Comparative Stress Analysis of Balanced Cantilever Bridges Using MIDAS Civil Based on AASHTO, Eurocode, and IRC
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26877/0vvd7w51Keywords:
AASHTO, Balanced Cantilever Bridge, Eurocode, IRC, Prestressed Concrete, Sustainable InfrastructureAbstract
Evaluating stress behavior in prestressed concrete girders during staged construction is important for structural safety. This study compares stress responses based on three design codes: AASHTO, Eurocode, and IRC. A total of 21 construction stages were simulated using MIDAS Civil 2023 to model a balanced cantilever bridge. The analysis included time-dependent effects such as creep, shrinkage, and prestress losses, following each code’s assumptions. To ensure fair comparison, material properties, geometry, and environmental conditions were kept uniform. Results show that the highest compressive stress at the top fiber occurred in the Eurocode model (11,960 kPa), while the highest tensile stress was found in the IRC model (841.3 kPa). At the bottom fiber, IRC also produced the highest compressive (18,630 kPa) and tensile stresses (1,282 kPa). These differences indicate variations in how each code accounts for viscoelastic behavior and stress redistribution. This study highlights the importance of developing a national design standard in Indonesia that balances safety and efficiency by adapting insights from international codes.
References
[1] M. Gautam, “Bridge loadings of different countries in the context of Nepal,” M.S. thesis, Department of Structural Engineering, Institute of Engineering, Pulchowk Campus, Tribhuvan University, Lalitpur, Nepal, 2000.
[2] R. M. Barker and J. A. Puckett, Design of Highway Bridges: An LRFD Approach, 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119642534
[3] G. Jitha and C. Rajamallu, “Girder design of a balanced cantilever bridge with analysis using MIDAS Civil,” International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering, vol. 3, no. 6, p. 49, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3468842.v1
[4] Y. S. Patil and S. B. Shinde, “Comparative analysis and design of box girder bridge sub-structure with two different codes,” International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 134–139, 2013.
[5] A. Seni, “Comparison of live loads used in highway bridge design in North America with those used in Western Europe,” in Second International Symposium on Concrete Bridge Design, Chicago, IL, USA, Apr. 1969. Detroit, MI, USA: American Concrete Institute, 1971, pp. 1–34.
[6] P. K. Thomas, “The evolution of a new highway bridge loading standard for India,” Indian Roads Congress Journal, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 147–185, Nov. 1975.
[7] A. C. Agarwal and M. S. Cheung, “Development of loading-truck model and live-load factor for the Canadian Standards Association CSA-S6 code,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 58–67, 1987. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1139/l87-008
[8] S. B. Bhat, “Development of highway bridge loading for Nepal,” M.S. thesis, Department of Structural Engineering, Institute of Engineering, Pulchowk Campus, Tribhuvan University, Lalitpur, Nepal, 2004.
[9] I. G. Buckle, “Overview of seismic design methods for bridges in different countries and future directions,” Technical report, Department of Civil Engineering, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA, 1996.
[10] J. P. Wacker and J. Groenier, “Comparative analysis of design codes for timber bridges in Canada, the United States, and Europe,” Transportation Research Record, no. 2200, pp. 163–168, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3141/2200-19
[11] M. Okahara, J. Fukui, M. Nishitani, and K. Matsui, “Comparison of performance required by bridge design codes in various countries,” in Proceedings of the International Workshop on Life-Cycle Cost Analysis and Design of Civil Infrastructure Systems, National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 1000-1, 2001, pp. 297–312.
[12] P. G. Buckland and R. G. Sexsmith, “A comparison of design loads for highway bridges,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 16–21, 1981. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1139/l81-003
[13] V. K. Raina, Concrete Bridge Practice: Analysis, Design and Economics, 2nd ed. New Delhi, India: Tata McGraw-Hill, 1994, pp. 1–788.
[14] K. S. Rajagopalan, “Comparison of loads around the world for design of highway bridges,” in Second International Symposium on Concrete Bridge Design, Chicago, IL, USA, Apr. 1969. Detroit, MI, USA: American Concrete Institute, 1971, pp. 35–48.
[15] W. I. W. A. Kamal, “Comparison of bridge design in Malaysia between American codes and British codes,” Ph.D. dissertation, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Malaysia, 2005.
[16] H. Y. Aziz and J. Ma, “Design and analysis of bridge foundation with different codes,” Journal of Civil Engineering and Construction Technology, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 101–118, May 2011.
[17] D. Kamde, B. John, and A. Hulagabali, “Comparative study for the design of single-span bridge using AASHTO LRFD and Indian Standard method,” IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, pp. 40–44, 2014.
[18] R. J. Nielsen and E. R. Schmeckpeper, “Single-span prestressed girder bridge: LRFD design and comparison,” Journal of Bridge Engineering, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 22–30, 2002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2002)7:1(22)
[19] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 10th ed. Washington, DC, USA: AASHTO, 2024.
[20] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 9th ed. Washington, DC, USA: AASHTO, 2020.
[21] Fédération Internationale du Béton (fib), CEB-FIP Model Code 1990. Lausanne, Switzerland: fib, 1993.
[22] European Committee for Standardization, Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures – Part 2: Traffic Loads on Bridges, EN 1991-2. Brussels, Belgium: CEN, 2003.
[23] European Committee for Standardization, Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures – Part 2: Concrete Bridges, EN 1992-2. Brussels, Belgium: CEN, 2005.
[24] Indian Roads Congress, Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges: Section II – Loads and Stresses, IRC:6-2000, 4th rev. New Delhi, India: Indian Roads Congress, 2000.
[25] Indian Roads Congress, Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges: Section III – Cement Concrete (Plain and Reinforced), IRC:21-2000, 3rd rev. New Delhi, India: Indian Roads Congress, 2000.
[26] Indian Roads Congress, Code of Practice for Concrete Road Bridges, IRC:112-2011. New Delhi, India: Indian Roads Congress, 2011.
[27] Bureau of Indian Standards, Plain and Reinforced Concrete – Code of Practice, IS 456:2000. New Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian Standards, 2000.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Advance Sustainable Science Engineering and Technology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
