Link points to Internet Archive / others. Not hosted by InfraLens. Details
IS 4090:1967 is the Indian Standard (BIS) for criteria for design of reinforced concrete arches. This code establishes the design criteria for reinforced concrete arches, covering hingeless, two-hinged, and three-hinged configurations. It provides structural analysis guidelines, detailing how to account for primary loads as well as secondary effects like temperature gradients, concrete shrinkage, rib shortening, and support yielding.
! In hingeless arches, rib shortening and shrinkage act similarly to a temperature drop and induce significant secondary bending moments that must be explicitly calculated.
! For optimal and economical design, the centerline of the arch profile should ideally coincide with the funicular polygon for the primary dead loads to minimize flexural stresses.
! While this code covers arches generally, highway arch bridges are predominantly governed by IRC codes (e.g., IRC:112); IS 4090 is typically applied to architectural roofs, industrial structures, and non-highway applications.
AASHTO LRFD 9th Ed.American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), USA
LowCurrent
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
Section 5 (Concrete Structures) provides modern LRFD-based rules for designing all concrete bridge types, including arches.
EN 1992-2:2005European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Europe
LowCurrent
Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 2: Concrete bridges - Design and detailing rules
Provides Limit State Design principles applicable to concrete bridges, which are used for designing concrete arches.
BS 5400-4:1990British Standards Institution (BSI), UK
MediumWithdrawn
Steel, concrete and composite bridges - Part 4: Code of practice for design of concrete bridges
Provided specific rules for concrete bridge design, including arches, using a Limit State Design philosophy that evolved from earlier practices.
ACI 318-63American Concrete Institute (ACI), USA
HighWithdrawn
Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete
As a contemporary standard, it was based on Working Stress Design and provided the fundamental principles for reinforced concrete member design.
Key Differences
≠IS 4090 is based on the Working Stress Design (WSD) philosophy, using permissible stresses for materials. Modern international standards like Eurocode 2 and AASHTO LRFD are based on Limit State Design (LSD) or Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD), using partial safety factors for loads and material strengths.
≠The analysis of secondary effects like creep, shrinkage (rib shortening), and temperature is highly simplified in IS 4090 compared to the detailed, time-dependent models and thermal gradient considerations required by modern codes like Eurocode 2.
≠Load combinations in IS 4090 are simple additive combinations of unfactored service loads. AASHTO LRFD and Eurocodes use multiple, statistically derived combinations with different load factors for various limit states (e.g., Ultimate, Serviceability).
≠Modern standards mandate explicit consideration of second-order effects (P-Δ effects) for slender arches, often requiring non-linear analysis. IS 4090 addresses this in a more simplified, indirect manner.
Key Similarities
≈Both IS 4090 and modern standards recognize the fundamental classification of arches (e.g., three-hinged, two-hinged, fixed) and the associated structural behavior and analysis principles.
≈The fundamental types of loads considered for design are consistent, including dead load, live load, wind, temperature effects, and time-dependent concrete effects (shrinkage and creep).
≈The use of elastic analysis and influence lines to determine the distribution of internal forces (axial, shear, moment) in the arch rib is a common methodological basis, although modern codes use it primarily for serviceability checks or as a basis for more complex analyses.
≈All standards recognize that arch sections are primarily under combined axial compression and bending moment, and design procedures are based on checking the adequacy of the section for this interaction.
Parameter Comparison
Parameter
IS Value
International
Source
Primary Design Philosophy
Working Stress Design (WSD)
Limit State Design (LSD) / Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
Eurocode 2 / AASHTO LRFD
Safety Application
Factor of safety is applied to material stresses (Permissible Stresses).
Partial safety factors are applied to loads (γF) and material strengths (γM).
Eurocode 2
Permissible Bending Compressive Stress in Concrete (for M20)
σ_cbc ≈ 7 N/mm² (Approx. 0.33 * f_ck)
Not directly comparable. Design compressive strength f_cd ≈ 11.3 N/mm² (f_ck / γ_c = 20 / 1.5, with α_cc factor)
EN 1992-1-1
Design Tensile Stress in Steel (for Fe415 / S420)
σ_st = 230 N/mm²
f_yd ≈ 365 N/mm² (f_yk / γ_s = 420 / 1.15)
EN 1992-1-1
Live Load Factor (Ultimate Limit State)
1.0 (Loads are not factored in WSD)
1.75 (for Strength I load combination)
AASHTO LRFD
Consideration of Temperature
Uniform temperature change across the entire section (e.g., +/- 20°C).
Includes uniform component plus a non-linear thermal gradient through the section depth, varying by location and surface type.
EN 1991-1-5
Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete (Ec)
Based on an empirical formula, often related to 5700 * sqrt(fck) from later Indian codes.
Calculated based on mean compressive strength (fcm), e.g., E_cm = 22 * (f_cm / 10)^0.3.
EN 1992-1-1
⚠ Verify details from original standards before use
Key Values3
Quick Reference Values
Equivalent temperature drop for concrete shrinkage15 °C
Coefficient of thermal expansion for concrete11 x 10^-6 / °C
Minimum reinforcement requirementAs per IS 456
Key Formulas
H = (∫ M' y ds / EI) / (∫ y² ds / EI) — Horizontal thrust for two-hinged arch
Shrinkage effect = Equivalent to uniform temperature drop