Background/Objectives: By using the fly residue as option substance to bond in concrete it reduces the usage of normal Portland cement in usual concrete which results in the development of Geopolymer concrete furthermore in the lessening of CO2 levels which thusly reduces the Global Warming. Methods/Statistical analysis: This paper presents the trial examination done on the execution of coir fibre reinforced fly residue based geopolymer concrete subjected to severe ecological conditions. The mixes were considered for molarity of 10M. The basic arrangement utilized for present revise is the blend of sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide arrangement with the proportion of 1:2.5. Coir fibre with the varying percentages of 0, 0.75, 1.5, 2.25 and 3 are used as fibre reinforcement. The test specimens of 150mmx150mmx150mm cubes, 150mmx300mm cylinders, 1000mmx150mmx150mm beams are cast and cured under encompassing temperature conditions. Findings: The geopolymer solid examples are tried for their compressive quality, flexural and split tractable tests at 7days, 14days and 28days.The test grades demonstrate that the blend of fly ash and coir fibre can be used for the improvement of geopolymer concrete. Applications: It possesses superior distinctiveness such as high strength, very little drying shrinkage , low creep, durable nature, eco-friendly, fire proof ,better compressive strength etc to be used as an alternative of OPC

1. http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 456 editor@iaeme.com
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)
Volume 8, Issue 1, January 2017, pp. 456–463, Article ID: IJCIET_08_01_053
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=1
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316
© IAEME Publication
STUDY ON BEHAVIOUR OF PRESTRESSED
CONCRETE BRIDGE WITH & WITHOUT SOIL
INTERACTION
Ramyasri.N
PG Student, Civil Engineering Department,
K L University, Vaddeswaram, A. P, India
Rangarao.V
Professor, Civil Engineering Department,
K L University, Vaddeswaram, A. P, India
ABSTRACT
Objectives: To identify whether the type of soil affects the design parameter of the PSC
Bridge and to study the tendency of bending moment, shear force and deflections for pile and
pier center at various loads. Methods/Analysis: In this paper pre stressed concrete bridge is
analyzed using STAAD-Beava by considering pile foundation at center and at ends abutment
is taken as fixed. Here, two models are compared one with soil interaction and the other
without soil interaction. Live load, dead load, Moving loads are applied. Moving loads are
provided with 3 loading cases i.e. class-A, 70R tracked, 70R wheeled loadings. Findings:
Soil structure interaction is an incorporative study which includes the geotechnical and
structural engineering. Change in soil property around the piles and below the abutment
does not affect the performance of the super structure. Structure design, Foundation designs
are calculated without considering soil stiffness. In design, by neglecting interaction effects
between soil and bridge may results whether it is unsafe or costly. The massive uncertainty
while designing the PSC bridges is at pile foundation due to the reaction of soil. The reaction
of lateral soil is nonlinear.Bridge and the supporting soils are examined as one compatible
unit in soil interaction. For the above reason, soil properties are taken into account in
analysis & design of the soil structure system in order to assure reliable and economical
design. Improvements: Effects of soil on abutment for 3 loading cases which are supported
by shallow foundation instead of the fixed end.
Key words: Abutment, Deck, Prestressed Concrete BRIDGE, Piles, Soil Interaction, springs.
Cite this Article: Ramyasri.N and Rangarao.V, Study On Behaviour of Prestressed Concrete
Bridge with & Without Soil Interaction. International Journal of Civil Engineering and
Technology, 8(1), 2017, pp. 456–463.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=1
1. INTRODUCTION
Prestressed concrete bridges overcome the natural weakness of concrete in tension. High tensile steel
cables (named as prestressing tendons) provides a clamping load yields compressive stress that

2. Study On Behaviour of Prestressed Concrete Bridge with & Without Soil Interaction
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 457 editor@iaeme.com
equipoise the tensile stress where the compression member will experience bending load. PSC is cast
over steel tendons when tendons are inferior with tension. By static friction, the tension released
from tendons from is transferred to concrete. If tension is imposed on concrete, it directly transfers
to tendons. Tendons are to be stretched between stable anchoring points. The main purpose of
constructing PSC Bridge is to prevent crack control and it also prevents the corrosion is caused by
the joints due to seepage of water1
. The simple and speedy construction give a smooth and continuous
deck which is aesthetically safe. The response of abutment walls and piles of PSC Bridge are
introduced with and without soil interaction. Various uncertainties are created in design due to the
response of unknown soil and its effect on the stresses of bridge 2
. Load transfer depends on thermal
expansion, soil type adjoining at piles and abutment walls. A 3D finite element analysis is taken as
illustrative for PSC Bridge using STAAD Pro V8i software and live loads were introduced as per
IRC-6(2000) using STAAD-Beaver (i.e., Bridge Engineering Automated Vehicle Application).
Multilinear springs are used to handle the nonlinear behavior of soil under abutment walls and pile
nodes 3
.In design manual NCHRP-1991 (National Cooperative Highways Research Program)
recommends that force-deflection design curves are formed at soil springs beneath to the walls. API-
1993 (American Petroleum Institute) recommends the nonlinear p-y design curves which are
adjacent to the piles. The forces in soil mass, foundation and superstructure, are modified due to soil
interaction effects4
. Total and differential settlements are modified by Load redistribution. Consider
the soil mass as visco-plastic, elastoplastic, & visco-elastic in soil interaction. Soil interaction leads
to increment in seismic base shear of low rise building which is placed on isolated footings. The
determination of soil parameter effects of RC bridges reliability, by considering soil interaction and
they finally concluded that rigid support leads to overestimation of the bridge reliability which does
not fulfill robustness and precaution principles5
. The relevance of Soil Structure Interaction effects
the dynamic response of bridge piers which response in inelastic range6
. Soil Structure Interaction
examines an increment in maximum displacement & the curvature essentially remains unaffected by
SSI.
2. ANALYTICAL PROGRAM
2.1. STRUCTURAL MODELLING OF A PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BRIDGE
Structural analysis software STAAD ProV8i is used for modeling of structural elements of the bridge
as linear elements while the soil reaction adjoining to the piles are modeled as nonlinear support
springs and the abutment is taken as fixed end. Various loadings were applied on the bridge by
referring IS Codes7,8
.
• It is a 3D model with the superstructure consisting of concrete deck slab acting with 3 longitudinal
girders and 5 cross girders.
• Girders are modeled using beam elements and also deck slabs a beam element. The intermediate pier
of height 4.5m is supported with pile foundation and abutment as fixed end.
• The soil reaction adjacent to piles is modeled as nonlinear springs. Four concrete piles are fixed under
the pier and each pile being modeled as beam element from top node to bottom node.
The Representation of bridge are shown in Figure 1. and dimensions of the bridge are
• Deck Slab: -Length: 25.56mt; Width: 8.5mt; Thickness: 0.81mt
• Pier: -Height-4.5mt
• Girders: -Longitudinal girder: 3 no’s; Cross girder: 5 no’s
• Piles: -No’s 4; Height: 10mt

3. Ramyasri.N and Rangarao.V
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 458 editor@iaeme.com
Figure 1 Representation of PSC bridge modelling
2.2. EFFECT OF SURCHARGE PRESSURE
For the available soil data, Static load test results were collected at the site. At supports, there is a
small impact on the ultimate capacity of the pile due to Skin friction at pile9
. The stiffness of the
piles affected by the surcharge pressure which is distributed over the pile shaft. Pile diameter
increases with an increase in the influence of stiffness10
.Piles inserted in cohesive soils have less
effect of surcharge pressure when correlated with friction soils. By comparing the results from the
other literature for testing of the pile, surcharge reaction views that the stiffness of pile is 16 to 24 %
less affected.
Minimum surcharge pressure = 0.33*1.2*γ = 7.128 ΚΝ/m2
Consider the surcharge load= 7 KN/m2
2.3. PRESTRESS FORCE
Pre stress force is calculated for every section within intervals. Some of the calculated forces were
shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Pre stress force at service stage
Section at m Area of CS,m2 Eccentricity of cables
(m)
Prestress force at service
stage(KN)
0 1.86 0.47 5107
0.785 1.86 0.544 5115
2.285 1.5 0.781 5066
3.785 1.5 0.883 5151
5.785 1.5 1.003 5286
7.785 1.5 1.052 5405
9.785 1.5 1.09 5455
12.785 1.5 1.109 5453
15.785 1.5 1.09 5455

4. Study On Behaviour of Prestressed Concrete Bridge with & Without Soil Interaction
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 459 editor@iaeme.com
3. CALCULATION OF SPRING STIFFNESS FOR PILES
3.1. SOIL PROFILE
The given soil profile was multi-layered which was shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2 Soil profile
3.2. EMPIRICAL EQUATIONS FOR LATERAL SPRING
Representation of bridge with nonlinear springs was shown in Figure 3.
To calculate the subgrade modulus the following equations are used11
,
ks= As+Bszn
Whereas,As= Fw1CmC (cNc+0.5γBpNγ)
Bs=Fw2 Cm C (γ NqZn
)
Where
As= Constant for either horizontal or vertical members
Bs= Coefficient for depth variation
N = SPT blow count
Z =Depth of interest below ground
n= component to give the best fit
c = cohesion of soil
γ = unit weight of material; subscript is used with y to identify type or state,as c= concrete, dry,
wet,etc

5. Ramyasri.N and Rangarao.V
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 460 editor@iaeme.com
Figure 3 Representation of bridge modelled with nonlinear lateral springs
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The results are compared to the bending moments, displacement and shear force for the pile and pier
loaded with class-A, 70R tracked & 70R wheeled loading are presented in the form of graphs
considering with & without soil interaction for PSC Bridge.
From Figure 4. Pile without soil interaction gives 5.41% higher bending moment in class-A
loading compared to other two types of load cases where shear force and displacement remains same
for all 3 different loading cases. In Figure 5. stress variations are showed for pier cap.
Figure 4 Bending moment & shear force for class-A, 70R Tracked & 70R Wheeled loading Cases for pile
(@top and bottom) without SI.

6. Study On Behaviour of Prestressed Concrete Bridge with & Without Soil Interaction
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 461 editor@iaeme.com
Figure 5 Representation Stress variations for pile cap with & without SI for Class-A loading
Here in Soil interaction pile is divided into 10 beam elements. Three graphs are drawn for each
case by representing bending moment and shear force. By comparing 3 loading cases shear force of
70R wheeled loading is 0.17% & 4.06% higher for class-A & 70R tracked loading. Bending moment
for 70R wheeled loading is 9.26% & 13.41% higher for 70R tracked and Class-A loading. Percentage
of increase in bending moment & shear force with SI for pile was shown in Table 2.
Table 2 Percentage of increase in bending moment & shear force with SI for pile
Loading cases % of Increase
with SI for pile
Class-A Loading Bending moment 19.05%
Shear force 74.71%
70R Tracked Loading Bending moment 29.35%
Shear force 71.78%
70R Wheeled Loading Bending moment 37.97%
Shear force 74.84%
In pier, Bending Moment decreases for soil interaction compared to without soil interaction.
Whereas, shear force increases for soil interaction by providing various loading cases. Maximum
positive moments of class-A and 70R wheeled loading is 0.18% higher than 70R tracked loading
case. Shear force for 70R wheeled loading is0.09% & 2.28% higher compared to other 2 loadings is
shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Comparison of bending moment &shear force of pier for with & without SI.

7. Ramyasri.N and Rangarao.V
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 462 editor@iaeme.com
From Figure 7, it is noticed that 70R wheeled loading displacement increases 2 to3% from other
2 load cases. From comparison for pier moment decreases & shear force, displacement increases for
soil interaction.
Figure 7 Comparison of displacements for 3 loading cases.
From Figure 8. it is observed that at node 6 for both loadings is a contra flexure where the bending
moment is zero. Thereby, from nodes 7 to 11 it shows negative bending moment for both loadings.
Shear force of Class-A loading increases by 2.93% compared to 70R tracked loading. Bending
moment of 70R tracked loading increases by 4.98% compared to Class-A loading. As displacement
decreases, bending moment & shear force increases for the pile with soil interaction.
Figure 8. Comparison of bending moment & shear force of pile in class-A & 70R tracked for with &
without Soil interaction
5. CONCLUSIONS
• It is perceived that for three different loadings; there is accretion in maximum displacement of
PSCBridgewith soil interaction.
• A pile inserted in cohesive soils has less effect of surcharge pressure when correlated with friction
soils. The restraint affects the firmness of soil laterally around the piles.
• As it is simply supported PSC Bridge, there is no discrepancy displacement, shear force &bending
moment of deck slab & longitudinal girder with and without soil interaction.
• It is ascertained that the performance of deck slab in terms of bending moment, shear force and
displacement does not affect by varying the soil properties laterally around the piles. Whereas,
Variation occurs at pile and pier by yielding various load cases.

8. Study On Behaviour of Prestressed Concrete Bridge with & Without Soil Interaction
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 463 editor@iaeme.com
• As bending moment and deflection increases, shear force decreases for pier when soil interaction is
provided. For pier, Maximum positive moments of class-A and 70R wheeled loading is 0.18% higher
than 70R tracked loading case. Shear force for 70R wheeled loading is0.09% & 2.28% higher
compared to other 2 loadings.
• The moments, forces increases & displacement decreases for the piles when subjected to soil
interaction. Displacement decreases for soil interaction due to the settlement of piles in soil.
REFERENCES
[1] Tuladhar R, Mutsuyoshi H, Maki T. Seismic Behavior of Concrete Bridge Pier Considering Soil-
Pile Structure. Interaction the 14th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China,
October 12-17, 2008.
[2] Periklis F, Anastasios S, Volkmar Z, Frank W. Dynamic Characteristics of Bridge Foundation-
Soil Systems Based on Laboratory and On-Site Measurements in 14th
World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering Beijing, China, October 12-17, 2008.
[3] Shreedhar R, Vinod H. Behaviour of Integral Abutment Bridge with and without Soil Interaction.
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research. 2012 November; 3(11), 1-6.
[4] Vivek garg, Hora M S. Areview on interaction behavior of structure-foundation-soil.
International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications. 2012 December; 2(6), 639-644.
[5] Kamel Bezih, Alaa C, Mahdi K, Claudi B. The effect of soil–structure interaction on the reliability
of Reinforced Concrete Bridges. Ain Shams Engineering Journal. 2015 January; 6, 755-766.
[6] Marcello C, Paolo E P. Effects of Soil-Structure Interaction on Inelastic Seismic Response of
Bridge Pies. Journal of structural engineering. 1992 May; 121(5), 806-814.
[7] Aditya Varma K.V, Manideep T and SS. Asadi. A Critical Comparison of Quantity Estimation
for Gated Community Construction Project Using Traditional Method Vs Plan Swift Software:
A Case Study. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 7(6), 2016, pp. 707–
713.
[8] P. Abhiram and SS. Asadi, Implementation of Lean Methodology in Indian Construction.
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 7(6), 2016, pp. 641–649.
[9] Varun Teja T and SS Asadi, An Integrated Approach for Evaluation of Environmental Impact
Assessment-A Model Study. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 7(6),
2016, pp. 650–659.
[10] G.S. Sarma, SS. Asadi and S. Lakshmi Narayana, Creation of Web Based Decision Support
Information System for Evaluation of Topographic Characteristics Using Remote Sensing & GIS
and Visual Basic Programe. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 7(6),
2016, pp. 621–634.
[11] IRC: 6: 2014, Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges.
[12] IRC: 18:2000, Design criteria for pre stressed concrete road & bridges.
[13] Alok B. Design and Detailing of Integral Bridges: Suggested Guidelines. Indian Concrete Journal.
2005 September; 79(9), 43-50.
[14] Chaudhary M T A, Abe M, Fujino Y. Identification of Soil-Structure Effects in Base Isolated
Bridges from Earthquake Records. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 2001
December; 21(8), 713-725.
[15] Bowles J E. Foundation Analysis & Design, 4th Edition, McGraw- Hill, 1988.