International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volu...
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volu...
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volu...
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volu...
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volu...
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, I...
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volu...
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volu...
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volu...
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volu...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Comparitive analysis of box girder birdge

588 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
588
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
39
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Comparitive analysis of box girder birdge

  1. 1. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), © IAEME111COMPARITIVE ANALYSIS OF BOX GIRDER BIRDGE WITH TWODIFFERENT CODESPatil Yashavant S.1, Prof. Shinde Sangita B.21P.G. Student, Dept. of Structural Engineering,Jawaharlal Nehru Engineering College, Aurangabad-431003, Maharashtra. India.2Asst. Professor, Dept. of Structural Engineering,Jawaharlal Nehru Engineering College, Aurangabad-431003. Maharashtra, India.ABSTRACTThe design of a highway bridge is critically dependent on standards and criteria.Naturally, the importance of highway bridges in a modern transportation system would implya set of rigorous design specifications to ensure the safety, quality and overall cost of theproject. This paper discusses the comparative analysis of two standards namely AASHTO andIRC followed in construction of bridge superstructures subjected to load of heavy vehicles.To find out optimized cross section, variety of checks and exercise are performed that arepresented in this paper. As a result of this exercise it is clear that results of bending momentand stress for self-weight and superimposed weight are same, but those are different for themoving load consideration, this is due to the fact that IRC codes gives design for the heavyloading compared to the AASHTO codes. In load combination, AASHTO codes have takenmore factor of safety than IRC. Area of prestressing steel required for AASHTO is lesscompared to IRC. The results also showed the IRC codes are costly because for samedimension the numbers of Strand in the Web are more than those with AASHTO code.Analysis is carried out using the MIDAS CIVIL of finite elements base modeling.Keywords- Concrete Box Girder Bridge, impact factor, Prestress Force, shear strength,MIDAS CIVIL ModelINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING ANDTECHNOLOGY (IJCIET)ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print)ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online)Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), pp. 111-120© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijciet.aspJournal Impact Factor (2013): 5.3277 (Calculated by GISI)www.jifactor.comIJCIET© IAEME
  2. 2. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), © IAEME112I. INTRODUCTIONFor design of Mega Bridge superstructures there are many codes used around theworld and most of countries have their own code depending on the natural conditions and thesurrounding environmental factors, such as the effect of earthquakes and heavy snowfall, etc.In the United States, Bridge Engineers use the code of AASHTO “American Association ofState Highway and Transportation Officials”; this code can be adopted for design of thehighway bridges with special requirements. Similarly, Indian bridge engineers refer to theIRC (Indian Road Congress) standard to do the design. However The AASHTO StandardSpecification is adopted by many countries as the general code for bridge designs.While designing project two different codes might result in different design. Therefore tochoose the most appropriate one, it’s important to do comparative analysis of codes and theirresulting design. To prove this hypothesis in this study following two codes are adopted1) AASHTO-LRFD Bridge Design Specifications2) IRC and IS codes Design SpecificationThe Two codes will be used to do the analysis of Box Girder. The similarities and differences,advantages and disadvantages of each code will be investigated.II. MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND ALLOWABLE STRESSConcrete properties: Grade: M45Tendon Properties:P .C Strand: Φ15.2 mm (0.6˝strand)Yield Strength: fpy = 1600 N/mm2Ultimate Strength: fpu = 1900 N/mm2Cross Sectional area of each tendon = 140 mm2Modulus of Elasticity: Eps = 2.0 X 105N/mm2Jacking Stress: fpj = 0.7fpu = 1330 N/mm2Curvature friction factor: µ = 0.3 /radWobble friction factor: k = 0.0066 /mAnchorage Slip: ∆s = 6 mm (At the Beginning and at the End)III. CROSS SECTION SPECIFICATIONSpan = 50mTotal width = 9.850mRoad width = 8.750mWearing coat = 100mmArea : 4.95 m²Ixx : 5.73 m4Iyy : 2.47 m4Izz : 2.80 m4Center: y : 1.05 mCenter: z : 4.93 m
  3. 3. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), © IAEME113Checks for optimization of cross section dimensions :-( AASHTO-LRFD 5.14.2.3.10)1. Check the thickness of flanges- Top flanges:Clear span between webs, lw = 4500 mmMinimum thickness = 4.5/30 =150 mmTop flange thickness = 300 mm. OK.- Bottom flanges:Clear span between webs, lw = 3800 mmMinimum thickness = 3800/30 =126.6 mmBottom flange thickness = 200 mm. OK.2. Check whether transverse prestressing is required or notlw = 4.500 m < 4.57 m( = 15 feet) Transverse prestressing not required.3. Check web thicknessTotal depth = 2000 mmMinimum thickness, tmin = 2000/15=133mm (= 12 inches)Web thickness, tw = 300 mm. OK.4. Check the length of top flange cantileverThe distance between centerline of the webs: ln = 4925 mmln X 0.45 = 2216 mm > 1500 mm. OK.5. Check overall cross-section dimensionsMaximum live load plus impact deflection: 6.433 mmDeflection limit, L/1000 = 30000/1000 = 30 mm. OK.Figure 1. Cross section of Box girderIV. LOADING ON BOX GIRDER BRIDGEThe various type of loads, forces and stresses to be considered in the analysis anddesign of the various components of the bridge are given in the IRC 6:2000(Section II) andAASHTO-LRFD (Section 3) But the common forces are considered to design the model areas follows:
  4. 4. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), © IAEME114Dead Load (DL)The dead load carried by the girder or the member consists of its own weight and theportions of the weight of the superstructure and any fixed loads supported by the member.The dead load can be estimated fairly accurately during design and can be controlled duringconstruction and service.Superimposed Dead Load (SIDL)The weight of superimposed dead load includes footpaths, earth-fills, wearing course,stay-in-place forms, ballast, water-proofing, signs, architectural ornamentation, pipes,conduits, cables and any other immovable appurtenances installed on the structure.Wearing coat = 0.1x8.750x18 = 15.75kN/mFootway Load: (As per the IRC 6 -2000 clause 209)P = ࢖′െ ቀ૝૙ࡸି૜૙૙ૢቁWhere,P = Live Load in KN/m2P’ = As per the case 40KN/m2or 50 KN/m2L= The effective span of girderP = ࢖′െ ቀ૝૙ࢄ૜૙ି૜૙૙ૢቁP=300kg/m2P=3KN/m2Total superimposed load = 15.75+ (3x1) = 18.75kN/mLive Load (LL)Live loads are those caused by vehicles which pass over the bridge and are transientin nature. These loads cannot be estimated precisely, and the designer has very little controlover them once the bridge is opened to traffic. In this case Following types of loadings areadopted for the analysis of two lane box girder,As per IRCVehicle Load: - Class AA and Class ADynamic Allowance: - 33%As per AASTHOVehicle Load: - HL-93TDM, HL-93TRKDynamic Allowance: - 33%Wind LoadsWind Load: 3 kN/mTotal Height = Section Depth + Barrier = 2+1.55 = 3.55 mWind Pressure = 3 kN/m2Wind Load = 3.55 m X 3 KN/m2= 10.65 kN/m (Horizontal Load)= 10.65 kN/m X -1.33m = -28.47 kN.m/m (Moment)
  5. 5. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), © IAEME115Figure 2. Wind load distributionLosses in PrestressWhile assessing the stresses in concrete and steel during tensioning operations andlater in service, due regard shall be paid to all losses and variations in stress resulting fromcreep of concrete, shrinkage of concrete, relaxation of steel, the shortening (elasticdeformation ) of concrete at transfer, and friction and slip of anchorage.In computing the losses in prestress when untensioned reinforcement is present, the effect ofthe tensile stresses developed by the untensioned reinforcement due to shrinkage and creepshall be considered.V. MIDAS CIVIL MODELINGFigure 3: Midas Civil ModelVI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThe analysis of Box girder is done with the help of MIDAS civil Modelling,The Bendingmoment and shear force result for the self weight of Box girder is shown below,which areto be same for both the cases.
  6. 6. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, MayFigure 4 :Figure 5:Impact factor: As per the IRC 6Impact factor for Class A loading =As Per the AASHTO =Load combination :The load combination for both code are different,which are tabulated as below,Code Self weightIRC 1AASHTO 1.25Reactions for moving load are different, because weight of vehicle are different changes aswe change the code, In IRC 6-2000 classtwo track each of weight 350kNtrailer transmits loads from 8 axles varying from a minimum of 27kN to a maximum of114kN. It’s a 554kN train of wheeled vehicles on eight axles.For the AASHTO code, thewith the uniformly distributed load intensity of 9.34 kN/m ,Effect of moving load on Girder as mention in table 2International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 09766316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), © IAEME116Figure 4 : Bending moment due to self weight5: Beam Stress Diagram for Self weightAs per the IRC 6-2000 (clause 211.2)factor for Class A loading = = 0.125As Per the AASHTO = = 0.405The load combination for both code are different,which are tabulated as below,Self weight Superimposed load Moving Load1 11.25 1.75Table 1 :Load CombinationReactions for moving load are different, because weight of vehicle are different changes as2000 class AA types vehicle having a weight of 700kN withach of weight 350kN and class A types vehicle i.e., heavy duty truck with twotrailer transmits loads from 8 axles varying from a minimum of 27kN to a maximum of114kN. It’s a 554kN train of wheeled vehicles on eight axles.For the AASHTO code, the HL-93TDM andHL-93TRK types loading are considerwith the uniformly distributed load intensity of 9.34 kN/m , Shear-z ,torsion, momenton Girder as mention in table 2,International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308June (2013), © IAEMELoadReactions for moving load are different, because weight of vehicle are different changes asweight of 700kN withand class A types vehicle i.e., heavy duty truck with twotrailer transmits loads from 8 axles varying from a minimum of 27kN to a maximum of93TRK types loading are considered,z ,torsion, moment-y
  7. 7. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), © IAEME117ElementIRC AASHTOShear-z (kN)Torsion(kN*m)Moment-y(kN*m)Shear-z(kN)Torsion(kN*m)Moment-y(kN*m)1 -1591.2 4355.62 0 -489.25 1548.01 02 -1425.21 3892.26 4311.36 -410.24 1336.88 1274.83 -1037.45 -3349.94 7141.65 -336.6 1135.84 2170.744 -875.88 -2965.53 9632.31 -268.86 944.89 2708.515 -689.22 2502.17 9902.91 -207.49 764.03 2949.626 862.05 1959.85 9997.5 257.77 593.25 2902.37 1014.94 2409.49 9355.6 321.51 764.03 2595.938 1357.64 2965.53 7435.09 385.52 944.89 2014.999 1537.66 3197.21 4586.12 448.84 1135.84 1204.5910 1699.92 3799.59 -6069.54 510.48 -1336.9 -1445.6111 -1851.85 4355.62 -9216.07 -554.15 1548.01 -2292.1412 -1691.95 3813.31 -6413.02 -486.8 1336.88 -1673.5513 -1364.27 3428.89 -4701.88 -417.84 1135.84 -1328.4614 -1195.85 -2965.53 6536.63 -349.26 944.89 1857.0615 -1031.58 2423.22 7845.99 -282.91 764.03 2274.4116 -725.24 2038.8 8316.06 -220.51 593.25 2402.217 961.68 2502.17 8078.13 276.66 764.03 2292.4918 1170.49 2733.85 6928.24 343.16 944.89 1894.0319 1325.59 3289.89 4905.49 411.48 1135.84 1230.9420 1616.04 3892.26 -5423.25 479.74 1336.88 -1413.0121 -1815.89 4268.09 -8001.56 -545.92 1548.01 -1986.1322 -1616.04 3892.26 -5423.25 -479.74 1336.88 -1413.0123 -1333.27 3428.89 4905.49 -411.48 1135.84 1230.9424 -1170.49 2886.58 6928.24 -343.16 944.89 1894.0325 -961.68 2502.17 8078.13 -276.66 764.03 2292.4926 710.84 2038.8 8316.06 220.51 593.25 2402.227 1031.58 2270.48 7845.99 282.91 764.03 2274.4128 1150.73 2826.52 6536.63 349.26 944.89 1857.0629 1356.32 3428.89 -4701.88 417.84 1135.84 -1328.4630 1691.95 3660.57 -6413.02 486.8 -1336.9 -1673.5531 -1907.47 4355.62 -9216.07 -569.39 1548.01 -2292.1432 -1706.56 -3892.26 -6069.54 -510.48 1336.88 -1445.6133 -1537.66 -3349.95 4586.12 -448.84 1135.84 1204.5934 -1357.64 -2965.53 7435.09 -385.52 944.89 2014.9935 -1102.45 2502.17 9355.6 -321.51 764.03 2595.9336 -862.05 1959.86 9997.5 -257.77 593.25 2902.337 -659.09 2363.16 9902.91 207.49 764.03 2949.6238 845.47 2919.19 9632.31 268.86 944.89 2708.5139 1013.62 3197.21 7141.65 336.6 1135.84 2170.7440 1425.21 3753.25 4311.36 410.24 -1336.9 1274.841 1591.2 4355.62 0 489.25 1548.01 0Table 2: Shear-z, torsion, moment-z due to moving load comparison
  8. 8. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), © IAEME118As we observer the table values, Shear-z, torsion, moment-y effect on girder due to IRC loading ismore as compared to AASHTO loading, i.e., because of heavy vehicle load consideration in IRC ascompared to AASHTO, but as per as impact factors concern, for AASHTO impact factor is 0.405 andfor the IRC impact factor is 0.125, which are mention in above calculations. It means consideration ofimpact factor in AASHTO is more compared to IRC.Considering load combination of self-weight, superimposed dead load, moving load i.e., live load forthe finding ultimate moments and stress as per the codes, which are tabulated in table 3,ElementIRC AASHTOShear-z (kN)Torsion(kN*m)Moment-y(kN*m)Shear-z(kN)Torsion(kN*m)Moment-y(kN*m)1 -3196.01 4355.62 0 -2859.5 2709.02 02 -2623.38 3892.26 8515.85 -2213.62 2339.55 7479.453 -1829 -3349.94 14330.73 -1577.15 1987.73 12773.034 -1260.79 -2965.53 18586.06 -950.99 1653.56 15917.015 680.82 2502.17 19401.42 368.66 1337.05 17018.986 1290.42 1959.85 18820.87 985.83 1038.18 16093.387 1849.95 2409.49 16283.92 1605 1337.05 13191.628 2599.28 2965.53 11248.44 2224.61 1653.56 8286.519 3185.94 3197.21 -4612.2 2843.03 1987.73 -2600.7910 3754.83 3799.59 -12145.8 3458.51 -2339.55 -1011511 -4016.59 4355.62 -22067.1 -3672.05 2709.02 -20053.312 -3450.06 3813.31 -13379.7 -3046.58 2339.55 -11625.413 -2715.74 3428.89 -7004.22 -2418.29 1987.73 -5198.8614 -2140.69 -2965.53 7678.75 -1790.66 1653.56 4675.5715 -1569.78 2423.22 11212.65 -1166.94 1337.05 8182.8816 -856.8 2038.8 12687.36 -550.13 1038.19 9660.6217 1236.75 2502.17 12234.17 827.53 1337.05 9199.9118 1852.2 2733.85 9649.1 1451.52 1653.56 6711.0519 2413.94 3289.89 4971.27 2078.7 1987.73 2236.2620 3111.02 3892.26 -9232.47 2705.76 2339.55 -7227.8821 -3717.5 4268.09 -16905.7 -3329.18 2709.02 -14590.922 -3111.02 3892.26 -9232.47 -2705.76 2339.55 -7227.8823 -2421.62 3428.89 4971.27 -2078.7 1987.73 2236.2624 -1852.2 2886.58 9649.1 -1451.52 1653.56 6711.0525 -1236.75 2502.17 12234.17 -827.53 1337.05 9199.9126 842.4 2038.8 12687.36 550.13 1038.19 9660.6227 1569.78 2270.48 11212.65 1166.94 1337.05 8182.8828 2095.56 2826.52 7678.75 1790.66 1653.56 4675.5729 2707.79 3428.89 -7004.22 2418.29 1987.73 -5198.8630 3450.06 3660.57 -13379.7 3046.58 -2339.55 -11625.431 -4369.02 4355.62 -22067.1 -4069.22 2709.02 -20053.332 -3761.47 -3892.26 -12145.8 -3458.51 2339.55 -1011533 -3185.94 -3349.95 -4612.2 -2843.03 1987.73 -2600.7934 -2599.28 -2965.53 11248.44 -2224.61 1653.56 8286.5135 -1937.45 2502.17 16283.92 -1605 1337.05 13191.6236 -1290.42 1959.86 18820.87 -985.83 1038.19 16093.3837 -680.82 2363.16 19401.42 -368.66 1337.05 17018.9838 1230.37 2919.19 18586.06 950.99 1653.56 15917.0139 1805.17 3197.21 14330.73 1577.15 1987.73 12773.0340 2623.38 3753.25 8515.85 2213.62 -2339.55 7479.4541 3196.01 4355.62 0 2859.5 2709.02 0Table 3: Shear-z, torsion, moment-z due to load combination comparison
  9. 9. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), © IAEME119From the above table, bending moment at end support are zero, due to simply supportcondition, but in the intermediate support it shows the negative bending moment which is tobe less compare to positive bending moment.Comparing both the results, IRC combination show more moment compared to theAASHTO combination, i.e., because of heavy moving load consideration, while observingload combination multiplying factor for self-weight, 2nddead load, moving load are one forIRC, but in AASHTO 1.25,1.25,1.75 respectively. It shows that consideration of factor ofsafety is more in AASHTO.Calculation of Prestressing forceIRC AASHTOfbr 0.8x 0.45x 45 = 16 N/mm20.8x 0.45x 45 = 16 N/mm2finfଶ.ଶ଴଺଻୶୉ଵ଴଴.଼ଵ୶ଵ.଼ହ୶୉ଽ=14.91 N/mm2 ଶ୶୉ଵ଴଴.଼ଵ୶ଵ.଼ହ୶୉ଽ= 13 N/mm2Prestressingforceସ.ଽସ଼ଽ୶୉଺ ୶ ଵସ.ଵଵ ୶ ଵ.଼ହ ୶୉ଽଵ.଼ହ୶୉ଽାସ.ଽସ଼ଽ ଡ଼ ୉଺ ଡ଼ ଻଴଴=24308.998 kNସ.ଽସ଼ଽ୶୉଺ ୶ ଵଷ ୶ ଵ.଼ହ ୶୉ଽଵ.଼ହ୶୉ଽାସ.ଽସ଼ଽ ଡ଼ ୉଺ ଡ଼ ଻଴଴=22396.667 kNAnchoragetype19K -15 (15.2mmϕ,19 strands)Duct Dia=95mm27K -15 (15.2mmϕ,19 strands)Duct Dia =110mmNo. ofcables8 4Area 21280 mm215120 mm2Table 4: Prestress calculationVII. CONCLUSIONThis paper presents comparative analysis of concrete box girder that would helpdesigner while considering different factors based on code at the beginning of the project. Wealso showed how to use MIDAS civil use for the analysis of box girder. It gives result basedon finite element modeling, node by node result are specified in above tables, Box girdershows better resistance to the torsion of superstructure.For the optimization of section, different types of check need to be performed; thoseare carried out in this paper. Results of bending moment and stress for self-weight andsuperimposed weight are same, but those are different for the moving load consideration,because IRC codes gives design for the heavy loading compared to the AASHTO codes. Inload combination, AASHTO codes have taken more factor of safety than IRC. Area ofprestressing steel required for AASHTO is less compared to IRC. Finally based on thiscomparative study it’s clear that AASHTO code is more economical than IRC.
  10. 10. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), © IAEME120REFERENCES1. IRC: 6- 2000 “Standard specifications and code of practice for road bridges” Indianroad congress.2. IRC: 18 – 2000 “Design criteria for prestressed concrete road bridges (post –tensioned concrete)” Indian roads congress.3. IS: 1343 – 1980 “Code of practice for prestressed concrete” Indian standard.4. IRC: 21 –2000 “Standard specification and code of practice for road bridges (Plainand Reinforced)” Indian road congress.5. AASHTO (2007). “AASHTO-LRFD Bridge Design Specifications”6. Hussein Yousif Aziz and Jianlin Ma, “Design and analysis of bridge foundation withdifferent codes”, Journal of Civil Engineering and Construction Technology Vol.2(5), pp. 101-118, May 2011.7. Priyanka Bhivgade, “Analysis and design of prestressed concrete box Girder Bridge”Civil engineering portal.8. Young-Ha Park and Chan-Min Park, “Development of Long Span PrestressedConcrete I Girder Bridge by Optimal Design” expressway transportation researchinstitute 08-06.9. V.N. H EGGADE, R.K. MEHTA & R. P RAKASH,” Design and Construction ofPre-Tensioned Sutlej Bridge in Punjab” 143-158.10. Hussein Yousif Aziz and Jianlin Ma,“Experimental and Theoretical Static Analysis ofHigh-Speed Railway” The Open Construction and Building Technology Journal,2012,6, 17-3111. RICHARD A. MILLER “AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications ofPrestressed Concrete” AASHTO-LRFD Specification, 4th Edition12. S. Rana & R.Ahsan, “Design of prestressed concrete I-girder bridge superstructureusing optimization algorithm”, IABSE-JSCE Joint Conference on Advances in BridgeEngineering-II, August 8-10, 2010.13. Text Book of “Design of Bridges”, By N. Krishna Raju, Fourth Edition OXFORD &IBH PUBLISHING CO. PVT. LTD.14. Text Book of “Prestressed Concrete a fundamental Approach”, By Edward G. Nawy,Fifth Edition.15. Prof. P.T. Nimbalkar and Mr.Vipin Chandra, “Estimation Of Bridge Pier Scour ForClear Water & Live Bed Scour Condition” International Journal of Civil Engineering& Technology (IJCIET),Volume 4,Issue 3, 2013, pp. 92 - 97, ISSN Print: 0976 –6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 631616. Vinod P, Lalumangal And Jeenu G, “Durability Studies On High Strength HighPerformance Concrete” International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology(IJCIET), Volume 4,Issue 1, 2013, pp.16 - 25, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online:0976 – 6316

×