rubberized concrete bridge: an alternative structure

Rubberized concrete Bridge: An alternative structure

Shubham Tripathi, Dr. Ramakant Agrawal , Aakash Shrivastava

1. Asst.Prof, Department of Civil Engineering, SISTec-R Bhopal, India

2. Prof. & Head, Department of Civil Engineering, OIST Bhopal, India

3. Asst.Prof, Department of Civil Engineering, SIRT Bhopal, India

Abstract

Railway and highway bridges are designed to carry multiple heavy loads at a time due to high

traffic conditions which may lead to their failure.Dynamic loads such as train load or loads

due to high speed vehicle movementon the bridge may lead to collapse of the deck portion of

bridge. Cement concrete produced with ordinary ingredients are offer less strength in flexure

when subjected to dynamic loads. Rubber tyre pieces can be a better option for the

replacement of aggregates in cement concrete .addition of rubber tyre pieces not only

increases the flexural strength of concrete but it does not affect the onsite workability of

concrete. Rubberised concrete can be used in deck slab of bridges as an alternative

material.Here a Deck slab bridge with standard cement concrete and with rubberised concrete

is modelled using STAAD pro software & the same structures are analysed for IRC loadings.

From the results valuable conclusions can be drawn in terms of various parameters like

Displacement, bending moment & shear force.

Keywords-Bending Moment, Deck type Bridge, Displacement, Rubberised Concrete,

STAAD PRO.

I.INTRODUCTION

The bridge structures are important component in highway, railway, and urban road and play

important roles in economy, politics, culture, as well as national defense. Especially for

medium span and larger span bridges, they are generally served as “lifeline” engineering due

to their vital functions in the transportation network. Therefore, the bridge structures should

be carefully planned and designed before the construction. A bridge is a structure built

to span physical obstacles without closing the way underneath such as a body of

water, valley, or road, for the purpose of providing passage over the obstacle, usually

something that can be detrimental to cross otherwise. A bridge carries a large number of

population every day, hence its design and construction are cautiously performed. In recent

scenario various research are being conducted on the performance, behavior, serviceability,

durability of these bridges. All these research helped us to realize that a lot of work can be

done in the areas of failures of bridges.

Although, even after careful design, there are a lot of other factors which influences the

behavior of the bridges. Due to ageing of bridges, a large number of bridges may not fulfill

the requirements of the current scenario. Various structural deficiencies occur in the bridges

due to the increased traffic which consequently results in failure of the bridges. Deficiency of

bridge includes height issue, pier quality and critical hogging and sagging moments

[S.N.Krishnakanth 2015].Concrete bridge deck is subjected to premature cracking which is

High Technology Letters

Volume 27, Issue 8, 2021

ISSN NO : 1006-6748

http://www.gjstx-e.cn/719

caused by self-desiccation . Self-desiccation is a process in which early age cracking is

induced by means of autogenous shrinkage. This is main reason for the reduction in

durability of the concrete [Weiss J et. al 1999]. One of the major reason of the failure of the

bridges being the displacements occurring in longitudinal and transverse direction. The cause

of these displacements was found to be the excessive dead load and the temperature change.

Thus there is a need of some structural aid which can minimize the displacements and also

withstand against temperature change. The other reason for bridge failure to be mentioned is

the vibration occurring due to the moving load. Cement based concrete are brittle and of high

rigidity. In application of traffic barriers, it is desirable for concrete to have high toughness

and good impact resistance. Aggregate type has greatest influence on amount of thermal

expansion and contraction. Coefficient of thermal expansion plays major role in joint faulting

[Sherry Sullivan 2012]. Due to this reasons we need to think about some alternate materials

which are good against vibrations and are also light in weight.

Fig. 1. Components of Deck slab Bridge. The search for the alternate material having lesser weight, resistant against temperature and

vibration loading ends on rubberized concrete. A rubberized concrete shows good toughness

and ductility. Also it decreases the vibration as it has reversible elastic property. Rubberized

concrete has found applications in [Fattuhi& Clarke 1996].

i) Vibration damping

ii) Resisting impact loads

iii) Resisting temperature change

iv) Places where high strength is not crucial.

Rubberized concrete have found to be useful in dealing with dynamic loading. It reduces

density and compressive strength while increases flexural strength, water absorption and

damping ratio . It also absorbs shock waves , induces ductility and impact resistance [Senin



ISSN NO : 1006-6748


2017]. Different methods which can be used for analysis and design of the bridges are

AASHTO, Finite element method, Grillage and Finite strip method.In this dissertation finite

element method is adopted for the design and analysis purpose.

Fig. 2. Rubberised Concrete sample.

II.PROBLEM FORMULATION

In this work three groups for comparison of concrete bridge and Rubberized concrete bridge

have been considered as mentioned below :

1. Varying the number of spans of both bridges

2. Varying the span length of both bridges

3. Varying the pier height of both bridges

Following cases are considered under above mentioned groups as:

GROUP 1: In this group a conventional concrete bridge is compared with rubberized

concrete bridge. For this group the span of bridge is kept 10 and following cases

have been analysed.

Case 1: Concrete bridge of three number of spans .

Case 2: Concrete bridge of five number of spans .

Case 3: Concrete bridge of seven number of spans

Case 4: Rubberized concrete bridge of three number of spans

Case 5: Rubberized concrete bridge of five number of spans

Case 6: Rubberized concrete bridge of seven number of spans



ISSN NO : 1006-6748


GROUP 2: For this group number of span for bridge is kept to three while the length of span is

varied as follows:

Case 1: Concrete bridge of span length 10m.

Case 2: Concrete bridge


Case 4: Rubberized concrete bridge of span length 10m.

Case 5: Rubberized concrete bridge of span length 20m

Case 6: Rubberized concrete bridge ofspan length 30m

GROUP 3: In this group, the span length for each bridge is 10 m while number of spans are

three while the height of pier have been varied as follows:

Case 1: Concrete bridge of pier height 3m.

Case 2: Concrete bridge of pier height 6m..


Case 4: Rubberized concrete bridge of pier height 3m.


Case 6: Rubberized concrete bridge ofpier height 9m

Hence in whole analysis total 18 models of bridges have been studied.

Fig. 3. General View

: For this group number of span for bridge is kept to three while the length of span is




Case 4: Rubberized concrete bridge of span length 10m.

Case 5: Rubberized concrete bridge of span length 20m

Case 6: Rubberized concrete bridge ofspan length 30m

span length for each bridge is 10 m while number of spans are

three while the height of pier have been varied as follows:


Case 2: Concrete bridge of pier height 6m..


ase 4: Rubberized concrete bridge of pier height 3m.


Case 6: Rubberized concrete bridge ofpier height 9m

Hence in whole analysis total 18 models of bridges have been studied.

General View of Deck slab Bridge on STAAD PRO.

: For this group number of span for bridge is kept to three while the length of span is

span length for each bridge is 10 m while number of spans are



ISSN NO : 1006-6748


III. METHODOLOGY

The structures were modelled using STAAD PRO software and linear static seismic analysis

was performed as per IS 1893:2016& IRC loading conditions. Following sequence has been

followed to analyse the structure by using STAAD PRO:

Step 1:Starting the STAAD.Pro and defining the type of structures and unit.

Step 2:Preparing the model of the bridge.

Step 3:Defining support conditions.

Step 4:Defining material properties.

Step 5:Defining various loading conditions of dead load , live load and temperature load.

Step 6:Creating deck of the bridge and imposing loads on it

Step 7:Structural analysis for various cases

Step 8: Critical study of results

In the analysis of structure, various types of loading conditions are studied and as given

below:

Dead load : The dead loads of each element is calculated automatically by the software

STAAD.PRO

Live Load : As per IRC , the live load for bridge is takes as IRC 70 R LOADING which is

also inbuilt in STAAD.PRO

The Deck is subjected to an additional load of 2kN/m2as per IRC.



ISSN NO : 1006-6748


Fig. 4. Modelling of GROUP 1 Structure in STAAD PRO.

Fig. 5. Modelling of GROUP 2 Structure in STAAD PRO

Fig. 6. Modelling of GROUP 3 Structure in STAAD PRO



ISSN NO : 1006-6748


IV. RESULTS

Results For Group 1are to be discussed in the following parameters.

Fig. 7. Comparison of displacement in X-direction (in mm) for group 1

Fig. 8. Comparison of displacement in Y-direction (in mm) for group 1

8.0

62 9.1

52 10

.10

3

5.3

78 6

.72

1 7.8

39

T H R E E S P A N S F I V E S P A N S S E V E N S P A N S

concrete bridge Rubberized concrete bridge

3.1

49

3.2

39

3.3

96

2.7

27

2.8

9 3.0

5

T H R E E S P AN S FIVE S PA N S S E VE N S P AN S




ISSN NO : 1006-6748


Fig. 9. Comparison of bending moment (in

Fig. 10. Comparison of shear force in beam (in kN) for group 1

14

71

.81

21

20

.5

T H R E E S P AN S

Rubberized concrete bridge

1377.85

911.416

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Three spans

concrete bridge

Comparison of bending moment (in kNm) for group 1

Comparison of shear force in beam (in kN) for group 1

20

23

.12

22

16

.83

24

02

.73

1

26

54

.82

F IV E S PAN S SE VE N SP AN S

Rubberized concrete bridge concrete bridge

1558.353

1719.9

1310.411375.09

Five spans Seven spans


Comparison of shear force in beam (in kN) for group 1

S E VE N S P AN S

1375.09

Seven spans



ISSN NO : 1006-6748


Results For Group 2 are to be discussed in the following parameters

Fig. 11. Comparison of displacement in

Fig. 12. Comparison of displacement in

8.0625.378

0 5

10m span

20m span

30m span


3.049 3.027

10M SPAN

concrete bridge

are to be discussed in the following parameters.

Comparison of displacement in X-direction (in mm) for group

Comparison of displacement in Y-direction (in mm) for group

17.317

28.814

11.3

21.085

10 15 20 25 30


21.391

84.823

17.84

60.966

20M SPAN 30M SPAN


direction (in mm) for group 2

direction (in mm) for group 2

30 35

60.966



ISSN NO : 1006-6748


Fig. 13. Comparison of bending moment (in kNm) for group 2

Fig. 14. Comparison of shear force (in kN) for group 2

13

77

.85

28

69

.97

46

93

.71

91

1.4

16

19

41

.5

40

54

.7

10 M S P AN 2 0 M S PAN 30 M S P AN


14

71

.81

31

13

.76

61

52

.7

21

20

.5

44

27

.8

72

09

.78

2

1 0 M S PA N 20 M S P AN 30 M S P AN




ISSN NO : 1006-6748


Results For Group 2 are to be discussed in the following parameters.

Fig. 15. Comparison of displacement in X-direction (in mm) for group 3

Fig. 16. Comparison of displacement in Y-direction (in mm) for group 3

8.062

56.045

184.927

5.378

34.627

157.204

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

3m

pier

6m

pier

9m

pier


3.0

49

5.8

48

9.2

13

3.0

27

3.4

22

7.9

14

3 M PIE R 6 M P IER 9 M P IER




ISSN NO : 1006-6748


Fig. 17. Comparison of bending moment (in kNm) for group 3

Fig. 18. Comparison of shear force (in kN) for group 3

14

71

.81

28

79

.14

52

65

.8

21

20

.5

38

52

.86

62

65

.4

3 M P IE R 6M P IE R 9 M PIE R


13

77

.85

13

82

.1

14

21

.29

91

1.4

16

11

15

.2

11

93

.64

3 M P I E R 6 M P I E R 9 M P I E R




ISSN NO : 1006-6748


V. CONCLUSION

After comparing the values of different parameters with acceptance criteria it can be

concluded that Under the defined loading conditions , the displacements in x direction in

Rubberized concrete bridge is 0.7 times that of concrete bridge , the displacements in y

direction in Rubberized concrete bridge is 0.8 times that of concrete bridge .The maximum

bending moments in the Rubberized concrete bridge are 23% lesser than that of concrete

bridge& the maximum shear force in the Rubberized concrete bridge are 24% lesser than that

of concrete bridge.

References

1. Febymol K B and Rohini G Nair, “Finite element analysis of elastomeric

bearing,”International Research Journal of Advanced Engineering and Science, Volume

2, Issue 2, (2017) pp. 175-178.

2. Mr. Kiranakumar V Arutagi, Prof. Ravichandra Honnalli, “A Comparative Study of

Conventional RC Girder Bridge and Integral Bridge ”International Journal of

Advance Engineering and Research Development (2017).

3. Imtiyaz Ahmad Parry, Dr. D. K. Kulkarni, Basavaraj Gudadappanavar, “Performance

Evaluation of Elastomeric Pads as Bridge Bearings under Earthquake

Loads”International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology , (2017) Volume

4.

4. ANitin Chavan , Pranesh Murnal, “A Comparative Study on Seismic Response of

Bridge with Elastomeric Bearing and Elastomeric Isolator”, Journal of Civil

Engineering and Environmental Technology , (2015) Volume 2, Number 10.

5. Namdeo Hedaoo, Namdeo Raut, Laxmikant Gupta. Composite Concrete Slabs with

Profiled Steel Decking: Comparison Between Experimental and Simulation

Study.American Journal of Civil Engineering. (2015) Vol. 3.

6. R.Z. Wang, S.-K. Chen, K.-Y. Liu, C.-Y. Wang, K.-C. Chang and S.-H. Chen ,

“Analytical Simulations of the Steel-Laminated Elastomeric Bridge

Bearing”,Journal of Mechanics (2014) Volume 30, Issue 04.

7. Shehata E. Abdel Raheem “Exploring Seismic Response of Bridges with

Bidirectional Coupled Modelling of Base Isolation Bearings System ”Arabian journal

for science and engineering (2014).

8. Jaturong Sa-nguanmanasak, Taweep Chaisomphob and Eiki Yamaguchi, “Improvement

on design analyses of composite steel-concrete bridges using elaborate finite element

methods” ,Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol.(2010),32 (3), 289-297.

9. Bureau of Indian Standards, “IS 800:2007 General Construction in Steel - Code of

Practice (Third Revision),” Bur. Indian Stand. New Delhi, no. December, 2007.

10. Bureau of Indian Standards, “IS 456: 2000 - Plain and reinforced concrete - code and

practice,” Bur. Indian Stand. New Delhi, p. 144, 2000. 11. Bureau of Indian Standards, “IS 875 (Part 1):1987 Code of Practice for Design Loads

(Other than Earthquake) For Buildings and Structures,” Bur. Indian Stand. New Delhi,

vol. 875, no. Part 3, 1987.



ISSN NO : 1006-6748


rubberized concrete bridge: an alternative structure

Documents