POKHARA ENGINEERING
COLLEGE
Design of Bridge (Elective III) — Model Questions Solution
Codes used: IRC:6-2017 (Loads & Load Combinations), IRC:112-2020 (Code of Practice for Concrete Road
Bridges), IS:456 auxiliary tables for slab-moment coefficients.
Note on assumptions: Wherever the question does not supply a dimension needed to proceed (trial slab/girder depth,
kerb position, Pigeaud chart readings, live-load surcharge height, etc.), a standard, code-consistent value has been
assumed and stated explicitly at that step. Replace it with the exact figure from your class notes/IRC chart if different,
and the rest of the calculation carries through unchanged since the method — not the specific coefficient — is what is
being demonstrated.
Q1 & Q2 — RC Slab Culvert: Design BM, SF, Flexure & Shear
Design
1. Data
● Clear carriageway width = 12 m ; Clear span = 6 m ; Kerb width = 0.6 m each side
● Wearing coat = 70 mm ; Width of bearing = 0.4 m
● Live load: two lanes of IRC Class A ; M30 concrete, Fe415 steel
2. Trial section and effective span
Trial overall depth D = 600 mm (economical range for a 6 m span slab culvert is D ≈ span/10 to span/12). Effective
cover = 40 mm, assume 16 mm main bars ⇒ d = 600 − 40 − 8 = 552 mm.
Effective span (IRC:112 Cl. 5.4 / IS456): Leff = lesser of (clear span + d) and (clear span + width of bearing)
Leff = min(6 + 0.552, 6 + 0.4) = min(6.55, 6.40) = 6.40 m
3. Dead load BM & SF (per metre width)
Self weight = 0.60 × 25 = 15.00 kN/m² ; Wearing coat = 0.07 × 22 = 1.54 kN/m² ; Total DL w = 16.54 kN/m²
DL BM = wL²/8 = 16.54 × 6.40²/8 = 84.68 kNm/m
DL SF = wL/2 = 16.54 × 6.40/2 = 52.93 kN/m
4. Live-load BM & SF — Effective Width Method (IRC:112 Annex B / IRC:21 Cl.
305.7)
For a slab spanning in the direction of traffic with a large width normal to the span, IRC's effective-width method is
used. Governing wheel = one 114 kN axle wheel (57 kN) of the Class A train, placed at mid-span; the second wheel of
the same axle (1.8 m away) and the second train fall outside the resulting effective width, so a single wheel governs
here.
Effective width: be = α·a·(1 − a/L) + b1, with a = distance of load from support
Total slab width b = 12 + 2×0.6 = 13.2 m ⇒ b/Leff = 2.06 ⇒ α ≈ 2.6 (simply supported slab, IRC table, b/L ≥ 2)
b1 = tyre-contact dimension along span + dispersion through wearing coat = 0.25 + 2×0.07 = 0.39 m
At mid-span (a = 3.20 m): be = 2.6 × 3.2 × (1 − 3.2/6.4) + 0.39 = 4.55 m
LL moment (one 57 kN wheel) = W·L /(4·be) = 57 × 6.40 / (4 × 4.55) = 20.04 kNm/m
Impact factor (Class A, RC bridge, span ≤ 9 m): IF = 4.5/(6+L) = 4.5/12.4 = 0.363
LL + Impact BM = 20.04 × 1.363 = 27.32 kNm/m
For shear, load placed at d from the support face (a = 0.55 m): be = 1.70 m ⇒ LL SF = 30.61 kN/m ⇒ (1+IF) → 41.72
kN/m
5. Design bending moment & shear force
Effect Dead Load Live Load + Impact Service Total Ultimate
(1.35DL+1.5LL)
BM (kNm/m) 84.68 27.32 112.00 155.30
SF (kN/m) 52.93 41.72 94.65 134.03
6. Q2 — Flexural design of slab (M30, Fe415, b = 1000 mm, d = 552 mm)
Mu,lim = 0.133 fck b d² = 0.133×30×1000×552² = 1215.8 kNm/m >> Mu = 155.3 kNm/m ⇒ singly reinforced, well
within balanced limit (D can be reduced, but retained for the culvert's shear/durability requirement).
Ast = 0.5(fck/fy)[1 − √(1 − 4.6Mu/(fck·b·d²))]·b·d = 795 mm²/m
Provide 16 mm ϕ bars @ 250 mm c/c (Ast provided = 804 mm²/m) as main (span) reinforcement at the bottom,
minimum 0.12%bD = 720 mm²/m satisfied.
Distribution (transverse) steel: 12 mm ϕ @ 155 mm c/c (≈ 720 mm²/m, min. 0.12% bD).
Top steel: provide 0.12%bD = 720 mm²/m (10 mm @ 100 mm c/c) throughout, for early thermal/shrinkage and
negative moment near supports if any restraint develops.
7. Shear check
τv = Vu/(b·d) = 134.03×1000/(1000×552) = 0.243 N/mm²
pt provided ≈ 0.144% ⇒ τc (M30, IRC:112 Table 10) ≈ 0.56 N/mm² > τv ⇒ SAFE, no shear reinforcement required in
the slab (as expected for slab culverts).
8. Reinforcement detailing (sketch description)
● Main bars: 16 mm ϕ @ 250 mm c/c, running the full 6.4 m effective span, bent up / curtailed at 0.1L from
supports per IRC:112 curtailment rules, with full anchorage length Ld beyond the point of zero moment.
● Distribution steel: 12 mm ϕ @ 155 mm c/c, placed above the main bars, running the full width of 13.2 m.
● Top mesh: 10 mm ϕ @ 100 mm c/c both ways for shrinkage/temperature and to resist local hogging near the
bearings.
● Nominal cover: 40 mm (severe exposure, IRC:112 Table 14.1) to all reinforcement; end bearing 400 mm
with a bed block.
Q3 — Deck Slab Panel Moments (Girder spacing 3 m × 5 m)
Panel: short span (between longitudinal girders) B = 3.0 m; long span (between cross girders) L = 5.0 m; K = B/L =
0.60. Slab t = 150 mm, wearing coat = 75 mm.
1. Dead load moments (four edges continuous/simply supported, IS456-type
coefficients)
Total DL w = 0.15×25 + 0.075×22 = 3.75+1.65 = 5.40 kN/m². For ly/lx = 5/3 = 1.67: αx ≈ 0.110, αy ≈ 0.040
(interpolated).
Mb(DL, short span) = αx·w·B² = 0.110×5.40×3.0² = 5.35 kNm/m
Ml(DL, long span) = αy·w·B² = 0.040×5.40×3.0² = 1.94 kNm/m
2. Live load moments — Pigeaud's method (IRC:112 Annex B)
Governing case: Class 70R tracked vehicle, 700 kN on two tracks of 350 kN each, contact 0.84 m × 4.57 m.
Dispersing the load through the 75 mm wearing coat and half the slab depth at 45°: u = 0.84+0.30 = 1.14 m, v =
4.57+0.30 = 4.87 m.
u/B = 0.38, v/L = 0.97, K = 0.60. From Pigeaud's curves for these ratios: m1 ≈ 0.10 (coefficient for moment along the
short span), m2 ≈ 0.03 (long span) — read these more precisely from the Pigeaud chart set in your class notes for K =
0.6, and refine if they differ.
With Poisson's ratio μ = 0.15:
Mb(LL, per track) = (m1 + μm2)·W = (0.10+0.15×0.03)×350 = 36.58 kNm
Ml(LL, per track) = (m2 + μm1)·W = (0.03+0.15×0.10)×350 = 15.75 kNm
Impact factor for local slab-panel effects under 70R (span < 9 m, tracked) = 25%: Mb = 45.72 kNm/m, Ml = 19.69
kNm/m.
3. Design moments (continuity factor 0.8 for an interior, continuous panel)
Moment Dead Load Live Load+Impact 0.8×(DL+LL) design
value
Mb — short span (kNm/m) 5.35 45.72 40.85
Ml — long span (kNm/m) 1.94 19.69 17.31
Class A loading (two lanes) should also be checked using the same effective-width/Pigeaud approach; for this panel
size (3 m×5 m) the concentrated 70R track load governs over Class A wheel groups and is the value to carry forward
into design.
Q4 & Q5 — Courbon's Method: T-beam Deck, Span 20 m
1. Section and vehicle data
● 3 longitudinal girders @ 3 m c/c (xi = −3, 0, +3 m from deck centre-line); Σxi² = 18
● Overall deck width 7.5 m with 0.6 m cantilevers each side; span = 20 m
● IRC Class AA wheeled vehicle: total 400 kN — two axles 1.2 m apart, each axle carrying two 100 kN wheel-
lines at 2.05 m gauge (IRC:6 Table)
Since the two axles are only 1.2 m apart on a 20 m span, they are combined into a single equivalent 400 kN point load
for the influence-line calculations (standard simplification for long-span longitudinal analysis).
2. Transverse position and Courbon's reaction factors
The vehicle is pushed transversely until its nearer wheel-line reaches the minimum clearance from the kerb (≈1.2 m,
IRC:6 Cl. 205); this places the resultant 400 kN at eccentricity e ≈ 1.225 m from the bridge centre-line. (Re-check this
value against the exact kerb/footpath width shown in your figure/class notes — the method below is unaffected by
small changes to e.)
Courbon's formula: Ri = (W/n)·[1 + n·e·xi/Σxi²]
Girder xi (m) Reaction factor Ri (kN) Distribution factor Ri/W
Outer, loaded side +3.0 215.0 0.5375
Inner (central) 0.0 133.3 0.3333
Outer, far side −3.0 51.7 0.1292
3. Q4 — BM & SF at quarter span (a = 5 m) due to Class AA
Impact factor (span ≥ 9 m, Class AA per IRC:6 Cl. 211): IF = 10%.
Whole-deck values (treating the deck as one beam): BM = W·a(L−a)/L = 400×5×15/20 = 1500 kNm ; SF = W(L−a)/L
= 300 kN
Girder BM at quarter span, with SF at quarter span, with impact
impact (kNm) (kN)
Outermost (loaded side) 886.9 177.4
Inner (central) 550.0 110.0
4. Q5 — Design forces for the outermost girder (full span)
Dead load 1000 kN (unfactored) and wearing-coat load 100 kN (unfactored) given for the girder are converted to udl
over the 20 m span: wDL = 50 kN/m, wWC = 5 kN/m.
DL+WC: BM(mid-span) = 55×20²/8 = 2750 kNm ; SF(support) = 55×20/2 = 550 kN
Live load (Class AA, outer-girder share 0.5375, +10% impact): BM(mid-span) = 1182.5 kNm ; SF(support) = 236.5
kN
Dead + Wearing Live Load + Impact Service Total Ultimate
Coat (1.35DL+1.5LL)
BM (kNm) 2750.0 1182.5 3932.5 5486.3
SF (kN) 550.0 236.5 786.5 1097.2
5. Flexural design of outermost girder (T-beam, M30/Fe415)
Trial section: web bw = 350 mm, overall depth D = 1600 mm (span/12.5, includes 150 mm slab), d = 1525 mm,
effective flange width bf ≈ 3.3 m (IRC:112 Cl. 8.2).
Moment capacity with neutral axis at the flange soffit ≈ 7895 kNm >> Mu = 5486 kNm ⇒ neutral axis lies within the
150 mm flange; design as a rectangular section of width bf.
Ast required = 0.5(fck/fy)[1−√(1−4.6Mu/(fck·bf·d²))]·bf·d ≈ 10 255 mm²
Provide 13 nos. 32 mm ϕ bars (Ast = 10 458 mm²) in 3–4 layers at the bottom of the web, anchored past the point of
zero moment; add 2–25 mm hanger/skin bars in the web for crack control (IRC:112 Cl. 16.5.4, web depth > 750 mm).
6. Shear design
τv = Vu/(bw·d) = 1097.2×1000/(350×1525) = 2.06 N/mm² ; τc (table, M30) ≈ 0.62 N/mm² ⇒ τv > τc, shear
reinforcement required.
Vus = Vu − τc·bw·d = 1097.2 − 0.62×350×1525/1000 = 766.3 kN
Using 2-legged 10 mm ϕ stirrups: sv = 0.87·fy·Asv·d/Vus = 113 mm ⇒ provide 2L–10 mm ϕ @ 110 mm c/c near the
supports, opened out towards mid-span per the shear-force envelope.
Q6 — RC Abutment: Preliminary Plan & Stability Check
1. Data
● Span = 12 m ; Stem height = 6.5 m ; DL from superstructure = 1200 kN
● Live load = Class AA wheel load ; μ(bearing) = 0.22 ; φ(soil) = 32° ; δ(wall-soil) = 20° ; backfill slope = 0° ;
γsoil = 17 kN/m³
2. Earth-pressure coefficient (Coulomb, since wall friction δ is given)
Ka = cos²(φ)/[cosδ·(1+√(sin(φ+δ)·sinφ/cosδ))²] = 0.276 (Rankine's smooth-wall value would be 0.307 — Coulomb's
is used here because δ is specified).
3. Preliminary geometry (typical cantilever-abutment proportions)
Assume footing thickness 0.9 m ⇒ total retaining height H = 6.5+0.9 = 7.4 m. Adopt after one trial iteration (see §5):
base width B = 5.0 m, toe = 1.3 m, stem thickness (base) = 0.5 m, heel = 3.2 m, footing thickness = 0.9 m, abutment
length (along the road) ≈ 8.7 m (matching the superstructure width).
4. Horizontal forces (per full abutment length of 8.7 m)
Active earth pressure: Pa = 0.5·Ka·γ·H² = 0.5×0.276×17×7.4² = 128.3 kN/m run ⇒ Pah = Pa·cosδ = 120.5 kN/m, Pav
= Pa·sinδ = 43.9 kN/m, acting at H/3 from base.
Live-load surcharge (Class AA): taken as an equivalent height of fill heq = 1.2 m (standard value for heavy military-
class loading) ⇒ surcharge intensity = Ka·γ·heq = 5.62 kN/m², uniform over the height, giving Ps = 41.6 kN/m run,
acting at H/2.
Bearing-friction force: horizontal force transferred from the superstructure through the bearings due to restrained
movement, Fb = μ(bearing)×DL = 0.22×1200 = 264 kN, acting at the top of the stem (bearing level).
Totals over 8.7 m: Pah = 1048 kN, Ps = 362 kN, Fb = 264 kN.
5. Stability check (about the toe)
Force / Moment Value
Overturning moment: Pah×H/3 + Ps×H/2 + Fb×Hstem 5641 kNm
Self-weight (stem+footing+soil on heel) 3834 kN
Restoring moment (self-wt, at ≈B/2 + superstructure DL at bearing + 10 694 kNm
Pav at heel)
FOS against overturning = Mr/Mo 2.75 (> 2.0, OK)
Base-soil friction coefficient μ = tan(2φ/3) 0.39
FOS against sliding = μN/(Pah+Fb) 1.87 (> 1.5, OK)
Max/Min base pressure (from N, e) ≈ 306 / 0 kN/m² — check against
safe bearing capacity from
geotechnical data
Note: the base-soil sliding check uses μ = tan(2φ/3), NOT the given bearing-friction coefficient — that value (0.22) is
only used to compute the horizontal force Fb transmitted through the bearings into the stem/overturning check, as
done above.
The stem, toe slab and heel slab are then each designed as cantilevers for their respective net pressures/soil+surcharge
loads following the same limit-state flexure/shear procedure demonstrated in Q2, with M30/Fe415 and 40–50 mm
cover for earth-retaining faces.
Q7 — Short Notes
(a) Courbon's Method
Courbon's method is a simplified, statically-determinate way of distributing an eccentric live-load system transversely
among the longitudinal girders of a multi-girder deck. It idealises the deck slab/cross girders as an infinitely-rigid
transverse beam resting on the longitudinal girders, which behave as elastic supports (springs) of stiffness proportional
to their second moment of area. For girders of equal spacing and EI, the reaction on girder i carrying a total load W
applied at eccentricity e from the girder-group centroid is Ri = (W/n)[1 + n·e·xi/Σxi²]. It is valid only when (i) girder
spacing/span ≤ 1/3, (ii) the deck is supported on at least 5 cross-girders (i.e., torsionally stiff enough to be treated as
rigid transversely), and (iii) span/width > 2. It over-predicts the outer-girder share slightly compared with grillage/FE
analysis but remains widely used for preliminary or hand design because of its simplicity — as applied above in
Q4/Q5.
(b) Pigeaud's Curve
Pigeaud's curves provide moment coefficients (m1, m2) for a rectangular slab panel, simply supported (or continuous)
on four sides, carrying a concentrated load placed anywhere on the panel — the situation created by a wheel or track
load dispersed through the wearing coat and slab thickness. The panel is characterised by K = B/L (short/long span
ratio) and by the dimensionless loaded-area ratios u/B and v/L (dispersed contact dimensions relative to the panel
spans). For a given K, families of curves (plotted against u/B for various v/L) give m1 (moment coefficient parallel to
the short span) and m2 (parallel to the long span); the design moments are obtained as Mb = (m1+μm2)W and Ml =
(m2+μm1)W, μ being Poisson's ratio (0.15 for concrete), then reduced by a continuity factor (0.8 typically) for slabs
continuous over the supporting girders. This method (used above in Q3) remains the standard hand-calculation
approach for two-way slab decks under IRC wheel/track loads, per IRC:112 Annex B.
(c) Selection of Bridge Type
The choice of bridge type (slab, T-beam, box-girder, truss, arch, cable-stayed, suspension, etc.) for a given crossing is
governed by: span required and site topography (valley depth, waterway, navigational clearance); founding/soil
conditions and depth to good strata; magnitude and nature of loads (highway, rail, pedestrian); availability of
construction materials, skilled labour, plant and access to site; construction time and method (cast-in-situ vs
precast/launched); cost — both initial and life-cycle/maintenance; aesthetics and environmental impact; and
durability/serviceability requirements for the design life. As a rough guide, slab bridges suit short spans (up to ≈10 m),
T-beam/deck-girder bridges spans of roughly 10–25 m, box girders 25–60 m (and beyond, with
prestressing/segmental construction), while very long spans call for cable-stayed or suspension systems. The final
choice is made by comparing 2–3 technically feasible alternatives on cost, constructability and maintenance grounds
rather than by a single rule.
End of solution set. Cross-check the flagged assumptions (contact-area dimensions, α and Pigeaud coefficients, kerb
clearance, live-load surcharge height) against the exact figures/tables in IRC:6-2017, IRC:112-2020 and your class
notes before final submission.