this situation for the superstructure, substructure and foundation, since SV loading is there in one carriageway. For the carriageway carrying normal CWLL however, the braking and tractive force and dynamic impact force need to be considered. Also, when SV loading is plying over the bridge, wind, seismic induced forces and temperature gradient forces need not be considered. Fatigue design, should be based on the most frequent load that occurs, because many repetitions are needed to cause the fatigue failure. Hence fatigue check is not applicable for SV loading, The fatigue vehicle defined in Section 204 is based ona comprehensive study at CSIR-CRRI, using the actual truck data collected during the period of 2009 to 2013 at 14 locations, ie., on 6 NH, 6 SH and 2 MDR, The data (comprising of 16317 trucks collected using weigh pads/WIM/traffic survey) was analysed to arrive at the attributes of the most frequent truck suchas equivalent vehicle weight, number of axles, axle spacing and axle load. ‘The equivalent gross vehicle weight of fatigue load model was calculated using the procedure proposed by Schilling (1977) and this method was also used to define the fatigue load model specified in AASHTO (1990). During the analysis of truck data, it was seen that the proportion of three axle trucks were dominating in twelve of the fourteen locations included in this study, therefore the proposed fatigue load model isa threeaxle truck, ‘The statistical analysis was carried out to arrive at the most frequent axle load ratio and axle spacing. Also, the frequency of truck traffic was estimated which could be used to arrive at the number of cycles to be considered for fatigue design considering the service life of bridge. Since the fatigue clause came into existence in IRC:6 in the year 2014, considerable research has been carried out by the IRC (B-2) committee. Based on these research and industry feedbacks, the fatigue clause is being revised. 1"Q bon test acta Eros 2 Clause 205 : Reduction in the Longitudinal Effect on Bridges Accommodating more than two Traffic Lanes This clause is relevant for multi-lane bridges having more than two lanes of carriageway. The reduction in vertical live load effect (termed as ‘longitudinal effect) is to cater for the fact that there is lesser probability of all the lanes being loaded with full carriageway live loads simultaneously. The reduction factor given in the table includes reduction to be applied for bending moment in vertical plane, vertical shear forces, torsional effects, centrifugal forces and reactions on bearings, substructure & foundations developed globally due to live loads. This reduction factor shall not be applied to local analyses like deck slab design, transverse analysis in case of box girder ete. The term Longitudinal Effects' should not be confused with ‘Longitudinal Forces'. This reduction for multi-lane bridges is not applicable to longitudinal forces for which Clause 211 is applicable for multilane carriageway and also not applicable to transverse live load effects for design of transverse cross section. 1) Fora multilane carriageway, live load effects i.e, bending moment, shear force and torsion due to live loads, after applying the reductionsas given in Table 8, shall not be less than the live load effects obtained by loading two adjacent lanes of same carriageway simultaneously. 2) If the bridge supports undivided multilane carriageway on independent piers/ foundations, this reduction is applicable when more than two adjacent lanes are loaded. 3) __ If the bridge carries multilane divided carriageway on single superstructure and single substructure & foundation, total number of lanes of both carriageways will be considered for the purpose of reduction recommended in this clause. 4) If the bridge carries two independent multi-lane carriageways/superstructures on common substructure/foundations, then reduction will be calculated for each carriageway separately, for the design of superstructure, but total number of lanes of both the carriageways will be considered for applying reduction factor for substructure & foundation design. The reduction in live load effects in this clause is also applicable to reactions on bearings, and design of substructure and foundations. Reduction factor is also applicable when congestion factor on live load is applied in multi-lane bridges. However, Reduction factor is notapplicable to SV loading under any combination with other carriageway loadings. Ilustrative worked examples showing the methodology to apply this clause for bridges carrying 3-lane and 4-lane traffic is given in Volume 2 of 2 of this document for clarity (Worked Example No. 205-1, to 205-3). ‘lause No, 205,Commentary with worked Examples for IRO:6-2017 (Volume 1 of 2: Commentary) 206.1 Clause 206 : Foot Over Bridge, Footway, Kerb, Railings, Parapet and Crash Barriers Bridges may or may not have footpaths. Wherever footpaths are provided, these also have to be designed for carriageway loading as specified in 2-Lane, 4-Lane & 6-Lane Manuals (IRC: SP-73, IRC: SP:84 and IRC: SP:87 respectively). In addition, these also need to be checked for certain live load intensity and accidental loadings, as specified in this Clause. Parapets are dlefined as "Barrier installed on the edge of a bridge from safety considerations and intended to restrain users from falling off the bridge" as per clause 101.33 of IRCS5. ‘These elements are not to be confused with "Crash Barriers", which as per Clause 101.12 of IRC: 5 are defined as "A barrier provided at the side of carriageway designed to reduce the tisk of serious accidents by guiding the errant vehicles back on the road. The design loading, therefore, is given separately for parapets and crash barrier. Railings are generally provided at the edge of deck carrying footpath as shown in Fig. 1 of IRC:5-2015. "Kerbs" are raised concrete section provided at the edge of carriageway in ‘median, at the edge of footpath below Railing and below Metallic Crash Barrier, as shown in Fig. 1, Fig. 4 & Fig, 5 of IRC'5-2015. Kerbs re also sometimes provided at the inner face of Parapet as described in Clause 1098 of IRC:5-2015. "Safety Kerbs" are also provided sometime, having width of at least 750 mm for occasional use by pedestrians where footpath is not provided (Clause 101.41 and 109.8.3 of IRC:5-2015). For further details of these components, Clause 109.6, 109.7, 109.8 and 109.9 of IRC:5-2015 may be referred. Main Structural members of the bridge (like girders, box girders, cross girders, stringers and deck slab, bearings, retaining walls, supporting crash barrier, substructure and foundations etc.) need not be designed for this horizontal loading, applied on parapet, railing or crash barrier, except that the connection between kerb/ailings/ parapet, crash barrier and the deck slab should be adequately designed and detailed to cater for this load. In order to satisfy this requirement, one may require checking section at the junction of these components with supporting component. Ilustrative worked example is presented in this document to show the applicability of this clause (Worked Example number 206-1). A minimum load of 400 Kg/m’ is to be considered for design of bridge floors accessible to pedestrians and animals. A higher intensity of 500 Kg/m* is recommended for Foot over bridges and also for footpaths where crowd loading is expected. In addition, bridges likely to be subjected to crowd loading, should be designed for the case where entire carriageway isoccupied by crowd loading. Clause No, 206 8® tan scat ct Suca ones 206.2 206.3 206.4 206.5 206.6 4 As per this clause, a kerb width more than 0.6m can also serve as footway. However, as per IRC:5, minimum kerb width of 0.75 m is specified which can be used by pedestrians. A lateral force of 750 Kg/m at top of kerb is recommended due to accidental hitting of vehicles. Safety barrier, when provided, shall be designed for footway loading in addition tolateral force of 750Kg/m. ‘Vertical load may be treated as Variable load and lateral load may be treated as Accidental Effect for the purpose of load combinations given in Table B.2 & B.4. For accidental load, the partial safety factor shall be taken as=1.0 ‘This clause recommends reduction in footway loading for the reason that the entire span length may not be fully loaded with maximum footway loading. The reduction in footway live load is not to be considered for local effects. However, when crowd loading is considered for design of bridge, the reduction given in this clause is not applicable. This reduction clause is also not applicable in case of footbridges, Width of footway, ‘W' in the formula represents the total width of footpath in the deck, which is considered in the load combination. In case footpaths are provided on both side of the carriageway, both the widths are to be added to get "W" when the deck is designed under "both side footpath loaded" case. However while checking for "one side footpath loaded" case, the width of oneside footpath only needs to be considered. Ilustrative worked examples showing the applicability of this clause for Bridges are given in Volume? of 2of this document for clarity (i.e. worked examples No. 206.2.and 206.3.) The footway, only in case where there is possibility of vehicle mounting the kerb, will be checked for accidental load of 4 tonne for the" Accidental combination’ given in column 3 of ‘Table B-2 by taking partial safety factor=1 and ignoring the footway loading P. This clause is relevant for raised footpath. Where footways are provided at the same level of deck slab, the full width of deck shall be designed for carriageway loading of Clause 204. ‘These loadings are applicable when crash barriers are provided at edge of the carriageway and parapets/railings provided at the edge of footpath in a vehicular bridge and in footbridges. These railings / parapets are not to be designed for vehicle collision loads. ‘Typei) are generally solid parapet walls provided at the edge of footpath/ cycle track. ‘Type i) railings are similar to RCC/Steel railings shown in Fig, 1 of IRC:5-2015, The loading, given in this clause will be treated as "Variable Loads' for the purpose of design. No wind loads need to be considered on parapets/railings while designing these for the loading specified in clause 206.5. Also, these have to be designed only for Basic Combination of Table B.2and Rare & Quasi-permanent combinations of Table B.3 of IRC:6. Loadings given in this clause are vehicle collision loads based upon crash testing of concrete crash barrier against the moving vehicles. Only Ultimate Limit State for ‘Accidental Combination (Column 3 of Table B.2) shall be checked for this loading, Main structural members need not be designed for the forces arising due to crash barrier loading Clause Wo. 206‘Commentary with worked Examples for IRC:6-2017 (Volume 1 of 2: Commentary) except that the connection between crash barrier and the deck should be adequately designed and detailed. ‘The speed, vehicle weight and angle of impact mentioned in Table-9 are the parameters for which concrete crash barriers have been crash tested and equivalent static forces for design have been given in Table-10. These forces are not to be increased further for different Parameters and are adequate for design of concrete crash barrier for the situations mentioned under Application in Table 9. The code does not specify any loading for flexible/semi-rigid type metallic crash barriers and recommends full scale testing for acceptance even though such crash barriers are shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5(c) of IRC:-2015, Flexible & Semi-rigid type of crash barriers are quite common for highways and used extensively. Flexible barriers are yielding type such as wire rope safety barrier. Semi-rigid type barriers offer required resistance to errant vehicles by deflection of the longitudinal member to an acceptance limit. However for bridges, these type of barriers have limited application. Clause 109.64 of IRC:5 prohibits use of flexible and semi-rigid barriers on outer side of the carriageway for bridges without footpath. Their application in bridgesiis limited to only medians ina dual-carriageway or in between footpath and carriageway in areas of low intensity of pedestrian traffic. For semi-rigid and flexible crash barriers, specialist literature like AASHTO and Euro codes may be referred for methodology for testing & acceptance criteria and for design forces in absence of testing, Design forces for these types of barriers need to be included in IRC. Figures C206-1 to C206-4 showing loading on concrete crash barriers are given below: 100mm 1580 \ 2 Clause No, 206, 2.0m (MIN.) [c= 2.0m (MIN 3.5m (MAX) Sane NOTE: Uiein Metres arr eee CRASH BARRIER LOADING TYPE P-1 CRASH BARRIER LOADING TYPE P-2 FOR BENDING MOMENT FOR BENDING MOMENT (NORMAL CONTAINMENT) (HIGH CONTAINMENT) Fig. C2064 Fig. €206-2 8Indian Association of Stuctural Engineers 206.7 16 SHEAR FORCE (KN) IN CRASH BARRIER TYPE-P1 (NORMAL CONTAINMENT) 187.5L SHEAR FORCE (KN) IN CRASH BARRIER TYPE-P2 (HIGH CONTAINMENT) Fig. C2063 Fig. C2064 Shape and dimension of rigid crash barriers should preferably be in conformity with the sketch given in clause 109.6.3 of IRC. Any other type of rigid barrier, though permitted for use, is not advised since the efficacy of the new type of barrier has to be established on the basis of full-size tests carried out by the laboratories specializing in such testing, There are nolaboratories / agencies in India who are equipped to do this type of testing. Clause No. 206,Commentary with worked Examples for IRC:6-2017 (Volume 1 of 2: Commentary) 207.1 Notes: 207.3 (Clause No. 207 Clause 207 : Tramway Loading Though minimum width of carriageway for vehicular live load is 3.5m, for tramway, the occupied lane width by tramway is given as3m. Considering 3m width of roadway for tram, the lateral clearance available to single truck or bogie car is 0.3m (ie. = (3.0-2.4)/2). For double deck bogie car, the width of tram is narrow and therefore the lateral clearance available will be more. The tram configuration shown in Fig. 8 and rolling stock weight given in Table 11 are only typical. Actual details will vary according to rolling stock available. ‘The nose to tail distance between tram and standard carriageway live loading of Clause 204.1 has not been specified in the code. It appears from this clause that bridge shall be designed for carrying tram line in one lane and standard loading of Clause 204.1, followed or preceded in the same lane and also in other lanes. The bridge is also to be designed for the carriageway live loads, without considering Tram ines. aQ Wan nce ot Saco aes 208.1 208.3 8 Clause 208 : Impact A vehicle moving across a bridge at a normal rate of speed produces greater effects than a vehicle that remains in a static position on the structure. This increment in load effects can. be called as the forces due to dynamic action of the moving load, which in bridge design terminology is referred to as impact. Thus it can be said that impact factor is the equivalent static effect of the dynamic vehicular loading. ‘The Impact factor is applied for Concrete and Steel bridges, for Class A, Class B, Class 70R and Class AA loadings. The code is silent about the impact factor on steel-concrete- composite bridges, for which same impact factor as for steel bridges may be adopted conservatively. The dynamic responses of a bridge under vehicle loading are a complex phenomenon because of the interaction between the bridge and the vehicle. The surface roughness, vehicle characteristics, the geometry and type of bridge have significant effect on the dynamic bridge-vehicleinteractions. The code represents this impact factor by a simplified formula, which covers only three parameters (namely vehicleclass, material of bridge deck and span length). Graph C208-1 & Graph C208-2 presented below, represent the provision of this clause for RCC/PSC Bridges and Steel Bridges respectively. LEOR foe PACTFATORFON IPC CONCRETE ANDES BORE pieht abe { a 108) ops Graph C208-1: Impact Factor for RCC/PSC Bridges Clause No, 208Commentary with worked Examples for IRO:8-2017 (Volume 1 of 2 : Commentary) 208.4 208.5 208.6 208.7 208.8 208.9 Clause No. 208 IMPACT FACTOR FOR STEEL As AIRS ase fens adn ode Graph C208-2 Impact Factor for Steel Bridges Impact factor is not applied on footway loading, since footway load isa static load. Ilustrative worked examples highlighting correct application of this clause for various loadings are given in volume 2 of 2 of this guideline (Worked Examples No. 208-1 to 208-5). Span length to be considered for calculating live load reactions on bearings shalll be the effective span of the main longitudinal girders. ‘The reduction in Impact factor is recommended due to dampening of the dynamic effect by the fill below. As per this clause, all structural elements upto bottom of pier cap/abutment cap are to be designed for full impact and the reduction in impact factor is applied from below the soffit ofcap, down toa height of upto3m. For a trussed bridge, the impact factor for cross girders (spanning between the truss) and deck slab (generally spanning between the cross girders) should be taken different from the main truss members and should correspond to their effective spans. For Impact factor to be applied for members like vertical hangers, vertical members and diagonal members of a truss and spandrel columns/walls etc., Impact factor as calculated for main longitudinal member/truss member, to which the vertical hangers/vertical members and diagonal members ofa truss/spandrel columns/ wall etc. areconnected, shall be considered However, if hangers, vertical members and diagonal members, spandrel columns/walls are directly connected to cross girders, then the impact factor for the members shall be same as for cross girders. Code does not specify Impact factor for Suspension bridges, Cable Stayed and long span footbridges etc. for which dynamic effects cannot be given in simplified form. Either one hhas to carry out detailed dynamic analysis or alternatively refer to international codes/specialist literature for this purpose. 19® rian aston ct ral res 209.1 209.1.1 Clause 209 : Wind Load Wind is air in motion relative to the surface of the earth and isnota steady phenomenon due to natural turbulence or gustiness present in it. The wind speeds at any location are extremely variable and in addition to steady wind at any time, there are effects of gusts which may last for a few seconds, Wind gusts are associated with turbulence which is primarily found in the atmospheric boundary layer, close to the surface of earth. In this region, low static stability and large vertical wind shear due to surface friction gives rise to turbulent motion. A Peak Gust is peak gust speed associated with the maximum amplitude. Gusts can be extremely important for design of structures with high slenderness ratios. Wind action on bridges can adversely influence their static and dynamic stability. For short and medium span bridges, with rigid superstructures, which are not susceptible to wind induced oscillations, the code adequately covers with sufficient details a prescriptive procedures, allowing conservative calculations for the design forces. The provision of the code does not apply to bridges involving pier heights above 100 m or bridges having span lengths greater than 150m. The dynamic characteristics of a bridge structure is defined by natural frequency and amplitudes of various modes of vibration and associated damping, which would affect its response to the turbulence present in wind, which itself gets modified due to obstructions or presence of other structures. For cable stayed and suspension bridges which are prone to dynamic wind effects, reference shall be made to specialist literature. Wind forces are to be considered for stability check as well as for the design of various bridge components. Wind force acting on a bridge component depends on wind characteristics, the terrain and local topography at the bridge site, the height of bridge deck above the ground, shape and. dimension of cross-section. Wind loads are not combined with juilibrium and Structural strength, ntal and Seismic effects for verification of India has complex wind climate and the country has been divided into six wind speed zones. The basic wind map is given in $875 (Part-3) :2016. Clause No. 208‘Commentary with worked Examples for IRG:6-2017 (Volume 1 of 2: Commentary) Cause No, 208 The basic wind speed given in Fig.10, as applicable to 10m height above mean ground level, is the peak gust wind speed averaged over 3 seconds for 50 years return period. It includes both mean and fluctuating component of turbulent wind. The country has been divided into six zones and certain coastal regions are affected by cyclonic storms as indicated in the basic wind speed map. For the estimation of wind force, hourly mean wind speed (ie wind averaged over one hour) is considered and shown in Tablel2. Using the existing theories of gust factor method, requires the knowledge of maximum. wind speed averaged over one hour at a particular location. Therefore, for the benefit of bridge designers, hourly mean wind speed and pressure has been specified, in the code corresponding to a basic wind speed of 33 m/sec and return period of 100 years. Values are given for bridges situated in plain terrain and terrain with obstructions, with a flat topography. It may be noted that the basic wind map given in IRC:6 needs to be updated so that itis in conformity with the latest map as published in NBC 2016. IS 875 (Part-3) : 2015 classifies terrain into 4 categories. In IRC:6-2017, only two type of terrains are specified for simplification, "Plain Terrain" of IRC:6 corresponds to "terrain category-1" and “terrain category-2" combined of IS 875 (Part-3) : 2015. "Terrain with Obstruction’ of IRC:6 corresponds to "terrain category-3" and “terrain category-4" combined of IS875 (Part-3) : 2015. ‘The values of V, and P, given in Table 12are derived from IS:875 (Part3) as seen below: As per Clause 6.4 of IS:875 (Part3), VH = ky WhereV,, = Basicwind speed from Fig. 1 (Fig. 10 of IRC: 6-2017) = 33m/sec (takinglowest value) ket = 01423 (In (Z/Z,,)* (Z,,) 0.0706 Zz = 10 Za = 0.002 for Category-1 Clause 63.1 of IS:875 kas = 07815 VyH = 0,7815*33=25.79 m/sec Design hourly mean wind speed atheight Z is given by Ved = Vy HK) *K, ky k, = Risk coefficient as per Clause 6.3.1 of IS:875 - Part3 1.08 for 100 years return period a@ inn tsneabn ot Src Eanes 209.3.1 09.3.2 209.3.3, k = Topography factoras per Clause 6.3.3 of IS:875-Part3 = 10 k = Importance factoras per Clause 6.3.4 of IS:875-Part3 = 10 Ves = 25.78% 1.08%1*1=27.8m/sec P, = 06x27892 = 463.7N/m* Values of V, & P, for other speeds and Terrain are worked out based upon above criteria and stated in Notes under Table-12, Generally, bridges are built over rivers, canals, railway line ete, which fall in the category of plain terrain whereas flyover and other elevated structures are built in urban situations withnumerous spaced structures. ‘The relationship between hourly mean wind speed (V,) and the pressure produced by it (P,) assumes the mass density of air as 12 kg/m’, which changes slightly with atmospheric temperatureand pressure. For the design of bridge deck superstructure, wind induced forces acting in the transverse, longitudinal and vertical directions are to be considered acting simultaneously. ‘The transverse wind force acting on bridge superstructure depends on the hourly mean wind pressure P, at deck level, Gust factor G,, the drag coefficient C, based on deck cross- section, type of deck, spacing of beam and solid area inelevation. Transverse wind force F, is obtained by multiplying area of superstructure as specified in Clause 209.3.2 with wind pressure P, given in Table-12, Gust factor Gand Drag Coefficient Co. Gust factor is defined as the ratio between a peak wind gust and mean hourly wind speed and reflects the effect of sudden burst of high speed wind of very short duration. It is function of the size and dynamic characteristics of the structure. The values given in this clause areaverage values for typical bridge structures. For dynamically sensitive structures (like cable stayed and suspension bridges etc.) the use of wind tunnel testing to determine a project specific gust factor is warranted. ‘The drag coefficient C, is a type of aerodynamic coefficient: a dimensionless factor that is used to quantify the drag or resistance of an object in a fluid environment such as air or water. Drag coefficient indicates the object will have less or more aerodynamic drag and is always associated with a particular surface area. It relates the magnitude of the fluid force ona particular geometric shape to the approaching wind speed. Drag coefficients are Clause No, 208Commentary wih worked Examples for IRC:6-2017 (Volume 1 of 2: Commentary) 209.3.4 209.3.5, 209.3.7 209.3.8 209.4 Clause No, 209, typically a function of the relative orientation of the object with the direction of the impinging wind Code specifies Drag coefficients C,, for different shapes and sizes based upon specialised literature. The drag coefficient for bridge decks with different geometric cross-section has been proposed based on the values given in British Advisory Document BD 37/ 01. For example, the coefficient (C,) for slab bridges with width to depth ratio (b/d) > 10 is specified as 1.1 For bridge deck supported on single box girder, the C, is given as 1.5if (b/d) =2andas1.3if b/d> 6and for intermediate (b/d) the value of C, could be interpolated. When two independent superstructures are supported on a common pier, effect of shielding of windward side super structure shall be considered on leeward side superstructure. There is no guidance available in the code for the same. In this regard, clause8.3.1, Note 4 of EN 1991-4 provides some guideline which isas follows: "Where two generally similar decks are at the same level and separated transversely by a gap not significantly exceeding 1 m, the wind force on the windward structure may be calculated as ifit were a single structure. In other cases, special considerations may have to be given to wind-structure interaction. According to above reference, wind structure interaction analysis may be carried out to consider shielding effect of windward deck into leeward deck (i.e. reduce wind load on leeward deck) if the clear spacing of the both decks is greater than 1.0m. Ifthe clear spacing, between both decks are less than 1.0m then wind load need not to be taken for leeward deck. The longitudinal wind force in superstructure is not separately computed and taken as a stipulated percentage of transverse wind force depending on the type of bridge deck cross- section, For the computation of wind force acting on the bridge deck, lift coefficient and plan area of deck isto be used. Here wind speed at deck level means "Basic Wind Speed "as given in Fig. 10 of thecode. For stability of superstructures constructed by cantilever construction method and resting on bearings/temporary supports, wind forces play significant role in increasing overturning moment and reducing stabilising moments and these should be considered for verification of equilibrium. For the design of substructure, wind forces transferred from bridge superstructure and. wind loads directly acting on the substructure are to be considered, without accounting for any shielding effect. ‘The drag coefficient for pier, depends on the shape and dimensions of cross-section and height towidthratio.Indian Association of Structural Engineers 209.5 Drag coefficients for piers of (i) rectangular, (ii) square, (iii) octagonal, (iv) 12 sided polygons (v) circular cross-sections with rough and smooth surfaces, values are given in Table 13. These are applicable for rectangular piers with triangular nosing as well as curved corners. For unusual shapes of piers, wind tunnel testing or referring to specialist literature with similar geometrical cross-section (if datais available) is tobe adopted. Code is silent regarding longitudinal force on substructure. In absence of this, longitudinal force for substructure may be taken as 25% of the transverse wind load. The correct application of this wind clause for various type of bridges is illustrated in ‘Volume 2 of 2 of this guideline in the form of worked examples (Worked Example No. 209-1 and 209-2), As per note 4, C, for pier shall be calculated with Height to breadth ratio of 40 in alll service stage load combination. ‘The drag coefficients (Section 209.3.3) and lift coefficients (Section 209.3.5) are for deck cross-section generally used in bridge design of span up to 150m. Similarly the drag coefficients given in Table 13 are for pier cross-sections used in bridges which are not dynamically sensitive structures. For other deck cross-sections and for dynamically sensitive structures wind tunnel testing shall be adopted for estimating design wind forces. ChauCommentary wih worked Examples for IRC:6-2017 (Volume 1 of 2: Commentary) Clause 210 : Horizontal Forces Due To Water Currents 210.1 210.2 210.3 Clause No, 210 Piers and Foundations in stream & river are subjected to pressure due to flowing water which strikes against these. In general, forces exerted due to water flow can be represented as:a) static pressures; b) hydrodynamiceeffects. This clause pertains to only the static pressure caused by water, in the submerged part of the structure. Hydrodynamic effects can be further sub-divided in following :i) The hydrodynamic force due to currents on submerged obstacles; ii) forces due to wave actions for structures on sea; and iii) effects caused by an earthquake (tsunamis). Hydrodynamic force due to currentson submerged obstaclesis covered in IRCSP:114. The pressure due to water current depends on velocity of flowing water, direction of flow and shape of the pier/ foundation, Pier axis may be either parallel or perpendicular or inclined to the direction of water flow. The pressure on any pier face perpendicular to direction of water flow is given by the following expression: P= K(w/2gv° Where Kis the drag coefficient and its value depends on pier shape w = specific weight of water=1000 kg/m’ acceleration due to gravity=9.807 m/sec” o © V_ = _ velocity of flowing water ‘Substituting these values in above equation, P~S2KV\ Itis obvious that drag coefficient, 'K' is less where flow is stream lined through cut waters. The angles mentioned in the sketch given in 3rd, 4th and 5th pier shapes shall be read as noted below a. Inthe3rd sketch, theangleshould be read as"30? and less" asagainst"30" shown. b. Inthe 4th sketch, the angle should be read as "30° < @<60°" as against "80°" shown. ©. IntheSthsketch, theangle should be read as "60° <0<90" asagainst"90" shown. "Mean velocity’ is the average velocity which when multiplied by cross sectional area of stream gives the discharge. Velocity given by Manning's equation is mean velocity. Surface 2%Q ttn ssceton ct Sac eaeoes 210.7 EXAMPLE CASE 1: Treat group as solid rectangle ‘when spacing between piles along and across velocity is higher than mean velocity and is maximum at surface. It is almost zero at bed level / maximum scour level. For the purpose of calculation of water current force, velocity at surface is considered as V2 times mean velocity and zero at point of deepest scour (i.e, at maximum scour level). A linear variation is assumed between V* (=square of (V2 times mean velocity) at water surface and zero at maximum design scour level (i.e. including the local scour depth). For the purpose of this clause, spacing between piles or trestles is to be considered as centre tocentre distance. Treatment of piles/ trestles depends upon the fact whether the pile group isbraced or unbraced. In case the piles/trestles are ‘unbraced’ and spacing between piles is kept less than 3d (where'd' is the diameter of pile/ trestle), the pile group shall be treated as one solid element for the purpose of water current force computation. However, in case the spacing between piles / trestles is keptas 3d or more, the piles shall be treated individually for water current force computation and group action need not be considered. The decision to consider piles individually or in a group as solid rectangle depends not only on the spacing of piles in one direction but also on the proximity of other piles in other direction as well. Sketches given below illustrate application of this clause in practical situations. @ reco @ 7 OF FLOW $8, <3D i <3 | $230 EXAMPLE CASE 2: Treat ples individually when spacing between piles along & across the flow is greater than or equal to 3D DIRECTION (OF FLOW $,<3D the flow direction is less than 3D DIRECTION oF + $,<30 §,23D S,230 EXAMPLE CASE 3 : treat group as solid rectangle as shown when spacing between piles along flow direction is less than 3D while across the flow direction is greater than 3D EXAMPLE CASE 4 : Treat group as solid rectangle as shown when spacing between piles along flow direction is greater than 3D while across the flow direction is less than 3D 6 Clause No. 210,Commentary with worked Examples fr IRG:6-2017 (Volume 1 of 2: Commentary) S< 3D | 5,<3D, EXAMPLE CASES : Treat group as solid rectangle when spacing between piles along & across the flow isless than 3D. 1 ! T S< SOT S20 EXAMPLE CASE 7: Treat group as partsolid rectangle as shown when spacing between piles along flow direction is less than 3D in some part & more than 3D in other part, while across the flow direction is less than 3D. Clause No. 210, eo e@. |S223D i @ t i DIRECTION i OF FLOW $2 3D ne EXAMPLE CASE 6: Treat piles individually when spacing between piles along flow direction is greater than or equal to 3D. DIRECTION S$, 23D OF FLOW EXAMPLE CASE 8 : Treat group as part-solid rectangle as shown when spacing between piles along flow direction is greater than 3D, while across the flow direction is less than 3D. 27Q isn soon of Several erorees '3<3D $< 3D, (S530, $<3D t EXAMPLE CASE 9: Treat group as solid rectangle as EXAMPLE CASE 10: Treat group as partsolid rectangle shown when spacing between piles along and across ‘as shown, depending upon spacing between piles flow direction is less than 3D along and across flow direction, For'braced' piles/trestles, the group is to be considered as solid element irrespective of the spacing between piles. For definition of braced and unbraced members, reference may be made to section 11 of IRC:112. The application of this entire clause 210 on water current forces is illustrated in worked examples in Volume 20f2 of this guideline (Worked Example No.210-1 to210-3). 2 Clause No. 210,Commentary with worked Examples for IRC‘6-2017 (Volume 1 of 2: Commentary) 2114 211.2 211.3 Clause No, 211 Clause 211 : Longitudinal Forces This clause covers only longitudinal forces caused by braking/ tractive forces and frictional resistance offered to the movement of free bearings due to temperature variation, shrinkage and creep. Forces due to wind, seismic, vehicle collision, water current forces. etc. also cause longitudinal forces, which is not covered in this clause. Actions due to temperature variations, shrinkage & creep of concrete on bearing or support are because of restrained deformations. They are considered together in this section for the sake of simplicity, although they correspond to different physical phenomena. A sketch showing the application of this clause is attached in Fig. C211-1 below for better appreciation Legend: a Train-....20% Braking 1b. Succeeding Train-2....10% Braking — Train-3on 3rd Lane... ..5% Braking 4. Succeeding Train-4on3rd Lane ..5% Braking Fig, C211-1 : Braking Force in a continuous mult-lane bridge For multi-lane bridges with divided carriageways, the superstructure can be one single entity with common substructure and foundation or else there can be two independent superstructures ona common substructure and foundation or there can be two structurally independent bridges all together. Treatment of Braking / tractive forces in each of these cases shall be different, In case of structurally independent units, the longitudinal force shall be calculated by considering each unit as separate entity. In case of two independent superstructures resting on single sub-structure/foundation and multi-lane divided carriageways supported on single superstructure/substructure/ foundation, traffic lanes of all the carriageways shall be considered for the purpose of calculating braking force on the commonsubstructure/foundation. Transferring of the force from its point of application to the bearing level entails not only additional vertical reactions, but also other associated lateral forces depending upon the point of application of the load with respect of centre of mass of the deckD tan ssn of rca Ege 215 2115.1 2115.11 2151.2 2115.13 Simply Supported and Continuous Spans on Unyielding Supports Simply Supported Spans on Unyielding Supports ‘The clause gives formulae for working out the forces in fixed and movable bearings for simply supported spans. 'R,' in the formulae is the reaction at free end due to live load including impact. Derivation of the formulae is given below for better understanding, Incase of simply supported bridges, the longitudinal force in the pier comes from bearings of two spans supported by it. The code does not give a clear picture as to what is the net forces transferred to substructure, where two different set of forces are going to act from two lines of bearings, which may be of different type, carrying different span lengths, and different loads, Derivation of Formulae as given in clause 211.5.1.1 Sketch below shows the basis of deriving the formula of forces incase of a simply supported. bridge. ‘Case-1:When H/2<2uR, ‘Case-2: When H/2>2uRy. is = (Ta IS aR eve | | Re Re [ne 2 |} | rare (uk, ETolal(Hi2 44s) ETO (Hur) (CASE 1A: LOAD ‘HIS FROM A TO 8) (CASE 2A: LOAD ‘HIS FROM ATO) <4 — IR Goer, Re FR IETotal(tR) Erol -HR (CASE 1B: LOAD IS “H' FROM B TOA) (CASE 28: LOAD ISH" FROM B TO A) Horizontal Forces due to Externally applied & self induced forces for simply supported Bridges The coefficient of friction at the moveable bearings given in this clause is meant for design of, substructure and foundation only. For design of bearings, the design coefficient of friction is given in IRC:83, which should be followed. For resisting seismic induced forces, the friction between bearing and contact surface with superstructure/ pedestal is to be ignored. In this case, = 0.5 shall be used, which results in high frictional force for substructure and foundation design. Therefore, it is logical to restrict the span upto 10m for simply supported spans resting on supports without bearings. Shear strain in elastomeric bearing = A/T; Shear stress = H/ A, where: 4 = Horizontalmovement; T Thickness of Elastomer layers including covers. 30 Clause No. 211