IARJSET ISSN (O) 2393-8021, ISSN (P) 2394-1588

International Advanced Research Journal in Science, Engineering and Technology

ISO 3297:2007 Certified  Impact Factor 7.105  Vol. 9, Issue 7, July 2022
DOI: 10.17148/IARJSET.2022.9758

ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLYOVER

SUB-STRUCTURE
Vivekananda Swamy Hiremath1, R Shanthi Vengadeshwari2
1
PG Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Dayananda Sagar College of Engineering, Bengaluru,560078, India
2
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Dayananda Sagar College of Engineering,
Bengaluru,560078, India

Abstract: Our project deals with design and analysis and design of Bridge Sub-Structures consists of Pier, Pier cap,
Abutment, Foundation. According to IRC: 6-2017. This paper aims to understand the concepts involved in the analysis
and design of Flyover Substructure subjected to different loadings namely Dead load, Super Imposed Dead Loads,
Carriageway Live loads. The bridges are subjected to different live load cases namely IRC Class A, IRC Class 70R
wheeled& tracked. Also the braking load, impact load, wind load, longitudinal forces are to be considered in the analysis.
Here the structural analysis is carried out by using STAAD Pro V8i software. Structures are designed for critical loading
combinations. Moment of inertia and neutral axis are the key components in calculating the moment of resistance,
however moment of resistance should always be greater than design bending moments for a structure to be safe. The
Serviceability limit state checks are very essential in providing additional reinforcement to resists shear and torsion.

Keywords: Pre-stressed Concrete, Flyover, Sub-Structures, STAAD Pro, IRC Codes.

INTROUDUCTION

Normally, flyovers are constructed over water basins like rivers, but they may also be constructed over a railway line or
even beneath the flyover to offer a highway for pedestrians and even automobiles. The flyover is a strategy in today's age
of heavy traffic that allows roads to be built over highways to allow vehicles as well as individuals to pass more swiftly.
The flyover, also known as an overpass, is a structure that is constructed over an existing road or railway and spans
another road or railway. It aids commuters in saving time, whether they are pedestrians or driving vehicles. However,
critics of flyovers argue that they waste valuable area by constructing massive pillars on the existing road. However, their
advantages exceed their disadvantages since they allow for more efficient and quicker transportation of people and
vehicles.

1.1Type of Flyover.

Classification of Flyover according to Form

• Overpass Flyover
• Underpass Flyover
Classification of Flyover according to Material
• Composite Flyover
• Steel Flyover
• Concrete Flyover
Flyover is a structure that is constructed to provide passage over the natural obstacles without closing the way below it.
The obstacles may be rivers, canals, valleys, or roads. The development of the country is based on the infrastructure
available in the country. Highways are the major part of infrastructure allowing the flow of human beings, goods, and
vehicles. T-beam flyovers are most widely used for the flyovers constructed on highways. IRC codes are developed and
updated from time to time based on the research work carried out all over the world. There are different types of designs
that serve a particular purpose and apply to various circumstances. The design of the flyover mainly depends: on the
purpose of the flyover, the location where the flyover is constructed, the materials used for construction, and the capitals
available. The flyover consists of mainly two parts, superstructure, and substructure. The Superstructure consists of a
longitudinal girder, cross girder, deck slab, cantilever portion, footpath handrails, and wearing coat. Substructure consists
of pier, pier cap, abutment, foundation. The flyover superstructure and other components of the flyover are subjected to
a set of loading conditions for which the structure must withstand. The design of the flyover is based on the loadings
which may vary depending on the duration of load acting, direction of action, type of deformation, and nature of structural
behaviour. To form a consistent basis for design, the Indian road congress (IRC) has developed a set of standard loading

© IARJSET This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License 341
 IARJSET ISSN (O) 2393-8021, ISSN (P) 2394-1588

International Advanced Research Journal in Science, Engineering and Technology

ISO 3297:2007 Certified  Impact Factor 7.105  Vol. 9, Issue 7, July 2022
DOI: 10.17148/IARJSET.2022.9758
conditions, which are taken into account while designing a flyover. account while designing a flyover. Most common
types of construction pertaining to substructures are abutment, pier, and foundation. Where appropriate, piers and
abutments shall be designed to withstand dead load, erection loads, live loads on the roadway, wind loads on the
superstructure, forces due to stream currents, floating ice and drift, temperature and shrinkage effects, lateral earth and
water pressures, scour and collision, and earthquake loading.

Figure: Components of Flyover

I.OBJECTIVES

The overall aim of the project is analyze the flyover for different load cases and to design the same for the worst load
case i.e. for the load resulting on maximum bending moment and shear force.
• To assess and analyze the effect of loads acting on the Flyover according to IRC-6 2017.
• To design the substructure for critical loading case.
• To prepare the complete details of all the components of the substructure.

II.METHODOLOGY

• Conducting the Preliminary Survey.

• Calculation of Critical Loads as per the IRC 6-2017

The dead loads are calculated manually.

o Self-weight of girder & slab = cross-sectional area x density of concrete
o Density of concrete = 25 KN/m3
o Weight due to crash barrier = 9 KN/m
o Density of wearing coat = 22 KN/m3
o Braking load = 20% of live loads.

• Calculation of Wind Load acting on the Flyover for basic design wind seed of 42m/s as per the IRC 6-2017.
• Calculation of Seismic Load acting on the Flyover for Zone III as per the IRC 6-2017.
• Designing the Pier Cap for Max Bending Moment and Max Shear Force.
• Analysing the Pier in Staad Pro for various load combinations of the critical loads acting on the Pier.
• Designing the Pier for the Max Bending Moment and Max Shear Force acquired form Staad. Pro software.
• Designing the Dirt wall as per the IRC 6-2017.
• Designing the Foundation of Pier for Max Reaction & Max Moments from the Pier.
• Detailed drawings are to be prepared for the structure considered.

© IARJSET This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License 342
 IARJSET ISSN (O) 2393-8021, ISSN (P) 2394-1588

International Advanced Research Journal in Science, Engineering and Technology

ISO 3297:2007 Certified  Impact Factor 7.105  Vol. 9, Issue 7, July 2022
DOI: 10.17148/IARJSET.2022.9758
A. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

• Chennai to Vijayawada Flyover

• Total length of the Flyover = 60 m
• Span Arrangement = 2 x 30 m
• PSC girder = 30 m
• Overall deck width = 14.5 m
• Number of longitudinal girders = 4
• C/C of longitudinal girders = 3.6 m
• No. of Lanes = 4
• Carriageway width = 13.5 m
• Depth of girder = 2 m
• Depth of deck slab = 0.24 m
• Length of cantilever slab = 1.725 m
• c/c Distance between Expansion Joint = 30 m
• c/c Distance between Bearings = 28.8 m
• Thickness of end cross girder = 0.4 m
• Width of Crash Barrier on both sides of carriageway = 0.5 m
• Width of RCC Kerb + Railing at outer ends = 0.5 m
• W.C Thickness = 0.065 m
• No. of bearings = 4 (POT-PTFE)
• Size of Pedestals = 0.5m x 0.8m x 0.315m
• Grade of concrete = M35
• Grade of steel = Fe500

Fig 1: Sectional Elevation of the Flyover

Fig2 : Longitudinal Section of the Flyover

III.ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

A. LOAD CALCULATIONS:
1. DEAD LOAD:
• Self-weight of girder = 21.56 KN/m
• Self-weight of deck slab = 21.15 KN/m

© IARJSET This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License 343
 IARJSET ISSN (O) 2393-8021, ISSN (P) 2394-1588

International Advanced Research Journal in Science, Engineering and Technology

ISO 3297:2007 Certified  Impact Factor 7.105  Vol. 9, Issue 7, July 2022
DOI: 10.17148/IARJSET.2022.9758
• Self-weight of cross girder = 19.52 KN/m
• Self-weight of crash barrier + pipe = 10.500 KN/m
• Shuttering & construction load = 12.69 KN/m
• Crash barrier = 9 KN/m
• Wearing coat = 7.125 KN/m
Total DL reaction from Superstructure = 3300 kN

Fig3 : Loading Diagram

2. CARRIAGEWAY LIVELOAD CALCULATIONS:

3. HORIZONTAL FORCES
• Total HF due to Temp & Shrink = 60 kN
• Max. Hf due to Breaking = 100 kN
• Max. Hf due to Centrifugal Force = 58.2 kN
• Max. Transverse Moment = 3502.3 kNm
• Max. Hf due to Friction = 223.5 kN

4. WIND LOAD CALCULATIONS:

For Basic Wind Speed = 42 m/s, Height of a structure =10m
• Wind force in longitudinal direction = 36.18 KN
• Wind force in transverse direction = 144.70 KN

5. SEISMIC LOAD CALCULATIONS:

Data :
Seismic zone = III
• Type of Structure = Important
• Soil type = Hard Strata
• Reduction factor R = 3

Results:
Longitudinal direction
• Max Moment =6620 kNm
• Max Horizontal force = 791 kN

Transverse direction
• Max Moment =4490 kNm
• Max Horizontal force =493 kN

© IARJSET This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License 344
 IARJSET ISSN (O) 2393-8021, ISSN (P) 2394-1588

International Advanced Research Journal in Science, Engineering and Technology

ISO 3297:2007 Certified  Impact Factor 7.105  Vol. 9, Issue 7, July 2022
DOI: 10.17148/IARJSET.2022.9758
B. DESIGN

1. PIER CAP
• Cross sectional width of Pier cap = 1550 mm Reinforcement details:
• Design Bending Moment MED = 7732 kN-m
• Eccentricity of Torsional Force = 0.3 m Top
• Torsional Moment tED = 734.8 kN-m
• Layer I = 12-#32mm
• Torsional shear stress = 414.6 kN/m2
• Shear Due to Torsion = 184.7 kN • Layer II = 12-#32mm
• Overall Depth considered D =1500mm Bottom = 12-#16mm
• Effective Depth deff =1386mm
• Area of Steel Required Ast =14159mm Side Safe = 10-#16mm

2. PIER
The ULS check of the pier has been done in STAAD converting the moments in to equivalent horizontal forces in
respective direction by dividing with height of pier and applying the forces at the top of pier in both directions. Forms the
28 Load cases combinations

Design forces from the Staad.pro:

• Worst Load case = 21
• Design axial force (pu) = 8376.0 kN
• Initial Moments = 1117.20 kNm
• Moments Due To Minimum Ecc. = 1457.42 kNm
• Shear force = 1478 kN
• Deflection = 1.470 mm

Reinforcement Details
Main reinforcement: Shear Reinforcement
• Along L-L direction = 10-#20mm
• Long T-T direction = 42-#20mm • 10mm Rect Ties @ 150 mm c/c &
1L-10mm Ties @ 150mm c/c

3. FOUNDATION
Data:
• Type of Soil Strata = Weathered Rock
• Net SBC in Normal Case = 450.00 KN/m 2
• Net SBC in Seismic Case = 562.50 KN/m 2
• Net SBC in Wind Case = 562.50 KN/m 2
• Type of Footing = Open Spread Footing
• Design speed of the vehicle = 100 kmph
• Size of Footing along T-T Axis = 8.500 m
• Size of Footing along L-L Axis = 4.700 m
• Length of Heel = 2.500 m
• Length of Shaft = 1.200 m
• Length of Toe = 1.00 m
• Radius of Curvature = 1200 m
(High Radius of Curvature is meant for Straight)
• Area of Footing A = 4.700 x 8.500 = 39.95 m2
• Section Modulus along L-L Axis ZL = 8.500 x 4.700 / 6 = 31.29 m3
2

• Section Modulus along T-T Axis ZT = 4.700 x 8.500 2 / 6 = 56.60 m3

• Base Pressure = P / A ± ML / ZL ± MT / ZT
• Grade of Concrete = M 35
• Grade of Steel = Fe 500

© IARJSET This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License 345
 IARJSET ISSN (O) 2393-8021, ISSN (P) 2394-1588

International Advanced Research Journal in Science, Engineering and Technology

ISO 3297:2007 Certified  Impact Factor 7.105  Vol. 9, Issue 7, July 2022
DOI: 10.17148/IARJSET.2022.9758
Design:
1) Toe L-L direction T -T direction
• Net Avg. pressure along AB = 274.6 kN/m2 425.4 kN/m2
• Net Avg. pressure along GH = 310.9 kN/m 2 396.6 kN/m2
• Bending Moment = 1219 kNm 3345 kNm
• Shear Force = 38831 kN 13189 kN
• Main Area of steel to be prov = 1845mm 2 1845 mm2
• Ast req & provided at Bottom = #16mm @ 100mm c/c #16mm @ 100mm c/c
• Ast req & provided at Top = #12mm @ 100mm c/c #16mm @ 100mm c/c
• Provided Shear Reinforcement = #8mm Dia @ 150mm c/c #10mm Dia @ 200mm c/c

2) Heel
• Net Avg. pressure along AB = 476 kN/m2 421.5 kN/m2
• Net Avg. pressure along GH = 427.9 kN/m 2 393.6kN/m2
• Bending Moment = 8354 kNm 2921 kNm
• Shear Force = 35597 kN 14967 kN
• Main Area of steel to be prov = 2309mm2 1845 mm2
• Ast req & provided at Bottom = #20mm @ 100mm c/c #16mm @ 100mm c/c
• Ast req & provided at Top = #16mm @ 100mm c/c #16mm @ 100mm c/c
• Provided Shear Reinforcement = #8mm Dia @ 150mm c/c #8mm Dia @ 200mm c/c

IV.DETAILING

1. Reinforcement Details of Abutment Pier Cap:

Fig3 : Longitudinal Section of Pier Cap Fig4 : Cross Section of Pier Cap
2. Reinforcement Details of Abutment Pier:

Fig6 : Plan of Pedestal

Fig5 : Cross Section of Pedestal

© IARJSET This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License 346
 IARJSET ISSN (O) 2393-8021, ISSN (P) 2394-1588

International Advanced Research Journal in Science, Engineering and Technology

ISO 3297:2007 Certified  Impact Factor 7.105  Vol. 9, Issue 7, July 2022
DOI: 10.17148/IARJSET.2022.9758

Fig7 : Sectional details of Abutment Pier along Fig8 : Cross Section of Abutment Pier
Longitudinal Direction

3. Reinforcement Details of Foundation:

Fig10 : Sectional details of Pier Foundation

along Longitudinal Direction Fig11 : Cross Section of Pier Foundation
Fig9 : Plan of Foundation of Pier

V.CONCLUSION

• The proposed project could help rectify the traffic conjunction problems and improve safe driving.
• Dead loads were calculated considering self-weight, crash barrier, wearing coat, construction & shuttering loads. The
Max reaction from DL is 3300 kN.
• Carriageway Live loads were calculated for the following load case combinations IRC Class 70RWheeled, IRC Class
70RTracked, IRC Class A, Ultimately IRC Class 70R +70R wheeled vehicle load combination produces the Max
reaction 1348.67kN, and max longitudinal moment 1011.50 kNm.
• For the basic wind speed 42m/s condition, Max wind load of 245 kN is at the super structure.
• For the Seismic Zone III category, at the longitudinal direction for the Max live load combination produces the Max
Horizontal reaction -791.0 kN, Max Vertical reaction 317.2 kN & Max Moment of 6620 kNm.
• Pire Cap is Designed for the Max Bending moment of 7732 kNm, Torsional moment of 734.8 kNm & Max Shear
force of 1899.8 kN, Pier is designed in the Staad.Pro for the 24 load combinations from the critical loads, from the analysis
it found that load case 21 i.e Seismic at transverse direction as a leading is worst case.
• Foundation is designed for the Max reaction 17576.4 kN, clockwise Moments 6033.6kNm and anticlockwise
Moments 1384.8 kNm , shear Force 11051.3 kN & base Pressure 440kN/m 2 from the Pier,
• Serviceability limit state being important criteria, crack width was found to be within the permissible limits.
• Detailed drawings were prepared for obtained sections and Steel Reinforcement.
VI. REFERENCE

[1]. Cai, C. S., Shahawy, M., & Peterman, R. J. (2002). Effect of diaphragms on load distribution of prestressed concrete
bridges. Transportation research record, 1814(1), 47-54.
[2]. Precast Prestressed Long-span Bridges: James H. Loper,1 Eugene L. Marquis,2 Members, ASCE, And Edward J.
Rhomberg,3 Fellow, ASCE

© IARJSET This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License 347
 IARJSET ISSN (O) 2393-8021, ISSN (P) 2394-1588

International Advanced Research Journal in Science, Engineering and Technology

ISO 3297:2007 Certified  Impact Factor 7.105  Vol. 9, Issue 7, July 2022
DOI: 10.17148/IARJSET.2022.9758
[3]. Nima Ala, Ph.D., P.E., A.M.ASCE1; Edward H. Power, P.E., M.ASCE2; and Atorod Azizinamini, Ph.D., P.E.,
M.ASCE3 (2016) Experimental evaluation of high-performance sliding Surfaces for bridge bearings, Journal of
Bridge Engineering, ASCE
[4]. Cheng, J. (2013). Serviceability reliability analysis of prestressed concrete bridges. KSCE Journal of Civil
Engineering, 17(2), 415-425.
[5]. Tae-Hoon Kim (2014). Comparison of Totally Prefabricated Bridge Substructure Designed According to Korea
Highway Bridge Design (KHBD) and AASHTO-LRFD. International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials
Vol.7, No.4, pp.319–332, December 2013 DOI 10.1007/s40069-013-0050-3 ISSN 1976-0485 / eISSN 2234-1315
[6]. Chen, X. C., Li, Z. H., Au, F. T., & Jiang, R. J. (2017). Flexural vibration of prestressed concrete bridges with
corrugated steel webs. International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics, 17(02), 1750023..
[7]. Abdul Rashid 1, P. Veerabhadra Rao 2 (2016) “Analysis Of Girder Bridge With IRC And IRS Loadings – A
Comparative Study
[8]. Dr.Laju Kottalil1, Drisya P.V2, Fawas V2, Jibin Joseph, Renjitha Raju (2018) “Analysis And Design Of A Bridge
At Bhoothathankettu Barrage”
[9]. Vivek Gajera1, V. R. Panchal, Vishal Vadgama (2020) Comparative Study of Seismic Analysis of Pier Supported
on Pile as per IRC:6-2017 and IRC SP:114-2018 . Journal of Bridge Engineering, 23(3), A
[10]. Zhang, Q., &Alam, M. S. (2019). Performance-based seismic design of bridges: a global perspective and critical
review of past, present and future directions. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 15(4), 539-554.

© IARJSET This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License 348