CE-272 Arch Bridge Analysis Report
Real Scaled down model vs SAP Model Analysis
for an Arch Bridge
Piyush Patel (170470) , Nitesh (170446) , Kritagya (170350) , Apoorva (170140)
Department of Civil Engineering IIT KANPUR
April 15, 2019
Abstract final readings of strain values and loading was
compared using graphs.
This report deals with the comparison between
structural analysis of bridge based on experi-
mental and calculated data. Experimental data Materials & Methods
is based on strain gauge and load cell results.
While the theoretical data is based on calcu-
lations, assumptions and technique which are
taken for SAP analysis. The purpose of this
project is to get a correlation between the results
of structural commercial software which are used
to design of various structural elements and how
they compare with the real-life scenario. And
also to analyze the possible reasons for the re-
sults.
Figure 1: Scaled down model of an arch Bridge
Introduction
Engineering structures have always been a mar- Given structure is a model arch bridge which
vel to see and the way they work. But depending is 1:10 scaled, two-lane 7.5m road bridge. The
on the scale of construction and many such fac- span of the bridge is 2 m with a deck width
tors it becomes a challenge to meet the safety of 0.75 m. It‘s an open spandrel deck bridge
and manufacturing standards keeping the cost with arches tied at springing level (bow-string).
of construction as low as possible. In order to Ends of the bridge are supported by pin and
optimize these factors various computer aided roller supports. Various components of the arch
models and real world models are tested. In bridge include Circular arch, Girder, Beams and
our project report we analyzed a real model of Stringers of bridge deck with Spandrel Columns
a Arch bridge and compare it with a SAP2000 and Ties at springing level with Arch supports.
model of a arch bridge. Comparing the data
points of loads and strain values on the mem- Vehicle description – The model vehicle
bers of the bridge (arch and tie) on both real weighed 145 kgs. Supported on two axles spaced
as well on virtual model gave us a great insight at a distance of 22 cm.
on how accurately the computer software can Total 20 strain gauges are used to collect the
replicate a real world model.The real structure strain data. The type of strain gauges used are
to be analyzed was an arch bridge with vehicle Uni-axial strain gauges (ERSG type). There are
moving load. To make a comparison between two SG’s at a section to measure axial strains.
both the structures an scaled down model of a 16 gauges are used to collect arch strains be-
arch bridge was build with strain gauges and tween panels. 8 on each arch, 2 each section. 4
load cells installed on the appropriate locations gauges are used to measure the tie strains. 2 on
in the bridge. The same model was analyzed on each tie rod. The difference in SG values is mea-
SAP2000 using Influence Line Methods and the sure of bending strains in that member, while
1
Real Scaled down model vs SAP Model Analysis
for an Arch Bridge
Piyush Patel (170470) , Nitesh (170446) , Kritagya (170350) , Apoorva (170140)
Department of Civil Engineering IIT KANPUR
April 15, 2019
Abstract final readings of strain values and loading was
compared using graphs.
This report deals with the comparison between
structural analysis of bridge based on experi-
mental and calculated data. Experimental data Materials & Methods
is based on strain gauge and load cell results.
While the theoretical data is based on calcu-
lations, assumptions and technique which are
taken for SAP analysis. The purpose of this
project is to get a correlation between the results
of structural commercial software which are used
to design of various structural elements and how
they compare with the real-life scenario. And
also to analyze the possible reasons for the re-
sults.
Figure 1: Scaled down model of an arch Bridge
Introduction
Engineering structures have always been a mar- Given structure is a model arch bridge which
vel to see and the way they work. But depending is 1:10 scaled, two-lane 7.5m road bridge. The
on the scale of construction and many such fac- span of the bridge is 2 m with a deck width
tors it becomes a challenge to meet the safety of 0.75 m. It‘s an open spandrel deck bridge
and manufacturing standards keeping the cost with arches tied at springing level (bow-string).
of construction as low as possible. In order to Ends of the bridge are supported by pin and
optimize these factors various computer aided roller supports. Various components of the arch
models and real world models are tested. In bridge include Circular arch, Girder, Beams and
our project report we analyzed a real model of Stringers of bridge deck with Spandrel Columns
a Arch bridge and compare it with a SAP2000 and Ties at springing level with Arch supports.
model of a arch bridge. Comparing the data
points of loads and strain values on the mem- Vehicle description – The model vehicle
bers of the bridge (arch and tie) on both real weighed 145 kgs. Supported on two axles spaced
as well on virtual model gave us a great insight at a distance of 22 cm.
on how accurately the computer software can Total 20 strain gauges are used to collect the
replicate a real world model.The real structure strain data. The type of strain gauges used are
to be analyzed was an arch bridge with vehicle Uni-axial strain gauges (ERSG type). There are
moving load. To make a comparison between two SG’s at a section to measure axial strains.
both the structures an scaled down model of a 16 gauges are used to collect arch strains be-
arch bridge was build with strain gauges and tween panels. 8 on each arch, 2 each section. 4
load cells installed on the appropriate locations gauges are used to measure the tie strains. 2 on
in the bridge. The same model was analyzed on each tie rod. The difference in SG values is mea-
SAP2000 using Influence Line Methods and the sure of bending strains in that member, while
1
