BOQ Builder·Auto-BOQ from dimensions, DSR ratesNEW→BidEasy·Government tenders, searchableLIVE→InfraLens App·Free on Play Store, offline-readyNEW→

IRC SP 66 : 2016Guidelines for Design of Continuous Bridges

PDF Google Compare IRC Portal

Link points to Internet Archive / others. Not hosted by InfraLens. Details

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (USA) · Eurocode 2 (EN 1992) - Design of concrete structures (Europe) · BS 5400 - Steel, concrete and composite bridges (UK)

CurrentFrequently UsedCode of PracticeTransportation · Bridges and Bridge Engineering

PDF Google Compare IRC Portal

Link points to Internet Archive / others. Not hosted by InfraLens. Details

IRC SP 66:2016 is the Indian Standard (IRC) for guidelines for design of continuous bridges. This IRC code is essential for engineers designing continuous bridges, which offer advantages in terms of economy and improved load distribution compared to simply supported structures. It details methodologies for analyzing the complex load effects in continuous bridges, considering factors like prestressing, seismic loads, and thermal variations. The code emphasizes the importance of proper support design, continuity connections, and deflection control to ensure the long-term performance and safety of these structures. It provides guidance on material specifications, construction practices, and inspection requirements specific to continuous bridge designs.

This IRC code provides comprehensive guidelines for the design of continuous bridges, encompassing various structural types and loading conditions. It addresses the unique behavioral aspects of continuous spans, including moment redistribution, support conditions, and deflection characteristics.

Quick Reference — IRC SP 66:2016 Continuous Bridges

Key reference values — verify against the current code edition / project specification.

✓ Verified 2026-05-15

Reference	Value	Clause
Subject	Design of continuous (multi-span) bridges	Scope
Continuity benefit	Lower mid-span moment, fewer joints/bearings	Why
Analysis	Support settlement, temperature, creep effects	Design
Hogging at piers	Negative-moment design + detailing	Design
Read with	IRC 6 / IRC 112 / IRC 24	Cross-ref

⚠ Indicative reference values from the code/standard practice; binding figures are those in the current edition and the project specification.

Overview

Status: Current
Usage level: Frequently Used
Domain: Transportation — Bridges and Bridge Engineering
Type: Code of Practice

International equivalents

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (USA)Eurocode 2 (EN 1992) - Design of concrete structures (Europe)BS 5400 - Steel, concrete and composite bridges (UK)AUSTROADS Bridge Design Code (Australia)

Typically used with

IS 111

Also on InfraLens for IRC SP 66

18Key values 6Tables 10FAQs

Practical Notes

! Always consider the influence of continuity on moment distribution at supports. Intermediate supports in continuous bridges often experience significant negative moments.

! The design of bearings for continuous bridges is critical to accommodate rotations and translations, preventing excessive stresses.

! Moment redistribution is permissible but must be verified against ductility requirements and code limitations to avoid brittle failure.

! Detailed analysis of thermal expansion and contraction is necessary for continuous bridges to prevent overstressing at expansion joints and abutments.

! For prestressed continuous bridges, the interaction between prestress forces, creep, shrinkage, and external loads needs careful evaluation over the structure's lifespan.

! Accurate calculation of support reactions is crucial, as these reactions are influenced by the continuity and stiffness of the entire span.

! The effective width of deck slabs needs to be determined carefully for accurate load distribution to the supporting girders.

! Consideration of longitudinal forces (braking, acceleration, seismic) is essential for the stability and force transfer in continuous bridges.

! Deflection control is paramount for serviceability. Always check deflections against the permissible limits specified in the code.

! The dynamic load allowance must be applied to live loads to account for the impact of moving traffic.

! Construction joints in deck slabs of continuous bridges should be designed to ensure adequate load transfer and continuity.

! The analysis of continuous bridges should consider the possibility of differential settlement of supports.

! For seismic design, ensure adequate detailing for ductility at plastic hinge locations in continuous members.

! The continuity of the structure can lead to a more economical design by reducing the maximum bending moments compared to simply supported spans of equivalent lengths.

! The code emphasizes the use of influence lines for determining maximum forces due to moving loads on continuous spans.

! During erection, temporary support conditions and their effect on the behavior of the continuous structure must be carefully considered.

Frequently referenced clauses

Cl. Clause 4.1General Principles of Continuous Bridge Design

Cl. Clause 4.2Methods of Analysis for Continuous Bridges

Cl. Clause 5.1Support Conditions and Reactions

Cl. Clause 6.1Moment Redistribution in Continuous Beams

Cl. Clause 7.1Deflection Control

Cl. Clause 8.1Design of Continuous Deck Slabs

Cl. Clause 9.1Design of Continuous Girders

Cl. Clause 10.1Prestressed Continuous Bridges

Cl. Clause 11.1Seismic Design of Continuous Bridges

Cl. Clause 12.1Thermal Effects and Expansion Joints

Continuous BridgesBridge DesignStructural EngineeringIRC CodesHighway EngineeringBridgesStructural AnalysisPrestressed ConcreteReinforced ConcreteLoad AnalysisDeflection ControlMoment RedistributionSeismic DesignThermal EffectsBearingsDeck SlabsGirdersIndian Roads CongressIRC

Engineer's Notes

In Practice — Editorial Commentary

When IRC SP 66 is your governing code

IRC SP 66 (2016) provides Guidelines for Design of Continuous Bridges — the IRC's specification for multi-span bridges with continuous deck girders (no intermediate hinge / expansion joint). Continuous bridges offer structural efficiency + smoother riding compared to simply-supported equivalents.

Use IRC SP 66 when you are: - Designing a multi-span bridge with continuous deck (typically 2-5 spans) - Doing highway viaducts over multiple support locations - Specifying continuous box-girder for long crossings - Considering continuous vs simply-supported alternatives - Designing balanced cantilever or post-tensioned continuous structures

Continuous vs simply-supported: - Continuous: - Structural efficiency (negative moment at supports + positive at mid-span) - Smoother riding (fewer joints) - Lower deflections - More complex construction sequence - Sensitive to differential support settlement - Simply-supported: - Each span independent - Simple construction - Maximum positive moment in span (less efficient) - More joints (riding issue, maintenance)

Span configurations: - 2-span continuous: common for highway over-bridges; spans equal or unequal - 3-span continuous: for major road bridges; spans typically 1:1.2-1.5:1 - 4+ span continuous: for long-river bridges + urban viaducts

Bridge types using continuous design: - RCC continuous slab / T-beam (small spans 8-20 m) - PSC continuous box-girder (medium-long spans 20-100+ m) - Steel continuous truss + plate girder (large spans 30-100+ m) - Cable-stayed continuous (longer spans 100+ m)

Continuous design principles + sequence

Design loadings + analysis: - All standard loads per IRC:6:2017 - Moment envelope at each section considering live load placement (variability) - Support reactions computed for all load combinations - Settlement of any support induces moment redistribution → check stress - Thermal expansion with all supports providing constraint - Creep + shrinkage redistributes moments over time - Earthquake response: different from simply-supported (longer fundamental period)

Cross-section types: - Solid slab continuous: small spans 5-15 m - T-beam + slab continuous: 8-25 m - Box-girder continuous: 20-100+ m - Steel I-girder composite + concrete deck: 25-80 m - Truss continuous: 30-100 m - Cable-stayed continuous: 100-500+ m

Construction sequencing for continuous bridges: 1. Cast-in-place continuous (simplest): - Build all spans + deck on temporary support - Concrete pour as continuous element - Cure + post-tension (if pre-stressed) - Remove temporary support

2. Span-by-span construction with closure pours: - Each span constructed separately on temporary support - Closure pour at span-to-span joint - Pre-stressing across joints

3. Balanced cantilever (per IRC:SP-65:2005): - Segments cantilevered from each pier - Closing segments at mid-span - Final continuous configuration

4. Incremental launching: - Entire deck constructed on bank - Launched horizontally along supports - Final continuous configuration

5. Composite continuous: - Steel girders erected + decked - Concrete deck cast on top - Studs / connectors provide composite action

Bearings: - One bearing fixed (longitudinal restraint) - Other bearings: free (sliding) or multidirectional (modern modular) - Detail per IRC:83:2018 + bearing manufacturer - Pier-cap detailing to accommodate movement

Joints: - At expansion joints (deck-abutment + deck-deck): per IRC:SP-77:2008 - Inside the bridge: no intermediate joints (continuity is the design intent) - Construction joints: during construction, but final structure continuous

Reference values + design considerations

Span ratio (multi-span continuous): - 2-span: equal spans usually; or 0.7:1.0 ratio - 3-span: end:middle ratio typically 0.7:1.0 (or 0.7-1.4 depending on design) - 4+ span: generally equal interior spans; end spans 0.7-1.0 of interior

Negative moment at support: - Approximately 1.0 × M_max in interior span - Approximately 0.7-1.5 × M_max in end span (depending on support condition) - Reinforcement concentrated in top of slab over supports

Differential settlement: - Acceptable: L/750-L/1000 (= 1.3-1.0 mm per metre) - Maximum: L/500 (= 2 mm per metre) - Settlement of one support induces: moment redistribution - Foundation design must consider differential settlement sensitivity

Camber: - Computed to compensate for dead load + creep + shrinkage - Continuous bridges: camber profile across spans coordinated - Verification at multiple chainages during construction

Concrete grades: - Standard road bridge: M30-M40 - High-stress areas (negative moment over piers): M40+ - Pre-stressed concrete: M40-M55

Pre-stressing: - Tendons placed for negative moment (top) at supports + positive (bottom) in spans - External tendons (modern) for some segments - Internal post-tensioning common - Per IRC:SP-65:2005 for segmental construction + IRC:112:2020 for concrete bridges

Construction loadings: - Each construction stage analyzed - Temporary support reactions - Sequential pre-stressing - Closure pour timing + bonding - Erection equipment (launching girder, trapezes)

Quality control during construction: - Verify support reactions at each stage - Survey deck level for camber compliance - Strain monitoring (where instrumented) - Concrete cube + cylinder samples per pour

Acceptance criteria: - Geometric tolerance per design - Concrete strength meets design at all locations - Pre-stressing force verified - Joint integrity verified - Final deflection within design - No major distress visible

Service performance: - Continuous bridges typically perform well; few maintenance issues - Bearing replacement cycle: 20-30 years - Expansion joints at deck-abutment: every 10-20 years - Major rehabilitation: 50+ years - Service life: 75-100+ years

Companion codes (must pair with)

IRC:5:2015 — General Features of Design.
IRC:6:2017 — Loads + Stresses.
IRC:7:2017 — Substructure + Wearing Coat.
IRC:78:2014 — Bridge Foundations.
IRC:83:2018 — Direct Foundations.
IRC:112:2020 — Concrete Road Bridges.
IRC:21:2000 — Older RCC Bridges.
IRC:24:2010 — Steel Bridges.
IRC:19:2005 — Hinge + Expansion Joints.
IRC:47:2018 — Fatigue Design.
IRC:SP-65:2005 — Segmental Bridges. Common method for continuous construction.
IRC:SP-77:2008 — Expansion Joints.
IRC:SP-80:2008 — Concrete Bridge Corrosion.
IRC:SP-37:2010 — Load Carrying Capacity.
IRC:SP-51:2015 — Load Testing.
IRC:SP-57:2015 — Quality Systems.
IRC:SP-54:2000 — DPR Manual.
IS 456:2000 — Plain + Reinforced Concrete.
IS 1343 — Prestressed Concrete.
IS 800:2007 — Steel Construction.
IS 14268 — Pre-stressing Strand.
IS 1893 (Part 1) — Earthquake Resistant Design.
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.
Eurocode 2, 3, 4 — Concrete, Steel, Composite.
AASHTO Construction Practices for Continuous Bridges.
MoRTH Specifications for Road and Bridge Works.

Common pitfalls / what reviewers flag

1. Differential settlement not considered. Foundation settlement > L/500; moment redistribution stresses critical sections. Foundation design + monitoring. 2. Construction sequence not analyzed. Each stage stresses + deflections unknown; construction failures. Multi-stage analysis. 3. Closure pour timing wrong. Concrete shrinkage between pours; cracking. Plan timing + bonding. 4. Camber compensation incorrect. Camber too small or too large; deck profile wrong. Detailed camber calculation + monitoring. 5. Pre-stressing zones inadequate reinforced. Anchorage zones at supports + spans need extra rebar. Per IS 1343. 6. Earthquake response not analyzed. Long-period bridge; seismic response different. Per IS 1893. 7. Bearing layout error. Multiple fixed bearings restrain thermal expansion; cracking. Only one bearing fixed; others sliding. 8. No intermediate expansion joint provision. Designer forgot end-of-deck joints; deck damages abutment. Joints per IRC:SP-77:2008. 9. Construction joint location at high-stress zone. Cold joint over support; structural concern. Joint at lower-stress points. 10. Quality control inconsistent across spans. Different shifts / contractors; quality varies. Single QC team + consistent specs. 11. As-built deviates from design. Construction deviations not documented; analysis assumptions invalid. As-built drawings essential. 12. No monitoring during construction. Stresses + deflections unmeasured; behavior unverified. Strain + survey monitoring. 13. Bearing replacement not planned. Service-life issue ignored; future major work. Bearing plan + maintenance contract. 14. Long-term creep + shrinkage over-estimated. Conservative assumptions; design heavier than needed. Realistic analysis. 15. Settlement monitoring skipped. Foundation settlement unmonitored; cumulative damage. Survey monitoring + frequent post-construction. 16. Load test omitted. Design + construction quality verified by paper only; real behavior unverified. Per IRC:SP-51:2015. 17. Aesthetics neglected. Functional but unappealing; urban acceptance issues. Architectural treatment + form.

Where it sits in bridge-project lifecycle

Continuous bridge project — IRC SP 66 touchpoints:

1. DPR + design: - Span configuration + span ratio - Cross-section selection (slab / T-beam / box / steel / composite) - Continuous vs simply-supported comparison - Construction methodology - Concrete + pre-stressing specifications - Bearing + joint layout

2. Structural analysis: - All standard load combinations per IRC:6:2017 - Moment envelope - Differential settlement sensitivity - Thermal + creep + shrinkage - Earthquake analysis per IS 1893 - Construction-stage analysis

3. Detailed design: - Reinforcement detailing - Pre-stressing layout - Bearing + joint design - Bearing seats + drip details - Drainage + waterproofing

4. Construction planning: - Sequence + closure pour timing - Falsework + temporary support design - Erection equipment - Quality control plan

5. Construction: - Foundation + substructure - Sequential superstructure construction per method - Closure pours - Pre-stressing - Bearing + joint installation - Finishing (wearing coat, drainage, signage)

6. Quality control + monitoring: - Per IRC:SP-57:2015 framework - Survey + alignment monitoring - Camber verification - Strain monitoring (where instrumented) - Bearing + joint installation verification

7. Pre-opening: - Load test per IRC:SP-51:2015 (where required) - Final inspection - Settlement monitoring baseline

8. Operations + maintenance: - Annual visual inspection - 5-year detailed inspection per IRC:SP-71:2018 - Bearing replacement cycle (20-30 years) - Expansion joint replacement (10-20 years) - Long-term: 75-100 year service life

IRC SP 66 is the technical reference for continuous bridge design — applied on NH 4/6-lane projects, major river crossings, urban viaducts, and infrastructure where smoother riding + structural efficiency are valued.

International Equivalents

Similar International Standards

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (USA)

MediumCurrent

Eurocode 2 (EN 1992) - Design of concrete structures (Europe)

MediumCurrent

BS 5400 - Steel, concrete and composite bridges (UK)

MediumCurrent

AUSTROADS Bridge Design Code (Australia)

MediumCurrent

Key Differences

≠

Key Similarities

≈

Parameter Comparison

Parameter	IS Value	International	Source
Load Factors
Permissible Deflection Limit (Vehicular)
Moment Redistribution
Dynamic Load Allowance (Impact Factor)

⚠ Verify details from original standards before use

Key Values18

Quick Reference Values

Minimum Span for Continuity ConsiderationGenerally, continuous bridges are considered for spans exceeding 20 meters, though local conditions and economy may dictate otherwise.

Impact of Moment RedistributionMoment redistribution is a critical phenomenon in continuous bridges, allowing for more economical designs by reducing peak moments at supports.

Permissible Deflection LimitsDeflection limits are crucial to ensure serviceability and comfort, with specific values often dictated by the type of bridge and its usage (e.g., vehicular, pedestrian). For vehicular bridges, a common limit is Span/800.

Effective Width of Deck SlabThe effective width of the deck slab in continuous bridges needs careful calculation to accurately distribute loads to girders. IRC: 21 provides guidance on this.

Influence Lines for Continuous BeamsInfluence lines are indispensable tools for determining maximum moments and shears in continuous spans under moving loads.

Bearing Design ConsiderationsBearings in continuous bridges must accommodate rotational and translational movements, especially at intermediate supports and abutments. Elastomeric bearings and POT bearings are common.

Shear Design in Continuous GirdersShear design in continuous girders requires attention to crack control and the interaction between shear and bending moments.

Longitudinal Forces in Continuous BridgesLongitudinal forces due to braking, acceleration, and seismic action need to be effectively transferred through the continuous structure and bearings to abutments.

Temperature Effects in Continuous SpansTemperature variations induce stresses and deformations in continuous bridges, which must be accounted for in the design, particularly concerning expansion joints and bearings.

Analysis of Prestressed Continuous BridgesThe design of prestressed continuous bridges involves considering the effects of prestress force, losses, and their interaction with live loads and other external forces.

Dynamic Load AllowanceIRC: 6 specifies the impact or dynamic load allowance for vehicular bridges, which is a crucial factor in load calculations for continuous spans.

Foundation Design for Continuous BridgesFoundations for continuous bridges must be designed to support the transferred loads from the superstructure, considering potential differential settlements.

Staggered Joints in Deck SlabsFor deck slabs, staggered construction joints are often recommended to improve continuity and reduce stress concentrations.

Creep and Shrinkage EffectsCreep and shrinkage of concrete can significantly influence the stress distribution in continuous prestressed bridges over time and must be analyzed.

Lateral Stability of Continuous GirdersEnsuring the lateral stability of continuous girders, especially during construction and under service loads, is vital.

Consideration of Abnormal LoadsThe code may also require consideration of abnormal loads like blast loads or heavy military traffic for critical bridges.

Serviceability Limit StateThis state ensures that the bridge performs satisfactorily under normal operating conditions, focusing on deflections, vibrations, and cracking.

Ultimate Limit StateThis state ensures that the bridge can withstand extreme loads without collapse, focusing on material strength and structural integrity.

Key Formulas

\text{M}_{\text{red}} = \text{M}_{\text{elastic}} \times (1 - \delta)

\Delta = \frac{5 w L^4}{384 E I}

\text{b}_{\text{eff}} = \text{b} + \frac{S}{2} \text{ or } \text{b}_{\text{eff}} = \text{b} + S

\text{V} = \frac{dM}{dx}

Tables & Referenced Sections

Key Tables

Load Combinations for Design

Permissible Deflection Limits for Vehicular Bridges

Allowable Stress for Concrete in Bending

Modulus of Elasticity of Steel Reinforcement

Dynamic Load Allowance (Impact Factor)

Creep Coefficients for Concrete

Frequently Asked Questions10

What are the primary advantages of using continuous bridges over simply supported bridges?+

Continuous bridges offer several advantages. They are generally more economical for longer spans due to the reduction in maximum bending moments achieved through moment redistribution. This redistribution allows for more efficient use of materials. Furthermore, continuous bridges tend to have better load distribution characteristics, meaning a load applied to one span can be distributed to adjacent spans, which can be beneficial in terms of structural response and overall stability. They also provide a smoother ride for traffic due to reduced deflections at intermediate supports.

How does moment redistribution work in a continuous bridge, and what are its implications for design?+

Moment redistribution in continuous bridges occurs when plastic hinges form at points of maximum elastic moment. As the load increases, these hinges allow the structure to undergo further deformation, causing the moments to redistribute to areas of lower stress. This process allows for more economical designs by reducing the peak moments at supports and in spans. However, it's crucial to ensure that the material has sufficient ductility to form these plastic hinges without brittle failure, and the code specifies limits on the extent of redistribution.

What are the key considerations for designing bearings in continuous bridges?+

Bearings in continuous bridges are critical for managing the movements and rotations that occur due to various loads and environmental factors. They must accommodate vertical loads, horizontal forces (like braking and seismic loads), and rotational demands at the supports. For continuous spans, the bearings at intermediate supports typically experience rotation, while abutment bearings might need to accommodate both rotation and longitudinal movement. The choice of bearing type (e.g., elastomeric, POT bearings) depends on the magnitude of these movements and forces, ensuring the bridge can function as intended without inducing undue stresses.

How does temperature variation affect continuous bridges, and what design measures are needed?+

Temperature variations cause expansion and contraction of the bridge materials, leading to internal stresses and deformations, especially in continuous structures. In continuous bridges, these movements are restrained by the continuity and the substructure. This restraint can induce significant longitudinal forces and moments. To manage these effects, expansion joints are provided, typically at the ends of the bridge or at significant changes in geometry, to allow for controlled movement. The design of bearings also needs to account for these thermal movements, ensuring they can slide or rotate as required without failing.

What are the implications of creep and shrinkage in prestressed continuous bridges?+

Creep and shrinkage are time-dependent deformations of concrete that significantly impact prestressed continuous bridges. Creep is the continued deformation of concrete under sustained load, while shrinkage is the volume reduction due to moisture loss. In continuous prestressed bridges, these phenomena can lead to a redistribution of prestress forces and an increase in deflections over time. They can also induce secondary moments due to the curvature changes. Therefore, engineers must account for these effects in long-term analysis and design, often using creep coefficients provided in the code.

How is deflection controlled in continuous bridges according to IRC codes?+

Deflection control is a critical aspect of ensuring the serviceability of continuous bridges. The IRC codes specify permissible deflection limits, typically expressed as a fraction of the span (e.g., Span/800 for vehicular bridges), which must not be exceeded under service loads. Engineers calculate deflections using appropriate structural analysis methods, considering the stiffness of the members, applied loads, and long-term effects like creep and shrinkage. If calculated deflections exceed the permissible limits, the design may need to be revised by increasing member stiffness or modifying the span arrangements.

What are the primary methods for analyzing continuous bridges?+

The IRC code outlines several methods for analyzing continuous bridges. These include traditional methods like the moment distribution method and the use of influence lines, which are effective for simpler continuous spans. For more complex bridge geometries, such as multi-span continuous girders or structures with irregular cross-sections, finite element analysis (FEA) is often employed. FEA allows for a detailed modeling of the structure and accurate prediction of its behavior under various load conditions.

How does the IRC code address seismic design for continuous bridges?+

The seismic design of continuous bridges aims to ensure that the structure can withstand earthquake forces without collapsing. The IRC codes provide guidelines for calculating seismic loads based on the bridge's location, soil conditions, and importance. The design emphasizes ductility, meaning the bridge components should be able to deform significantly without fracturing. This often involves specific detailing of reinforcement, particularly at potential plastic hinge locations, and consideration of seismic isolation techniques where appropriate to reduce the forces transmitted to the substructure.

What is the significance of dynamic load allowance (impact factor) in the design of continuous bridges?+

Dynamic load allowance, often referred to as the impact factor, is crucial because moving vehicles on a bridge induce dynamic forces that are greater than static loads due to the vehicle's suspension system and unevenness of the road surface. For continuous bridges, this factor is applied to the live load to account for these dynamic effects. The IRC code specifies different impact factors based on the span length and type of bridge, ensuring that the structure is designed to withstand these amplified forces, thereby maintaining its integrity and preventing excessive vibrations.

Are there specific requirements for the continuity of deck slabs in continuous bridges?+

Yes, the continuity of deck slabs is essential for proper load distribution and to prevent excessive cracking. IRC codes provide guidelines for designing continuous deck slabs, which include considerations for bending moments, shear forces, and effective width for load transfer to supporting girders. Staggered construction joints are often recommended to improve continuity and load transfer characteristics. The reinforcement in the deck slab needs to be detailed to effectively carry the negative moments that occur over intermediate supports.

QA/QC Inspection Templates

📋

QA/QC templates coming soon for this code.

Browse all 300 templates →

BOQ Builder·Auto-BOQ from dimensions, DSR ratesNEW→BidEasy·Government tenders, searchableLIVE→InfraLens App·Free on Play Store, offline-readyNEW→

IRC SP 66 : 2016Guidelines for Design of Continuous Bridges

PDF Google Compare IRC Portal

Link points to Internet Archive / others. Not hosted by InfraLens. Details

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (USA) · Eurocode 2 (EN 1992) - Design of concrete structures (Europe) · BS 5400 - Steel, concrete and composite bridges (UK)

CurrentFrequently UsedCode of PracticeTransportation · Bridges and Bridge Engineering

PDF Google Compare IRC Portal

Link points to Internet Archive / others. Not hosted by InfraLens. Details

Quick Reference — IRC SP 66:2016 Continuous Bridges

Key reference values — verify against the current code edition / project specification.

✓ Verified 2026-05-15

Reference	Value	Clause
Subject	Design of continuous (multi-span) bridges	Scope
Continuity benefit	Lower mid-span moment, fewer joints/bearings	Why
Analysis	Support settlement, temperature, creep effects	Design
Hogging at piers	Negative-moment design + detailing	Design
Read with	IRC 6 / IRC 112 / IRC 24	Cross-ref

⚠ Indicative reference values from the code/standard practice; binding figures are those in the current edition and the project specification.

Overview

Status: Current
Usage level: Frequently Used
Domain: Transportation — Bridges and Bridge Engineering
Type: Code of Practice