Structural Analysis of Extradozed Bridge in Naluchi, Muzaffrabad

Signed by: Miski ''qaal_475@yahoo.
com''
Date: 2013.10.03 09:13:35 +03
Signed by: Miski ''qaal_475@yahoo.com''
Date: 2013.10.03 09:13:35 +03
i | P a g e

Structural Analysis of Extradozed Bridge Naluchi ,Muzaffrabad

Misqal A Iqbal 2009-NUST-BE-CE-60
Abdul Haseeb Khan 2009-NUST-BE-CE-01
Ahad Aziz 2009-NUST-BE-CE-05
Hassan Cheema 2009-NUST-BE-CE-38
M Qasim Ali Waris 2009-NUST-BE-CE-90
Submitted to
Asst. Prof. Ammara Mubeen
Department of Structural Engineering
NUST Institute of Civil Engineering
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
National University of Sciences and Technology
Islamabad, Pakistan
(2013)
Signed by: Miski
Date: 2013.10.03 08:46:41 +03
i | P a g e

This is to certify that the report entitled
Structural Analysis of Extradozed Bridge Naluchi ,Muzaffrabad
Has been accepted towards the partial fulfillment of the requirements
for
Bachelor of Engineering
in
Civil Engineering

Asst. Prof. Ammara Mubeen
Department of Structural Engineering
NUST Institute of Civil Engineering
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
National University of Sciences and Technology, Islamabad

ii | P a g e

DEDICATED
TO
OUR PARENTS, TEACHERS AND COLLEAGUES.

iii | P a g e

Acknowledgement
We are thankful to All Mighty Allah who gave us the strength and courage to accomplish this
project. We would like to express our foremost gratitude and sincere appreciation to our
advisor Mam Ammara Mubeen for providing invaluable support and dedicated encouragement
to us in our project. Her helpful suggestions, comments and advice are the impetus behind the
successful completion of this work. We are profoundly grateful to Dr. liaquat (Associate Dean
NICE) for their valuable guidance, suggestions and advice. We would especially like to thank Dr
Shahid Nasir (Consultant ) and Mam Shahzia and Mr Rizwan (Mastes student) for never ending
support, encouragement and for giving us access to data which proved to be of immense
importance for the completion of our project. In the end, we pay our earnest gratitude with a
sincere sense of respect to our parents for their unending support, encouragement, prayers
and patience.

iv | P a g e

Abstract

Naluchi Extra dosed bridge project is a part of the transportation system of Muzaffarabad. The
bridge acts as an entrance into the capital city of the Province of Azad Kashmir. The new
extradosed bridge with its box girders will be the new landmark of the city. Extradozed
technology is related to girder bridges and cable stayed bridges.
The behavior of this Extradozed bridge is checked by modeling the bridge incorporating the
internal and external prestressing phenomenon in SAP 2000 and also in CSI Bridge. The effects
of the loads experienced by the bridge are studied in a narrow scope of Dead load analysis, Live
load analysis, Stage construction analysis, and Seismic analysis for expansion joints.
The moments, shear force along the bridge deck and support reactions at the piers and
abutments are computed and compared with the initial design report. These effects are also
computed without the stay cables being stressed.
The results of analysis were supported by the initial design report and hence our methodology
of modeling was affirmed by the results. The analysis gives an insight of the structural behavior
of each components of the bridge and hence gives us the input parameters for the design of
each component and the overall structural stability of the Bridge.

v | P a g e

Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction ........................................................................ 1
1.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Objectives of Study: ......................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Scope of the Project ......................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Importance and location of Naluchi Bridge : .................................................................. 2
1.4.1 Location of Naluchi Bridge ....................................................................................... 4
1.4.2 Satellite image of Naluchi Bridge .............................................................................. 5
1.5 Components of the Bridge : ................................................................................................. 5
Chapter 2 Literature Review .................................................................. 7
2.1 Bridges .............................................................................................................................. 7
2.2 Classification of Bridges ................................................................................................... 7
2.2.1 Girder Bridges .......................................................................................................... 7
2.2.2 Arch Bridge ................................................................................................................ 8
2.2.3 Truss Bridge ............................................................................................................ 10
2.2.4. Suspension Bridge .................................................................................................. 11
2.2.5 Cable-Stayed Bridge ................................................................................................ 12
2.3 Extradosed Bridge Technology ...................................................................................... 13
2.3.1 History ..................................................................................................................... 13
2.3.2 Structural behavior ................................................................................................. 14
2.3.3 Design ...................................................................................................................... 14
vi | P a g e

2.3.4 Extradosed Bridge Types ......................................................................................... 15
2.3.5 Stiffness of Superstructure and Substructure ........................................................ 18
2.3.6 Prestressing Methodology ...................................................................................... 20
2.3.7 Deck depth and mast height .................................................................................. 21
2.3.8 Length supported by cables .................................................................................... 22
2.3.9 Side span length ...................................................................................................... 22
Chapter 3 Structural Components of PC Extradosed Bridge, Naluchi ......................... 23
3.1. Substructure and Foundation of P3 Pier (Main Bridge) ................................................. 23
3.2. P3 Pier ............................................................................................................................ 24
3.2.1 Configuration of Deviator ....................................................................................... 24
3.2.2 Saddle ..................................................................................................................... 25
3.3 Stay Cable ....................................................................................................................... 26
3.3.1 Stay Cable Layout .................................................................................................... 26
3.3.2 Selection of Cable ................................................................................................... 27
3.3 Anchorage of Stay Cable ................................................................................................ 27
3.4.1 Stay Cable Anchorage ............................................................................................. 27
3.4.2 Wind Vibration ........................................................................................................ 28
3.5 Prestressed Concrete Girder .......................................................................................... 29
3.5.1 Number of Cells ...................................................................................................... 29
3.5.2 Dimension of girder ................................................................................................ 29
3.5.3 Arrangement of Inner Cables .................................................................................. 29
3.6 Specifications.................................................................................................................. 30
3.7 Materials ........................................................................................................................ 30
vii | P a g e

3.7.1 Concrete: ................................................................................................................ 30
3.7.2 Reinforcing Steel .................................................................................................... 30
3.7.3 Prestressing Steel (Strand): ..................................................................................... 30
3.7.4 Support Stiffnesss of Naluchi Bridge:..................................................................... 31
3.8 Design Loads ................................................................................................................... 31
3.8.1 Construction Loads ................................................................................................. 31
3.8.2 Dead Load And Superimposed Dead Load : ............................................................ 31
3.8.3 Creep And Shrinkage : ........................................................................................... 31
3.8.4 Prestressing force: ................................................................................................. 32
3.8.5 Live Load ................................................................................................................. 32
Chapter 4 Structural Analysis of Naluchi Bridge .......................................... 33
4.1 Modeling Discretization ................................................................................................. 33
4.2 Elastic Analysis: .............................................................................................................. 33
4.3 Static Analysis: ................................................................................................................ 34
4.4 Methodology of modeling in SAP 2000: ........................................................................ 34
4.5 Naluchi Bridge Model: .................................................................................................... 36
4.5.1 Geometry Description ............................................................................................. 36
4.5.2 Imaginary Diaphragm Modeling ............................................................................. 37
4.5.3 Stay Cables Modeling .............................................................................................. 37
4.5.4 P2, P3 and P4 Pier modeling ................................................................................... 37
4.5.5 Loading Description ................................................................................................ 38
4.6 Dead load Analysis Results ............................................................................................. 39
4.6.1 Flexural Moments along the Deck (M 3-3): ............................................................ 39
viii | P a g e

4.6.2 Shear Force Diagram: .............................................................................................. 40
4.7 Moving Load Analysis results: ........................................................................................ 40
4.8 Dead Load and Live Load Analysis Results : .................................................................. 41
4.8.1 Moment along the deck: ......................................................................................... 41
4.8.2 Shear along the Deck: ............................................................................................. 42
4.9 Dead Load, Live Load and Prestressing: ......................................................................... 43
4.9.1 Moment along the Deck: ........................................................................................ 43
4.9.2 Axial Force: .............................................................................................................. 43
4.10 Analysis Results in Tabular Form ................................................................................ 44
4.10.1 Dead Load Analysis ................................................................................................. 44
4.10.2 Dead and Live Load Analysis Results .................................................................... 51
4.12 Stage Construction Analysis: ...................................................................................... 53
4.12.1 Creep Stresses in Concrete ..................................................................................... 53
4.13 Seismic Analysis for Expansion Joint Displacement : ................................................. 53
4.13.1 Linear Dynamic Analysis: ........................................................................................ 53
4.13.2 Time History Analysis .............................................................................................. 54
4.13.4 Result of Time History Analysis: .............................................................................. 54
REFRENCES: ......................................................................................................................... 63

APPENDIX A HS 20-44 Loading
APPENDIX B List of Extradosed Bridges

ix | P a g e

1 | P a g e

Chapter 1
Introduction

1.1 Introduction
The Naluchi Bridge is a cable stayed bridge with span configuration is 123m + 123m. The depth
of deck cross section is from 3.5 m to 7.0m across the spans. The Cable Stayed Bridge spanning
123m+123m = 246m over piers P2, P3, P4, and P3 is over the Jhelum River. The cable stayed
bridge with 24 meter high pylons is supported by double plane stays and will be constructed as
a free cantilever from the pylon outwards. The width of the deck is 15.6m.
This project was to comprehend the basics of bridge analysis, study different approaches of
bridges analysis, design methods for extra-dozed bridge superstructure, Internal pre-stressing
phenomenon, external prestressing phenomenon, effect of selection of different deck sections
on Bridge behavior under Loads, types of connections b/w Bridge components and Analysis of
Naluchi Extra-dozed cable stayed bridge in specific in SAP 2000.
Firstly, the modeling of the bridge was done in SAP 2000 putting in all the dimensions and
properties of the material provided by Wiecons and GRC Contractors. After completing the
modeling of the bridge the bridge was analyzed for dead load, live load and creep & shrinkage
using different load combinations provided in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Specifications.
1.2 Objectives of Study:
The objective of Project are as follow :
Structural analysis of PC Extradosed Bridge at West Bank Bypass Project at Naluchi,
Muzaffarabad
Project-specific design criteria regarding serviceability and safety, applicability of the
design standards regarding design loads and materials.
Study of Design approaches of Extradosed Bridge.
Effects of internal prestressing and external prestressing phenomenon (Stay Cables)
Analysis of Naluchi Extradosed cable stayed bridge in specific in SAP 2000
Checking the analysis results to be within the acceptable limits.
2 | P a g e

Comparison of analysis results with that of design consultant.

1.3 Scope of the Project
We will learn to use different computer softwares for analyzing and designing the
Extradosed bridge.
This Project will help in learning how different geometric parameters such as tower
height, girder depth, and pier dimensions influence the structural behavior and
feasibility of the Extradosed design concept.
This Project will help in analyzing and determination of loads that govern the design of
an Extradosed bridge.
We will develop a sense of judgment over how each of the components of Extradosed
bridge affects its structural behavior.
The case study of Extradosed bridge will provide us with an in-depth summary of
Extradosed bridges constructed to date that shows the large variability and great
potential that exists within this form. This information is also useful as a starting point
for initial dimensioning of the overall structure and its components.
This Project will help us tell about the primary factors that define the design of an
Extradosed bridge, from where it fits into the realm of bridge types, to solutions for
critical details that must be worked out in the final design.
This project will provide enough detail on the designs undertaken to allow a practicing
engineer to understand the key design steps involved in designing an Extradosed bridge.

1.4 Importance and location of Naluchi Bridge :
Naluchi Bridge hold a vital importance. There are lot of bridges in Pakistan but in terms of its
load carrying mechanism i.e. Extradosed bridge and the cables used in it which is the longest
cables used in any bridge in Pakistan.
These things make it unique, not only because its first of its type in Pakistan ,but also it will
benefit a lot to the people of Muzaffarabad as it will save the precious time and the distance
which people have to cover due to non-availability of any direct route to the the city. According
to an estimate about 30 to 40 minutes will be saved by the completion of this bridge. Another
3 | P a g e

benefit will be the traffic congestion during peak hours which usually cause delay in daily
activities will be avoided. This bridge is located on the Jhelum river which separates the
Muzaffarabad city into two halves.
The coordinates of the starting point of Bridge are N34.37369 & E 73.464325,
the coordinates of the ending point of Bridge are N34.340979 & E 73.46182

4 | P a g e

1.4.1 Location of Naluchi Bridge

Neelum Valley Road

End point N

ChelaBandi
Br i dg e

Neelum Valley

Figure 1.1
i

Muzzafarabad City

Naluchi Bridge
Islamabad
Muzaffarabad
5 | P a g e

1.4.2 Satellite image of Naluchi Bridge
This is Satellite image of Naluchi Bridge which is shown by red lines taken from the Google
Earth.

Figure 1.2- Satellite image of Naluchi Bridge
ii

1.5 Components of the Bridge :
The components of naluchi Bridge are as follow which are Shown in Figure 1.3
1. Pier 3
2. Pylons
3. Deck section
4. Shinso foundation
5. Stay Cable
6. End Supports (Pier 2&4)
7. Saddle
8. Anchorage Block
9. Bridge Bearing
6 | P a g e

Figure 1.3- Components of Naluchi Bridge

Pier 3
Shinso
Pier 2
Pier 4
Stay Cables
Pylons
Deck
7 | P a g e

Chapter 2
Literature Review
2.1 Bridges
A bridge is a structure built to span physical obstacles such as a body of water, valley, or road,
for the purpose of providing passage over the obstacle. Designs of bridges vary depending on
the function of the bridge, the nature of the terrain where the bridge is constructed, the
material used to make it and the funds available to build it
2.2 Classification of Bridges
Bridges are classified on the basis of following parameters:

Figure 2.1-Classification of Bridges

We shall only discuss the Structural Classification of bridges i.e. Girder bridge, Arch bridge,
Suspension Bridge ,Cable stayed Bridges
2.2.1 Girder Bridges
A girder bridge, in general, is a bridge built of girders placed on bridge abutments and
foundation piers. In turn, a bridge deck is built on top of the girders in order to carry traffic.
8 | P a g e

There are several different subtypes of girder bridges:
2.2.1.1 Rolled steel girder bridge
It is made of I-beams that are rolled into that shape at a steel mill.
2.2.1.2 Plate Girder Bridge
It is made out of (mostly) flat steel sections that are later welded or otherwise fabricated into
an I-beam shape.
2.2.1.3 Concrete Girder Bridge
It is made of concrete girders, again in an I-beam shape.
2.2.1.4 Box Girder Bridge
It is built from girders in a rectangular box shape instead of an I-beam shape.
2.2.2 Arch Bridge
An arch bridge is a bridge with abutments at each end shaped as a curved arch. Arch bridges
work by transferring the weight of the bridge and its loads partially into a horizontal thrust
restrained by the abutments at either side.

Figure 2.2- Arch bridge
iii

2.2.2.1 Load Transfer Mechanism of an Arch:
Instead of pushing straight down, the load of an arch bridge is carried outward along the curve
of the arch to the supports at each end. The weight is transferred to the supports at either end.
These supports, called the abutments, carry the load and keep the ends of the bridge from
spreading out.
9 | P a g e

Figure 2.3-Load on Arch
The load at the top of the key stone makes each stone on the arch of the bridge press on the
one next to it. This happens until the push is applied to the end supports or abutments, which
are embedded in the ground as shown in Figure 2.3

Figure 2.4-Reaction
The ground around the abutments is squeezed and pushes back on the abutments (Figure 2.4)

Figure 2.5- Reaction
10 | P a g e

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The ground which pushes back on the
abutments creates a resistance which is passed from stone to stone, until it is eventually
pushing on the key stone which is supporting the load (Figure 2.5)
2.2.3 Truss Bridge
A truss bridge is a bridge composed of connected elements (typically straight) which may be
stressed from tension, compression, or sometimes both in response to dynamic loads. Truss
bridges are one of the oldest types of modern bridges.

Figure 2.6- Typical truss members
The lateral members in the planes of the top and bottom chords resist wind loads and brace the
compression chords. Sway frames are thought to square the truss and increase its torsional
rigidity. End portals carry torsional loads resulting from uneven vertical loads and wind loads
into the bearings.
Load Transfer Mechanism of Truss:

Figure 2.7-Tension & compression in Truss
iv

11 | P a g e

The nature of a truss allows the analysis of the structure using a few assumptions and the
application of Newton's laws of motion according to the branch of physics known as statics. For
purposes of analysis, trusses are assumed to be pin jointed where the straight components
meet. This assumption means that members of the truss (chords, verticals and diagonals) will
act only in tension or compression. A more complex analysis is required where rigid joints
impose significant bending loads upon the elements.

Figure 2.8 (c=Compression ,t=Tension)
In the bridge illustrated vertical members are in tension, lower horizontal members in tension,
shear, and bending, outer diagonal and top members are in compression,. The central vertical
member stabilizes the upper compression member, preventing it from buckling. If the top
member is sufficiently stiff then this vertical element may be eliminated. If the lower chord (a
horizontal member of a truss) is sufficiently resistant to bending and shear, the outer vertical
elements may be eliminated, but with additional strength added to other members in
compensation. The ability to distribute the forces in various ways has led to a large variety of
truss bridge types. Some types may be more advantageous when wood is employed for
compression elements while other types may be easier to erect in particular site conditions, or
when the balance between labor, machinery and material costs have certain favorable
proportions.
2.2.4. Suspension Bridge
A suspension bridge is a type of bridge in which the deck (the load-bearing portion) is hung
below suspension cables on vertical suspenders. This type of bridge has cables suspended
between towers, plus vertical suspender cables that carry the weight of the deck below, upon
which traffic crosses.
This arrangement allows the deck to be level or to arc upward for additional clearance. Like
other suspension bridge types, this type often is constructed without false work. Load applied
to the bridge is transformed into a tension in these main cable
12 | P a g e

Load Transfer Mechanism of Suspension Bridge:s

Figure 2.9 Suspension Bridge & its Component
v

The force of compression pushes down on the suspension bridge's deck, but because it is a
suspended roadway, the cables transfer the compression to the towers, which dissipate the
compression directly into the earth where they are firmly entrenched. The supporting cables,
running between the two anchorages, are the recipients of the tension forces The anchorages
are also under tension, but since they, like the towers, are held firmly to the earth, the tension
they experience is dissipated.
Almost all suspension bridges have, in addition to the cables, a supporting truss system beneath
the bridge deck (a deck truss).This helps to stiffen the deck and reduce the tendency of the
roadway to sway and ripple.
2.2.5 Cable-Stayed Bridge
A cable-stayed bridge is a bridge that consists of one or more columns (normally referred to as
towers or pylons), with cables supporting the bridge deck

Figure 2.10-Forces in Cable-Stayed Bridge
vi

13 | P a g e

2.3 Extradosed Bridge Technology
Extradosed bridges are relatively expensive and material inefficient. Almost any span that could
be bridged by an Extradosed bridge could be spanned more inexpensively with a continuous
girder, or more efficiently (but at even greater cost) with a cable-stayed. In most cases the
spans are short enough that the use of cables at all is an aesthetic rather than engineering-
necessitated choice. This does not imply that is a "bad" choice, since in some cases the
difference in cost and efficiency is small, and the Extradosed type is a very elegant form.
In structural perspective, main differences between cable stayed and Extradosed bridge types
are load participation ratio, which affects design aspect of cable members. Since cable stayed
bridge totally rely on their vertical load to cable members, Extradosed bridge usually rely their
load on only 20% to 50% to cable, and left portion is covered by girder which is more stiffer
than stiffening girder in cable stayed bridge. It's usual that main design constraint in cable
stayed bridge is fatigue of cable and anchorage system. In Extradosed bridge, fatigue is not a big
concern since live load usually create only small amount of stress variation in cable because of
stiffness ratio between cable and their girder. Cost wise, allowable stresses for cables in cable
stayed bridges are always smaller than Extradosed bridge types - in may design code because of
fatigue concern and types of anchor can be chosen for external tendon anchorage system in
Extradosed bridge rather than cable stayed bridge type which way more expensive. Generally,
Extradosed bridges do not require tension re-adjustment (tune-up) before service because its
cables act as external-tendons.

2.3.1 History
From 1994 to 2008, over fifty Extradosed bridges have been constructed worldwide, and the
preferred proportions and cable arrangements have evolved. While there are many articles
available on the design of specific Extradosed bridges, very little has been published on their
design from a general perspective
The idea of using stay cables to support a bridge has been around for a while, it was first
applied during 1800's in the UK (incorporated with suspension bridges), many of which had
failed due to insufficient resistance to wind pressure, unaccountability of secondary effects of
the forces (lack of understanding of the mechanics of such a bridge was also a reason). But in
the 1900's, several factors contributed to successful implementations: Better methods of
14 | P a g e

structural analysis of statically indeterminate structures (via computers) development of
orthotropic steel decks High strength steels, new methods of fabrication and erection.
A box girder supports the deck so as to reduce buckling of the deck from high compressions,
twisting or torsion, and distribute among the stays non-uniform loads. Cables are made of high-
strength steel, usually encased in a plastic or steel covering that is filled with grout, a fine
grained form of concrete, for protection against corrosion.
2.3.2 Structural behavior
Since Extradosed bridges take part in an intermediate zone between prestressed bridges and
cable stayed bridges, their structural behavior may be similar to these kinds of typologies,
depending on design criteria adopted during the project stage. Generally a rigid deck
Extradosed bridge shall have a similar behavior to the pre stressed bridges, thus avoiding high
stress oscillations of stay cables and, consequently, avoiding fatigue conditions associated with
anchorages and tendons present in a slender deck Extradosed bridge, which behavior is quite
close to the cable-stayed bridge. Its construction demands the acquaintance of technologies
currently applied on straight course-prestressed concrete bridges and cable-stayed bridges,
which is generally developed by means of the consecutive cantilever method but counting with
the assistance of tension rods that are not placed on temporary, but on permanent basis.
2.3.3 Design
An Extradosed bridge may be designed under two approaches. There is wide freedom to
choose stiffness arrangement for cables and deck to bear live load. The first approach considers
an adequate stiffness arrangement among deck, cables and substructure, in such a way tension
variation on cables due to live load does not supersede standard limits on specifications and,
might be stressed at maximum possible.
The Extradosed bridge form allows the designer to select the distribution of live load between
the stay cables and the girder, by changing the stiffness ratio of these two elements. Ogawa
and Kasuga (1998)
vii
compare this to the choice a designer has when designing an arch as deck-
stiffened or arch-stiffened.
15 | P a g e

2.3.4 Extradosed Bridge Types
Generally, the first approach corresponds to a stiff deck with fixed connection among mast,
deck and piers as originally used for the first Extradosed bridges
The second design approach consists of stiff masts and a deck bridge, which is attributed to a.
Menn, who in 1987 introduced some ideas about advantages involved in the use of stiff masts
in cable-stayed bridges.
viii

In accordance with this approach, deck is designed as much slender as possible, so that live load
may be transmitted into piers, as a couple of axial strengths in cables and box-girder, similar to
those in cable-stayed bridges. This design produces high tension oscillation values in stay
cables, due to live load and therefore, such elements must be stressed at a lower level than the
first approach, thus providing a less effective use of such elements.
According to Mermigas (2008)
ix
, generally the approach for Extradosed stiff deck bridge
does not provide any significant advantage over the stiff mast approach, which capacity to
stand multiple piers on simple supports is higher
Few researches have been developed to define project criterion on Extradosed bridges, which
structural behavior is quite similar to cable-stayed bridges, hence there is a need to deepen
into this subject . However, main conclusions obtained from some researchers are presented
below. It is made quite clear that projects criteria introduced by researchers are based on
particular load conditions and allowable tension limits for each study or, in case of well-known
engineers from experience obtained from completed projects. Therefore such criterion should
not be regarded as a straight jacket when considering an Extradosed bridge design, which
would limit the engineer possibility to explore different configuration and materials. In short we
can classify in two Types of Extradosed bridge by design:
Stiff girder Extradosed bridge:
I. Span to depth ratio varies from 30 to 50.
II. The live load is carried through flexural behavior.
III. The stresses in the cables are less.
Stiff pier (tower) Extradosed bridge
16 | P a g e

I. Span to depth ratio varies from 100 to 150.
II. The live load is carried by the axial force couple between stays and girder.
III. The stresses in the cables are high.
Typical Bending Moment of Stiff girder Extradosed bridge under Permanent Loads:

Figure 2.11- Bending Moment of Stiff girder Extradosed bridge
x

The Bending Moment of stiif girder Extradosed bridge is similar to a Girder bridge as shown in
the Figure 2.11 .Negative moments are shown above the bridge deck (light blue in colour) and
positive moment are shown below the deck (dark blue in colour)
Typical Bending Moment of Stiff pier Extradosed bridge
The Bending Moment of Stiff Pier Extradosed bridge is different by the way there are local
moment in between the cables

Figure 2.12- Bending Moment of Stiff pier Extradosed bridge

17 | P a g e

Thus there are two different approaches that have been taken in the design of Extradosed
bridges. The following examples of the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge that has a stiff deck, and
the Sunniberg Bridge that has a flexible deck, illustrate these two extremes.
xi

For the concrete design of the Pearl Harbour Memorial Bridge (51 in Appendix B) to be
built in New Haven, Connecticut, the designers proportioned the girder section based on the
maximum depth available given the grade and navigational clearance constraints, as well as
transverse bending requirements. The girder was then dimensioned with the maximum
desirable amount of internal longitudinal post tensioning for the section . Extradosed tendons
were used to reduce the bending moment demand to meet the available moment resistance of
the box section.
For the design of the Sunniberg Bridge (10 in Appendix B) , Menn has used the same
approach as for the design of a cable-stayed bridge: a cable arrangement is selected, cables are
sized according to maximum load for the allowable cable stress, and the girder is designed to
resist the bending moment between cables under dead load, and compatibility moments under
live load, caused by the distribution of axles loads to several adjacent cables. Finally, the cross
section was checked for buckling at the pier under combined bending and axial compression in
the deck. This process resulted in a bridge that has a span to depth ratio of 127. For a 2 lane
bridge of 140 m main span, the cable mass required to support half of the 140 m main span was
43 tonnes, a mass of 49 kg/m of the deck surface, more than double that of the Pearl Harbour
Memorial Bridge.
Most Extradosed bridges built to date lie somewhere between these two examples. In
addition, the approach spans could be cantilever constructed by varying the depth of the box
girder. In the main span, Extradosed tendons were added to extend the useable span of the box
girder while meeting navigational and glide path clearance requirements above and below the
bridge. Ogawa and Kasuga (1998) define an index as the distribution of the live load to the
stay cables, and claims that this index also represents the stiffness ratio between stay cables
and girders. =( Load carried by stay cables)/ (Total vertical load)
xii

The boundary between Extradosed bridges and cable-stayed bridges is suggested to occur at
= 0.30, corresponding to a live load stress range in the cables of around 50 MPa. In practice, the
distribution index is not easily determined since all common live load models consist of both a
18 | P a g e

uniform lane load and point loads representing vehicle axles. The distribution index is higher for
point loads than for uniform loads, because the girder locally distributes the point load to
cables surrounding the point of loading, not to all cables in the span.
A typical Axial Force and Bending moment due to 9 KN/m uniform load across main span
Axial Force Diagram

Figure 2.13- Axial Force
Bending moment

Figure 2.14-Bending Moment (M max =9140 kNm)
2.3.5 Stiffness of Superstructure and Substructure
The girder, cables, and tower form the superstructure load resisting system. For all
Extradosed bridges considered in , the tower is fixed to the girder, but the superstructure is
fixed to the substructure (piers) in only half of the bridges. In bridges with side spans of less
than half of the main span, as is almost always the case for cable-stayed bridges, the tower can
be stabilized by backstay cables. Backstay cables will not be discussed in this section because
very few Extradosed bridges rely on backstay cables,
When the superstructure rests on simple supports at the piers (free in rotation), as
opposed to being embedded (fixed in rotation) at the piers, a live load in any one span causes
bending in the girder, which causes a downwards displacement in the loaded span and an
upwards displacement in the adjacent span(s)
19 | P a g e

To resist the bending moment in the girder and control displacements, the girder alone must
have adequate bending resistance and stiffness. For these two conditions to be jointly met, a
certain section depth is required to provide stiffness to the system, since the cables simply
transfer the load in one span to the adjacent span(s). A tensile force in a cable due to a point
load in one span is distributed through the tower to multiple cables in the adjacent span.
In the case of a superstructure embedded at the piers, any rotation of the superstructure at
each pier will be partially restrained by the substructure. This will decrease the bending
moment in the girder due to live load, since some of the moment is resisted by the pier. The
corresponding displacements are also reduced.
Comparison between monolithic and released connnection at main piers Bending moment due
to 9 kN/m uniform load across main span
Monolithic Connection

Figure 2.15- Monolithic Connection
Mmin = -15300 kNm Mmax = 9140 kNm
Released Conection

Figure 2.16- Released Conection
Mmin = -10500 kNm Mmax = -8120 kNm

20 | P a g e

2.3.6 Prestressing Methodology
From the previous two sections, we observe that there are two separate factors which
influence the magnitude of the bending moments in the girder due to live load. Firstly, the
relative stiffness of the cables and girder which affects the distribution of forces between these
two systems, and secondly the connection between the superstructure and the substructure,
which affects the moment distribution between the superstructure and the piers. Long-term
effects lead to changes in the magnitude and distribution of bending moments in the
Extradosed bridge, and warrant further discussion before explaining the prestressing
methodology for an Extradosed bridge.
Axial shortening of the girder due to creep and shrinkage will cause a decrease in the
cables pretensions that causes long term bending moments,
xiii
For a concrete cable supported
structure, it is always desirable to have no net bending moment in the girder under permanent
loads (a bending moment distribution in the girder equivalent to that of a continuous beam on
simple supports) to reduce creep-induced deflections and uncertainties in the deflections over
the lifetime of the structure. This is especially important for cable-stayed bridge with flexible
decks, where the live load moment is a much greater proportion of the total moment than
permanent moments. Undulating internal tendons are installed to exactly balance the self-
weight of the slab between anchorages, to eliminate any net moment under permanent loads.
This is sometimes referred to as centered forces under permanent loads and is the preferred
means of keeping geometrical nonlinear effects to a minimum under permanent loads
It is also desirable to have centered forces during construction, as creep deformations
will be accelerated due to the early age of the concrete. This is only possible with cable tensions
adjusted to balance the construction loads: the self-weight of the deck and the weight of the
construction equipment.
This creates an apparent contradiction, which is often solved by first stressing the cables
to balance construction loads, then prestressing the cables to balance the permanent loads,
after the superimposed load is applied to the continuous structure. This is efficient in terms of
limiting the bending moment in the deck at all stages but it requires a laborious prestressing
operation.

21 | P a g e

2.3.7 Deck depth and mast height

Figure 2.17-Dimension Nomenclature of Extradosed bridge
xiv

Mathivat
xv
proposed a constant depth deck, slender L/h from 30 and 35, a mast height so that
L/H is equal to 15. Komiya
xvi
suggested for pier embedded bridges: edge with 35 slenderness in
the pier support section and 55 in the main center span and, mast heights ranging from L/12
and L/8. Chio
xvii
proposes project criterion using an edge for the pier support edge of L/30 and
central span L/45, i.e. ha/hc equal to 1.5. He also recommends a mast height equal to L/10, so
that rods tension oscillations due to live load would be delimited by 80 MPa value. Dos Santos
xviiiproposed a steady deck height L/33 and mast height L/10,

Figure 2.18
In General
a) H~L/15toL/8 b) h~L/50toL/30
[2]

22 | P a g e

2.3.8 Length supported by cables
Chio recommended that the first tension rod should be fixed between 0.18 and 0.25 from
center span. Such value differs from Mathivat, who suggested that the first tension rod should
be fixed at 0.1 from central span. According to Komiya
xix
the combined cost for Extradosed
cables and internal tension roads fixed at 0.14, 0.20 and 0.24 from central span, has a variation
of approximately 2% among them and, the most cost effective arrangement is the one
corresponding to the first fixed stay cable at 0.20 from main span.
2.3.9 Side span length
Akio Kasuga
xx
stated that due to the similar structural behavior of Extradosed bridges with
prestressed box-girder bridges, side spans length should be determined proportionally to them,
generally between 0.6 and 0.8 from main span length. However, Chio indicated that for an
Extradosed bridge with constant depth deck, the use of ratios (L1/L) higher than 0.60, produces
high deflections, strainer strengths and tension increases on deck in comparison to closer side
spans. According to Chio , side span length variation (L1) has relevant effects on deck flexural
moments in the side span, which decrease as long as ratio (L1/L) goes down.

23 | P a g e

Chapter 3
Structural Components of PC Extradosed Bridge, Naluchi
PC Extradosed Bridge is composed of the following major structural components;

1. Prestressed concrete PC girder

2. Reinforced concrete deviator

3. Pier

4. Foundation: Shinso foundation

5. Stay cable

3.1. Substructure and Foundation of P3 Pier (Main Bridge)
xxi

A comparative study was conducted by JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency) to
consider two alternatives (the Shinso type foundation with a span of 120m and spread footing
foundation with a span of 128m) for the river pier foundation. Based on the study, the result
shows that the Shinso type foundation is preferable due to cost reduction and reliability under
seismic forces.

Figure 3.1-Shinso Foundation
xxii

24 | P a g e

Figure 3.1 shows the Shinso Foundation in construction phase. Shinso Foundation is protected
by a Coffer Dam which is built to protect to the Shinso Foundation during the Construction and
also to ensure its safety after the construction phase during its serviceability.
Shinso Foundation is Hollow and Pier 3 is Projected from its bottom.

Figure 3.2-Pier3 projecting From the Shinso Foundation

3.2. P3 Pier
3.2.1 Configuration of Deviator
Pier 3 is Octagonal in shape at the bottom and Rectangular in the top most section. Due to its
variation in shape with length it is constructed by Slip Farm technology .This section is chosen
because of its less construction cost, structural aspect, and minimum construction duration as
the most optimum solution.
Design Strength of 30 MPa and maximum permissible water-cement ratio of 0.50 and cover of
100 mm. According to the Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI-318-05),
minimum required strength of pier concrete is 27 N/mm2 and maximum permissible water
cement ratio is 0.50 if the pier is partially under water during flood. Hence it satisfies the
durability requirement.
The deviator also called the pylon basically functions as a deviating support. The top level of
pylon of PC Extradosed Bridge is about 80m from the foundation and about 24 m from deck
25 | P a g e

surface to top level. The shape of pylon as a tower on the river is determined by structural and
architectural aspects.
Figure 3.3 shows the Pier 3.

Figure 3.3-Pier 3
3.2.2 Saddle
Saddle support is type of support in which stay cable passes through the pylon in continuity. In
this support system, anchorages are not required at the pylon hence exposure to atmosphere is
not likely and thus it is selected for the project.
The structural characteristics of saddle support are:
1. No hollow space in the pylon (filled with concrete)
2. The stay cables pass through the pylon, and the tension in both sides of the cables will
be balanced.
26 | P a g e

Figure 3.4 -Cables passing through Pylon

3.3 Stay Cable
3.3.1 Stay Cable Layout
In the Extradosed bridge, stay cables have two functions, one to minimize bending moment by
up lifting self weight of the girder and second to resist the forces developed due to live loads.
The pylon (deviator) height is an important parameter for determining the stay cable layout
because it controls the magnitude of negative moment. Another parameter to be considered is
the amount of PC tendons. This calculation is based on the necessary tensile force and the
stress range. The appropriate stay cable layout is determined by considering cost optimization
by alternate study for the pylon height (20-26m), which are 1) H=20m; H/L=1/11.9, 2) H=23m;
H/L=1/10.4, 3) H=26m; H/L=1/9.2. The results showed differences in the number of PC tendons
amongst the cases considered in comparative study.
The 7 inner cables near the support have 19 strands having diameter 15.2 mm while outer 7
cables have 27 strands having the same diameter 15.2 mm.

27 | P a g e

Figure 3.5--Stay Cable Layout
xxiii

3.3.2 Selection of Cable
Originally, twisted PC strand were developed for the PC cable stayed bridges and also as inner
cables for the PC girders.
For almost all Extradosed bridges, twisted PC strands are applied.

Figure 3.6 Twisted Cable Strands

3.3 Anchorage of Stay Cable
3.4.1 Stay Cable Anchorage
Stay cable anchorages are constructed in order to transfer the tension of stay cables to main
girders efficiently. Anchors are reinforced by either PC tendons or by reinforcing bars against
local stress caused by tension of the stay cables. Stay cable anchorage area is surrounded by
large tensile stress from the stay cables. The anchorage zone on the main girder is an important
structural component that supports the main girder. Therefore, these parts have to be
28 | P a g e

reinforced by PC tendons or reinforcing bars against shear forces and the local stress which
occurs due to the tensioning force induced by stay cable.
Figure 3.7 Stay Cable Anchorage

3.4.2 Wind Vibration
While designing stay cable and anchorages of Extradosed bridge, it is desirable to conform to
Wind-Resistance Design Handbook for Highway Bridges Japan Road Association. It is evident
that wind and moving vehicles cause vibrations of stay cables. The vibrations of stay cables
include nominal vibration and self-excited vibration. Nominal vibrations due to vortex excited
oscillation arise from winds of relatively low speed and create vibrations of constant amplitude.
If the stay cable is anchored by fixity, a lateral force arises repeatedly near the anchorage zone
of the stay cable.
The vibration due to moving vehicles is an irregular vibration. Considering this, stay cable
anchorages have to be a flexible structure which can sufficiently absorb the vibrations.
Additionally, the stay cable and stay cable anchorage must be water proof and received
sufficient rust-proofing treatment.
Also, at the anchorage area, it is desirable to install protection facilities at the surface of girder
deck to prevent damage to stay cables even if automobiles collide with it. Protection facilities,
which are buffers or vibration isolators or dampers, have to be provided.
29 | P a g e

3.5 Prestressed Concrete Girder
3.5.1 Number of Cells
The highly rigid box girder is necessary as a girder type because it can accommodate longer
clear span, i.e.120 m or more for the PC Extradosed Bridge. A box type which is hung
transversally by both ends with stay cable is selected while considering the deck width of
13.3m.
While selecting box girders, there is a choice between a single cell or a 2-cell box girder. Though
single cell box girder is easy in construction and maintenance but two-cell box girder is
structurally more durable and rigid. Unlike the 2 cell girder, the prestress tendons and rebar
requirement in transverse direction in case of single cell box girder are proportionately
increased due to longer unsupported span of box girder. Hence, it is finally concluded that 2-
cell type is the most appropriate girder type in this case.
3.5.2 Dimension of girder
A 2-cell box girder has a sectional scheme consisting of upper and lower flanges and three
webs. In the cross-section, the upper and lower flanges occupy a large area, so the girder can
resist large compressive stresses due to bending moments. PC tendons or reinforcing bars
should be placed so as to resist bending moment, tensile stress and shear stress due to working
loads. On the other hand, the girder has large torsion stiffness and it is desirable due to
eccentric distribution of live loads.
3.5.3 Arrangement of Inner Cables
Resisting bending moment due to working load is accomplished by effective arrangement of
inner PC cables with appropriate eccentricity with respect to the centroidal axis of the box
girder section

30 | P a g e

Figure 3.8 Cable arrangement of slab
3.6 Specifications
Following Specifications were followed by the design Engineer for the Design Purposes,
however we have only used Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition,
AASHTO 2004
1. Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition, AASHTO 2004
2. Designing of Bridge on National Highways, NHA-JULY/2006
3. Standardization of Bridge Superstructure NHA-MARCH/2005
4. Pakistan Code of Practice for Highway Bridges, PEC, 1996
5. Specifications for Highway Design Japan Road Association
3.7 Materials
Materials Strength and Properties to be used in the Construction of bridge are as follow
3.7.1 Concrete:
Deck & Pylon Ec = 33430 MPa, fc = 40 MPa

Abutments, Pilecaps, Footing Ec = 26430 MPa , fc = 24 MPa
Where fc is the specified compressive strength of concrete at 28 days
3.7.2 Reinforcing Steel
Reinforcing Steel conform to deformed and plain billet steel bars. ASSHTO M31 (ASTM A615)
GRADE 420 with minimum yield strength fy = 420 MPa and minimum tensile strength fpu = 620
MPa
3.7.3 Prestressing Steel (Strand):
The properties of steel used in cables and prestressing tendons are as follows and are used as
input parameters in SAP2000s
Ultimate Strength fs = 1860 MPa
Yield Strength fpy = 1670 MPa
Elastic Modulus of Strand Es = 195000 MPa
Allowable Jacking Stress fsj = 73.5% of Ultimate Strength
31 | P a g e

Wobble coefficient k = 0.0007 m-1
Draw-in at anchorage 8 mm
3.7.4 Support Stiffnesss of Naluchi Bridge:
U1(X) U2(Y) U3(Z)
P2 Pier 5,280,000 5,620,000 110,000,000
P3 Pier 14,000,000 14,000,000 103,000,000
P4 Pier 2,170,000 2,170,000 71,700,000
Table 3.1
xxiv

These stiffness are to be used in Dynamic Analysis.

3.8 Design Loads
3.8.1 Construction Loads
The construction loads considered is : Weight of form traveler =100 tons
3.8.2 Dead Load And Superimposed Dead Load :
The dead load shall consist of the weight of the entire structure, including the roadway,
sidewalks, car tracks, pipes, conduits, cables, and other public utility services.
Reinforced Concrete : 24.5 kN/m
3

Superimposed dead load :
1. Barrier & Railing : 20.63kN/m (two sides)
2. Asphalt : 8.0 ~ 17.7cm = 33.85kN/m

3.8.3 Creep And Shrinkage :
Structural calculations shall take into account the time dependent effects on materials, i.e.
creep, shrinkage of concrete and prestressing losses (instantaneous and long term losses).
Software uses CEB-FIP 1990 Model Code. Relative humidity of ambient temperature RH =
70%.Creep coeffiecent calculated by Design engineers is 1.4
32 | P a g e

3.8.4 Prestressing force:
Prestressing losses due to friction, creep, shrinkage, taken into account the construction stages
shall be considered in computation models. Prestressing force of 444 KN is applied in each
tendon
3.8.5 Live Load
The live load consist of the weight of the applied moving load of vehicles, cars and Pedestrians
We will use HS 20-44 as recommended by AASHTO and is available in SAP2000.

3.8.5.1 H Loading
The H loadings consist of a two-axle truck or the corresponding lane loading as illustrated in
Appendix B. The H loadings are designated H followed by a number indicating the gross wesight
in tons of the standard truck.
3.8.5.2 HS Loading
The HS loadings consist of a tractor truck with semitrailer or the corresponding lane load as
illustrated in Appendix A. The HS loadings are designated by the letters HS followed by a
number indicating the gross weight in tons of the tractor truck. The variable axle spacing has
been introduced in order that the spacing of axles may approximate more closely the tractor
trailers now in use. The variable spacing also provides a more satisfactory loading for
continuous spans, in that heavy axle loads may be so placed on adjoining spans as to produce
maximum negative moments.

33 | P a g e

Chapter 4
Structural Analysis of Naluchi Bridge
Structural analysis is a process to analyze a structural system to predict its responses and
behaviors by using physical laws and mathematical equations. The main objective of structural
analysis is to determine internal forces, stresses and deformations of structures under various
load effects.
Structural modeling is a tool to establish three mathematical models,
(1) Structural model consisting of three basic components: structural members or components,
joints (nodes, connecting edges or surfaces), and boundary conditions (supports and
foundations)
(2) Material model
(3) Load model.
4.1 Modeling Discretization
Formulation of a mathematical model using discrete mathematical elements and their
connections and interactions to capture the prototype behavior is called Discretization. For this
purpose: a) Joints/Nodes are used to discretize elements and primary locations in structure at
which displacements are of interest. b) Elements are connected to each other at joints. c)
Masses, inertia, and loads are applied to elements and then transferred to joints.
4.2 Elastic Analysis:
Service and fatigue limit states should be analyzed as fully elastic, as should strength limit
states, except in the case of certain continuous girders where inelastic analysis is permitted,
inelastic redistribution of negative bending moment and stability investigation
xxv
When
modeling the elastic behavior of materials, the stiffness properties of concrete and composite
members shall be based upon cracked and/or uncracked sections consistent with the
anticipated behavior (LRFD 4.5.2.2, AASHTO 2007). A limited number of analytical studies have
been performed by Caltrans to determine effects of using gross and cracked moment of inertia.
34 | P a g e

The specific studies yielded the following findings on prestressed concrete girders on concrete
columns:
1) Using Igs or Icr in the concrete columns do not significantly reduce or increase the
superstructure moment and shear demands for external vertical loads, but will significantly
affect the superstructure moment and shear demands from thermal and other lateral loads
.Using Icr in the columns can increase the superstructure deflection and camber calculations
xxvi

Usually an elastic analysis is sufficient for strength-based analysis.
4.3 Static Analysis:
Static analysis mainly used for bridges under dead load, vehicular load, wind load and thermal
effects. The influence of plan geometry has an important role in static analysis
xxvii
.One should
pay attention to plan aspect ratio and structures curved in plan for static analysis.
4.4 Methodology of modeling in SAP 2000:
The following are the general steps to be defined for analyzing a structure using SAP2000/CSI:
1. Geometry (input nodes coordinates, define members and connections)
2. Boundary Conditions/ Joint Restraints (fixed, free, roller, pin or partially restrained with
a specified spring constant)
3. Material Property (Elastic Modulus, Poissons Ratio, Shear Modulus, damping data,
thermal properties and time-dependent properties such as creep and shrinkage)
4. Loads and Load cases
5. Stress-strain relationship
6. Perform analysis of the model based on analysis cases
In this section, we create a SAP2000/CSI model for the Example Bridge using the Bridge Wizard
(BrIM-Bridge Information Modeler). The Bridge Modeler has 13 modeling step processes which
are described below:
4.4.1 Layout line
The first step in creating a bridge object is to define highway layout lines using horizontal and
vertical curves. Layout lines are used as reference lines for defining the layout of bridge objects
and lanes in terms of stations, bearings and grades considering super elevations and skews.
35 | P a g e

4.4.2 Deck Section
Various parametric bridge sections (Box Girders & Steel Composites) are available for use in
defining a bridge. User can specify different Cross Sections along Bridge length.
4.4.3 Abutment Definition
Abutment definitions specify the support conditions at the ends of the bridge. The user defined
support condition allows each six DOF at the abutment to be specified as fixed, free or partially
restrained with a specified spring constant. Those six Degrees of Freedom are: U1- Translation
Parallel to Abutment U2- Translation Normal to Abutment U3- Translation Vertical R1- Rotation
about Abutment R2- Rotation About Line Normal to Abutment R3- Rotation about Vertical For
Academy Bridge consider U2, R1 and R3 DOF directions to have a Free release type and other
DOF fixed.
4.4.4 Bent Definition
This part specifies the geometry and section properties of bent cap beam and bent cap columns
(single or multiple columns) and base support condition of the bent columns.
The base support condition for a bent column can be fixed, pinned or user defined as a
specified link/support property which allows six degrees of freedom.
4.4.5 Diaphragm Definition
Diaphragm definitions specify properties of vertical diaphragms that span transverse across the
bridge. Diaphragms are only applied to area objects and solid object models and not to spine
models. Steel diaphragm properties are only applicable to steel bridge sections.
4.4.6 Hinge Definition
Hinge definitions specify properties of hinges (expansion joints) and restrainers. After a hinge is
defined, it can be assigned to one or more spans in the bridge object
4.4.7 Parametric Variation Definition
Any parameter used in the parametric definition of the deck section can be specified to vary
such as bridge depth, thickness of the girders and slabs along the length of the bridge. The
variation may be linear, parabolic or circular.
36 | P a g e

4.4.8 Bridge Object Definition
The main part of the Bridge Modeler is the Bridge Object Definition which includes defining
bridge span, deck section properties assigned to each span, abutment properties and skews,
bent properties and skews, hinge locations are assigned, super elevations are assigned and pre-
stress tendons are defined. Since we calculate the pre-stress jacking force from CTBridge, we
use option to input the Tendon Load force.
4.4.9 Update Linked Model
The update linked model command creates the SAP2000/CSI object-based model from the
bridge object definition. l. There are three options in the Update Linked Model including:
1. Update a Spine Model using Frame Objects
2. Update as Area Object Model
3. Update as Solid Object Model
4.4.10 Bridge Results & Output
Analysis result and outputs are in the form of
1. Influence Lines and Surfaces
2. Forces and Stresses Along and Across Bridge
3. Displacement Plots
4. Graphical and Tabulated Outputs
4.5 Naluchi Bridge Model:
4.5.1 Geometry Description
The bridge to be modeled is 246m long with two span. The deck is 15.6m wide and varies
linearly. It has two lanes 5m wide each. This is a T-shape girder and pier structure along with
deviators (pylon) from which stay cables are hanging the box girder deck.
After providing section geometry data, all the sectional properties of the can be formulated.
Using this information, the different sections of bridge are designed and for this purpose a
bridge model with non-prismatic segments is created.
To create a non-prismatic member, starting and ending section, the length of the segment and
how the properties were varied over the segment are specified. Non prismatic members may
37 | P a g e

have any number of segments and are defined using starting and ending sections and the
segment properties may be varied in linear parabolic and cubic manner.
Non prismatic sections, these may be assigned to the line diagram of the bridge deck as per
drawings of the initial design in similar preposition and alignment.
4.5.2 Imaginary Diaphragm Modeling
The section for the imaginary diaphragm (rigid zone element) is defined by assigning it the high
moment of inertia values while keeping its mass and weight zero
4.5.3 Stay Cables Modeling
Stay cable section was defined by specifying the diameter of the stay cable selected, material,
number of linear segments and tension at the two ends.
The initial tension in stay cables could be applied properly when the cable element is applied.
However, by applying frame element is successfully used in the analysis and initial tension is
applied as strain in the frame element. Strain calculation is shown in the Table 4.1
Nos. of
Strand

Initial
Tensile
Force (kN)
Area
(mm2)
E Strain
= / E
27S15.2 7,500 3,744.9 Constant 0.005
19S15.2 5,400 2,635.3 Constant 0.005
Table 4.1- Strain Calculation
xxviii

4.5.4 P2, P3 and P4 Pier modeling
P2 and P4 are modeled for dead and live load analysis by assigning the node at P2 and P4
location as, the restraints according to Initial Design Final Draft. Non prismatic section for P3
Pier is defined as per drawings of Initial Design and a fixed support at its base is assigned to it.
Cross beams and deviators are also modeled after defining their sections according to the
drawings of Initial Design
38 | P a g e

4.5.5 Loading Description
4.5.5.1 Dead Load:
Self Weight of the girder, anchorage load and surface load are included in the dead load case.
To incorporate the effect of initial tension in the cables, the strain produced due to initial
tension is calculated and is defined in another load case
Dead Load of material used are given in table 4.2

DEAD LOAD kN/m
3

Reinforced
Concrete 24.5
Plain Concrete 23
Steel 77
Asphalt 22.5
Table 4.2- Dead Load
xxix

4.5.5.2 Superimposed Dead Load:
In addition to dead load, Super Imposed dead load are also taken in account which are as
follows
1. Surfacing Parapet 6.395 kN/m2 = 2.79
2. Foot way 3.920 kN/m2 = 7.84
3. Steel Railing 0.300 kN/m2 = 0.60
4. As. Footway 1.350 kN/m 1.5= 4.05
5. As. Carriage 1.800 kN/m 9.7 = 17.46
6. Leveling Concrete 0.69~2.231 1.46 KN/ m9.7 = 14.16
Total super Imposed Dead load = 48.84 KN/m
4.5.5.3 Anchorage Load
Anchorage of Stay Cable = 68.7 KN/Anchorage
4.5.5.4 Live Load:
To define a live load, firstly, layout lines are defined by using the layout line command in the
bridge module and the same layout lines are used for lane definition. Next Class A standard
39 | P a g e

truck-train highway live loads for bridges, live load for footway are defined and then vehicle
classes are defined. Each vehicle is assigned a vehicle class. When lanes and vehicles are
defined the moving load analysis case is set up and vehicle classes with reference to lanes are
mentioned.
4.6 Dead load Analysis Results
Dead Load analysis when Stay cables are prestressed results are shown below.In all the figures
the negative axis is shown above and positive axis is at the bottom of the layout line.
4.6.1 Flexural Moments along the Deck (M 3-3):

Figure 4.1- Moment along the deck
The Moment diagram of Naluchi bridge is similar to the Stiff girder Extradosed bridge as
mentioned in the . the maximum negative moment came on the central support which is pier 3
. Maximum negative moment is 591,193 KN. While Maximum Positive Moment came near the
center of the unsupported span on both sides of Pier 3 due to its symmetrical in nature.
Maximum positive moment is 136,077 KN.
40 | P a g e

At the point of stay cables anchorage there is a little shift in the positive moment on both the
sides , thus releasing the some part of moment in the girder to the cables .
4.6.2 Shear Force Diagram:
Shear Force variation in the deck can be seen in Figure 4.2
Figure 4.2- Shear Force Diagram

Shear force is maximum at the Pier 3 i.e 29,530 KN and is similar in values in both side of the
Pier 3 but opposite in direction i.e a point on the same distance from the pier on both sides
have same numerical value but opposite in sign.
4.7 Moving Load Analysis results:
Moving Load analysis is carried out with vehicle HS 20-44 as defined earlier. The result of
Moving Load is the Moment envelope which shows the Maximum positive and Maximum
negative Moment at each point along the deck as a result of moing vehicles at the different
points because in actual conditions vehicles would be anywhere. When vehicle passes through
negative moment is created at that point and positive moment is created at different point .
41 | P a g e

Figure 4.3- Moment envelope
The Moment envelope shows the maximum negative moment will be at pier 3 while there will
be no positive moment and the maximum negative moment will be near the center of the
unsupported span. It is same area where the dead load moment is maximum. But in addition to
the positive moment present here there is also the negative moment which is due to moving
vehicles.
4.8 Dead Load and Live Load Analysis Results :
The results shows the combination of Dead Load and Live Load.
4.8.1 Moment along the deck:
The Moment diagram of this combination is same as in the case of Dead Load because live Load
is less as compared to Dead Load and it adds up due to the fact that location of positive and
negative moments are same in both the cases.
42 | P a g e


4.8.2 Shear along the Deck:
Similarly the Shear behavior is also the same as in Dead Load while the maximum shear in the
is 30.837 KN.

Figure 4.5- Shear Force Diagram
43 | P a g e

4.9 Dead Load, Live Load and Prestressing:
The prestressing force is introduced in the Combination of Dead Load and Live Load and its
affect are studied .The Moment Diagram , Shear Force and Axial Force are discussed .
4.9.1 Moment along the Deck:
The Moment Variations is similar to the previous cases as in the shown in the figure 4.7

4.9.2 Axial Force:
The axial force shows the comparison in the Pier 3 where it is Maximum and at the point of stay
cable anchorage there is release of compression i.e. the cables are in tension the compression
is decreasing at that Point.
44 | P a g e

Figure 4.7- Axial Force:

4.10 Analysis Results in Tabular Form
4.10.1 Dead Load Analysis
The comparison of result of Design , vetting consultant and analysis carried out by us are shown
in table. Analysis is done both by taking the affect of stay cables and without stay cables
4.10.1.1 Moment and Shear Results
The moment and shear result of Dead load are given below in table 4.3 and shown in graphical
form in Figure 4.7

45 | P a g e

Table 4.3-Moment and Shear Result
The maximum positive moment and maximum negative moment can be compared by the
following graph

Figure 4.8-Maximum positive & negative
From the table 4.3 & figure 4.8 we infer that,
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
Max +
Moment (KN-
m)
Max- Moment
(KN-m)
Design Consultant
Vetting Consultant
Analysis With prestressed
stay cables
Analysis W/O
Prestressing in stay cables
ITEM
Design
Consultant
Vetting
Consultant
Analysis With
prestressed
stay cables
Analysis W/O

Max positive
Moment (KN-
m)
36137 144128 136077 297241.55
Max negative
Moment (KN-
m)
685053 634031 591932 1135636
Max Shear (KN) 28395 30670 30874 39558.2
46 | P a g e

1. At pier 3 ( centrral pier ) there is negative moment due to the integrity of deck with the
pier
2. There is monolithic connection.
3. At start P2 abutment the moment are reduced to zero as there is an expansion joint at
P2 hence all moments are released/
4. At P4 pier the moments are also released due to expansion joint.
5. At P3 support the deck bears a high negative moment hence the tension is induced in
the top fibers of the girders near P3. For that the internal prestress tendons are to be
placed in the upper portion of the webs to cater for the tensile stresses.
6. As we move away from P3 the negative moments reduce and gradually become positive
at center span. The internal prestressing tendons profile also moves gradually to the
bottom of the webs to cater the tension in bottom fiber at positive moment sections.
4.10.1.2 P2 Support Reactions
The Pier 2 Reaction In tabular form
Table 4.4- P2 Support Reaction
The graphical display of P-2 Support reaction
P2 SUPPORT REACTIONS
ITEM
Design
Consultant
Vetting
Consultant
Analysis
With
prestressed
stay cables
Analysis
W/O
Prestressin
g in stay
cables

Fx(KN) 0 0 0
0
Fz(K
N) 5776 7450.61 7295.46

14373.927
M(K
N-m) 0 0 0
0
47 | P a g e

Figure 4.9- P2 Support Reaction
Table 4.4 & Figure 4.10 shows the Support Reaction of Pier 2The last column of table 4.4 shows
the analysis result without Prestressing in stay cables which is very much larger due to the fact
more load is transferred through all three piers. While in case of prestressed cables the major
portion of load is carried through pier3 and minor portion to Pier 2 and Pier 4.

0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
Fz(KN)
Design Consultant
Vetting Consultant
Analysis With prestressed stay
cables
Analysis W/O
48 | P a g e

ITEM
Design
Consultant
Vetting
Consultant
Analysis With
prestressed stay
cables
Analysis W/O
Prestressing in
stay cables

Fx(KN) 0 0 0 0
Fz(KN) 172987 174026 179466 165106
M(KN-m) 280 9517 26337 1362.296


0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
200000
Fz(KN) M(KN-m)
Design Consultant
Vetting Consultant
cables
Analysis W/O
49 | P a g e

ITEM
Design
Consultant
Vetting
Consultant
Analysis With
prestressed stay
cables
Analysis W/O
Prestressing in
stay cables

Fx(KN) 0 0 0
0
Fz(KN) 5774 7464.52 8187 15469
M(KN-m) 0 0 0 0


4.10.1.1 Discussion:
The above analysis results compare the effects of dead load on the bridge in terms ofthe
bending moments and shears along the deck. The table compares these effects for both when
the stay cables are prestressed and when prestress force in stay cables is not considered. Note
here that the prestress force is not directly applied in SAP 2000. But it is induced in terms of
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
Fz(KN)
Design Consultant
Vetting Consultant
cables
Analysis W/O
50 | P a g e

strain load in the stay cables corresponding to the stress applied. When we compare the
support reactions we conclude that,
i. When the cables are not prestressed the reaction at the end supports are greater that when
the cables are prestressed.
ii. The reaction at central Pier base is higher when the stay cables are prestressed than
unstressed stay cables. This behavior is justified because stay cables carry the load of the deck
to the pylon which in turn goes to P3 when the stay-cables are stressed and in unstressed stay-
cables state the load bearded by stay cables now goes to the P2 abutment and P4 Pier.

51 | P a g e

4.10.2 Dead and Live Load Analysis Results

ITEM
Design
consultant
Vetting
consultant
Analysis by
us With
prestressed
stay cables
Analysis by
us W/O
Prestressing
in stay
cables
Max positive Moment
(KN-m)
61409 157368 147492 308679.2
Max negative Moment
(KN-m)
776591 829243 608522 1152 226
Max Shear (KN) 31148 35911 30873.49 40 195.2
Fz(KN) 5776 8440 7908.937 14987.394
Fz(KN) 175827 169317 180109.95 165749.26
M(KN-m) 36857 17463 38856.258 18114
Fz(KN) 5774 8726 8802.568 16084.804
Table 4.7- Analysis Results in Tabular form
As discussed earlier in Section 4.8 Dead load and Live load combination, those result are
displayed in tabular form. Moment distribution and shear variation are explained earlier

Graphical display of reaction along vertical direction at Pier 2, Pier 3and Pier 4
52 | P a g e

Figure 4.12- Fz reaction in Support P2, P3 and P4
4.10.2.1 Discussion:
The live load considered is HS n 20-44 and the moment due to the live load is plotted The plot
shows us max positive and max negative moment at each section along the deck.
We note that the envelope shows the mid span bears higher positive moments whereas at P3
(Central pier) the native moments dominate.
The moments along the deck due to the deck are relatively smaller due to the live load as
compared with the dead load moments along the deck.
The internal prestressing force is applied at both end of the tendon profile which induces
positive moments at P3 and negative moments at the mid spans.
The load combination DEAD load + Live load + Prestress load gives us the net moments
experienced by the deck.
The reactions at the supports are also shown which show the same shift in reaction from side
supports (i.e. P2 and P4) to the central pier P3 when the stay cables are pre stressed.
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
200000
P2
SUPPORT
P3
SUPPORT
P4
SUPPORT
Design Consultant
Vetting Consultant
cables
Analysis W/O
53 | P a g e

4.12 Stage Construction Analysis:
4.12.1 Creep Stresses in Concrete
Influence of the creep and drying shrinkage is crucial for step-by-step construction method of
erection.
The structural system of PC Extradosed Bridge changes during construction. As whole structure
is not erected at once, hence there is a change in the structural system during and after
erection. The statically indeterminate force occurs with the progress of creep due to the
restrained concrete, which in itself occurs due to change in the structural system. Due to
balance cantilever method of construction, the structural system during & after erection is
different.
4.13 Seismic Analysis for Expansion Joint Displacement :
Seismic Analysis is a subset of structural analysis and is the calculation of the response of a
building structure to earthquakes. It is part of the process of structural design, earthquake
engineering or structural assessment and retrofit in regions where earthquakes are prevalent.
As seen in the figure, a building has the potential to wave back and forth during an earthquake
(or even a severe wind storm). This is called the fundamental mode, and is the
lowest frequency of building response. Most buildings, however, have higher modes of
response, which are uniquely activated during earthquakes. The figure just shows the second
mode, but there are higher shimmy (abnormal vibration) modes. Nevertheless, the first and
second modes tend to cause the most damage in most cases.
4.13.1 Linear Dynamic Analysis:
Static procedures are appropriate when higher mode effects are not significant. This is
generally true for short, regular buildings. Therefore, for tall buildings, buildings with torsional
irregularities, or non-orthogonal systems, a dynamic procedure is required. In the linear
dynamic procedure, the building is modelled as a multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) system with
a linear elastic stiffness matrix and an equivalent viscous damping matrix.
The seismic input is modeled using either modal spectral analysis or time history analysis but in
both cases, the corresponding internal forces and displacements are determined using linear
elastic analysis. The advantage of these linear dynamic procedures with respect to linear static
54 | P a g e

procedures is that higher modes can be considered. However, they are based on linear elastic
response and hence the applicability decreases with increasing nonlinear behavior, which is
approximated by global force reduction factors.
In linear dynamic analysis, the response of the structure to ground motion is calculated in
the time domain, and all phase information is therefore maintained. Only linear properties are
assumed. The analytical method can use modal decomposition as a means of reducing the
degrees of freedom in the analysis.
4.13.2 Time History Analysis
Time-history analysis provides for linear or nonlinear evaluation of dynamic structural response
under loading which may vary according to the specified time function.
Six Degrees of Freedom are:
U1- Translation Parallel to Abutment R1- Rotation about Abutment
U2- Translation Normal to Abutment R2- Rotation about Line Normal to Abutment
U3- Translation Vertical R3- Rotation about Vertical
Time history analysis is done in all three directions i.e. U1, U2 and U3.

4.13.4 Result of Time History Analysis:
Time History ( U1 )
(Acceleration along the Deck)

Accelaration (m/sec
2
) Displacement (cm)
Girder at P2 support 0.542 32
Top of P3 column 3.131 26
Table 4.9- Time History in longitudinal direction
Time History ( U2 )
(Acceleration across the Deck)
55 | P a g e

Acceleration (m/sec
2
)
Displacement (cm)
Top of P3 column 2.899 30
Table 4.10-time history in transverse direction
Time History ( U3 )
(Acceleration perpendicular the Deck)

Accelaration (m/sec
2
) Displacement (cm)
Girder at P2 support 0.004 0.0
Top of P3 column 0.045 0.1
Girder at P4 support 0.009 0.0
Table 4.11-Time history perpendicular the deck

The allowable joint movement is 350`mm in longitudinal direction and almost data are within
the range in analytical results
Higher safety margin is available. The probable reason is difference in the modeling of support
and design engineers decision on safety margin as Muzaffarabad has experienced most
devastating earthquake in Pakistan. Though expansion joint at approach bridges may not have
same displacement range but it is a fact that increase in the size of expansion joint
tremendously increases its cost.
Hence localized minor damage (of concrete cover) may be acceptable rather increasing bridge
cost to acceptable values.

56 | P a g e

57 | P a g e

Appendix A

HS20-44 Loading

lviii | P a g e

Appendix B

Summary of Extradosed Bridges

Name and Opera- -Deck Depth x Width Picture
Location tional -Span Lengths
Date -Deck Description

1 Ganter Bridge,
1980

Switzerland

2 Arrt-Darr Proposed
Viaduct, France

3 Barton Creek
1987

Bridge, Austin,

USA

4 Socorridos
1993

Bridge, Madeira,

Portugal

5 Odawara Blueway 1994
Bridge, Japan

6 Saint-Rmy-de-
1996

Maurienne Bridge,

Savoie, France

7 Tsukuhara Bridge, 1997
Japan

2.5 - 5 x 10
127.0 + 174.0 + 127.0
Wide single cell concrete box girder,
cable-panel stayed.

3.75 x 20.5
60.0 + 100.0 + 100.0 + 100.0 + 100.0 + 52.0
Single cell concrete box girder with voided webs and
struts supporting deck cantilevers.

3.7 - 10.7 x 17.7
47.6 + 103.6 + 57.9
Single cell concrete box girder with webs
inclined inwards into a central fin above the
deck level, and transverse struts supporting
the deck slab.

3.5 x 20
54.0 + 85.0 + 106.0 + 86.0
Single cell concrete box girder, cable-
panel stayed.

2.2 - 3.5 x 13
73.3 + 122.3 + 73.3
Wide double cell concrete box girder.

2.2 x 13.4
52.4 + 48.5
U shaped concrete deck with transverse
ribs between edge beams.

3 - 5.5 x 12.8
65.4 + 180.0 + 76.4
Wide single cell concrete box girder.

59 | P a g e

Summary of Extradosed Bridges (continued)




8 Kanisawa Bridge,
1998 3.3 - 5.6 x 17.5

Japan
99.3 + 180.0 + 99.3

Concrete box girder.

9 Shin-Karato
1998 2.5 - 3.5 x 11.5

Bridge, Kobe,
74.1 + 140.0 + 69.1

Japan
Two and three cell concrete box girder.

10 Sunniberg Bridge, 1998 1.1 x 12.375

Switzerland
59.0 + 128.0 + 140.0 + 134.0 + 65.0

Concrete slab with edge stiffening beams.

11 Santanigawa
(Mitanigawa)
Bridge, Japan

12 Second Mandaue -
Mactan (Marcelo
Fernan) Bridge,
Mactan, Philippines

13 Matakina Bridge,
Nago, Japan

1999 2.5 - 6.5 x 20.4
57.9 + 92.9
Double cell concrete box girder.

1999 3.3 - 5.1 x 18
111.5 + 185.0 + 111.5
Three cell concrete box girder.

Photo fromwww.jsce.or.jp/committee/tanaka-sho/jyushou Kasuga 2006

2000 3.5 - 6 x 11.3
109.3 + 89.3
Single cell concrete box girder.

14 Pakse (Lao-

2000 3 - 6.5 x 13.8

Nippon) Bridge,
52.0 + 123.0 + 143.0 + 91.5 + 34.5

Laos
Single cell concrete box girder.

15 Sajiki Bridge, Japan 2000 2.1 - 3.2 x 11

60.8 + 105.0 + 57.5

Summary of
Extradosed Bridges (continued)

60 | P a g e


16 Shikari Bridge,
Japan

17 Surikamigawa
Bridge, Japan

18 Wuhu Yangtze
River Bridge,
Wuhan, China

19 Yukisawa-Ohashi Bridge, Japan

2000 3 - 6 x 23
94.0 + 140.0 + 140.0 + 140.0 + 94.0

Photo from www.jsce.or.jp/committee/tanaka-sho/jyushou Stroh et al. 2003

2000 2.8 - 5 x 9.2
84.82

2000 15 x 23.4
180.0 + 312.0 + 180.0
Double-decker steel truss with composite deck slab
on top roadway, two rail lines on bottom level.

2000 2 - 3.5 x 15.8
70.3 + 71.0 + 34.4

Two cell concrete box girder with wide
sidewalks on deck cantilever overhangs
outside of cable planes.

20 Hozu Bridge, Japan

21 Ibi River
Bridge, Japan

2001 2.8 x 15.3
33.0 + 50.0 + 76.0 + 100.0 + 76.0 + 31.0 Single
cell concrete box girder.

2001 4.3 - 7.3 x 33
154 + 271.5 + 271.5 + 271.5 + 271.5 + 157 Hybrid cross
section: four cell concrete box girder near piers and steel box
girder in central 100 m with moment and shear connection.

22 Kiso River Bridge, 2001 4.3 - 7.3 x 33

Japan
160.0 + 275.0 + 275.0 + 275.0 + 160.0

Hybrid cross section: four cell concrete box

girder near piers and steel box girder in central

100 m with moment and shear connection.

61 | P a g e



23 Miyakodagawa
Bridge, Japan

24 Nakanoike
Bridge, Japan

25 Fukaura
Bridge, Japan

26 Korror Babeldoap
Bridge, Palau

27 Sashikubo
Bridge, Japan

28 Shinkawa (Tobiuo)
Bridge, Hamamatsu,
Japan

29 Deba River
Bridge, Gipuzkoa,
Spain

30 Himi Bridge, Japan

2001 4 - 6.5 x 19.9
134.0 + 134.0
Parallel double cell box concrete box girders.

2001 2.5 - 4 x 21.4
60.6 + 60.6

2002 2.5 - 3 x 13.7
62.1 + 90.0 + 66 + 45.0 + 29.1

2002 3.5 - 7 x 11.6
82.0 + 247.0 + 82.0
Hybrid cross section: wide single concrete box
girder near piers and steel box girder in central 82
m.

2002 3.2 - 6.5 x 11.3
114.0 + 114.0 Concrete box
girder.

2002 2.4 - 4 x 25.8
38.5 + 45.0 + 90.0 + 130.0 + 80.5 Three cell
concrete box girder.

2003 2.7 x 13.9
42.0 - 66.0 - 42.0
U shaped concrete deck with transverse ribs
between edge beams.

2004 4 x 12.45
91.8 + 180.0 + 91.8
Single cell doubly composite box girder with
corrugated steel webs.

62 | P a g e





31 Korong Bridge,
2004 2.5 x 15.85

Budapest, Hungary
52.26 + 61.98

Three cell concrete box girder stiffened with

transverse ribs.

32 Shin-Meisei

2004 3.5 x 19

Bridge, Japan
89.6 + 122.3 + 82.4

Three cell concrete trapezoidal box girder.

33 Tatekoshi Bridge, 2004 1.8 - 2.9 x 19.14

Japan
56.3 + 55.3

34 Sannohe-Boukyo
2005 3.5 - 6.5 x 13.45

Bridge, Aomori,
99.9 + 200.0 + 99.9

Japan

35 Domovinski

2006 3.55 x 34

Bridge over the
48 + 6x60 + 72 + 120 + 72 + 2x60 + 48

River Sava, Croatia
Five cell concrete box girder supports light rail

between cable planes.

36 Kack-Hwa First

2006 - x 31.1

Bridge, Gwangju,
55.0 + 115.0 + 100.0

South Korea
Multiple cell concrete box girder.

37 Nanchiku Bridge,
2006 2.6 - 3.5 x 20.55

Japan
68.1 + 110.0 + 68.1

38 Rittoh Bridge,
2006 4.5 - 7.5 x 19.6

Japan
140 + 170 + 115 + 70 (Tokyo bound)

Three cell doubly composite box girder with

corrugated steel webs.

63 | P a g e





39 Tagami Bridge,
2006 3 - 4.5 x 17.8

Japan
80.2 + 80.2

40 Third Bridge over 2006 2 - 2.5 x 17.4

Rio Branco, Brasil
54 + 90 + 54

Deck slab with L shaped edge beams (appears

as single box girder with incomplete bottom

slab) that taper to I beams at midspan.

41 Tokuyama Bridge, 2006 4 - 6.5 x 17.4

Japan
139.7 + 220.0 + 139.7

42 Yanagawa Bridge, 2006 4 - 6.5 x 17.4

Japan
130.7 + 130.7

43 Brazil-Peru
2007 2.35 - 3.35 x 16.8

Integration
65.0 - 110.0 -65.0

Bridge, Brazil
Wide single cell concrete box girder.

44 Gum-Ga Grand
2007 - x 23

Bridge,
85.4 + 125.0 + 125.0 + 125.0 + 125.0 + 125.0 +

Chungcheongnam-
Mulitple cell concrete box girder.

do, South Korea

45 Pyung-Yeo 2
2007 3.5 - 4 x 23.5

Bridge, Yeosu,
65.0 + 120.0 + 65.0

South Korea
Four cell concrete box girder.

46 Second

2007 3.5 x 28.6

Vivekananda
55.0 + 7 x 110.0 + 55.0

Bridge over the
Wide single cell trapezoidal box girder with

internal struts (Bang Na cross section).

Hooghly River,

64 | P a g e




47 Cho-Rack Bridge, 2008 - x 14

Dangjin, South
70.0 + 130.0 + 130.0 + 130.0 + 70.0

Korea
Multiple cell concrete box girder.

48 North Arm
2008 3.4 x 10.31

Bridge (Canada
139.0 + 180.0 + 139.0

Line Extradosed
Single cell concrete box girder for LRT.

Transit Bridge),

49 Trois Bassins

2008 4 - 7 x 22

Viaduct, Reunion,
18.6 - 126.0 - 104.4 - 75.6 - 43.2

France
Single cell concrete box girder with steel struts

supporting long deck cantilevers.

50 Golden Ears

2009 2.7 - 4.5 x 31.5

Bridge, Canada
121.0 + 242.0 + 242.0 + 242.0 + 121.0

Steel box girders at edge of deck with

transverse floor beams composite with precast

concrete deck.

51 Pearl Harbor

2012 3.5 - 5 x 33.7

Memorial
75.9 + 157.0 + 75.9

(Quinnipiac)
Parallel five cell concrete box girders with

inclined exterior webs.

Bridge, New

65 | P a g e

66 | P a g e

REFRENCES:

i
Survey of Pakistan

ii
Google Earth

iii
http://www.infovisual.info/05/029_en.html

4
http://www.ikonet.com/en/visualdictionary/transport-and-
machinery/road-transport/fixed-bridges/arch-bridge.php

5
http://writepass.co.uk/journal/wpcontent/uploads/2012/12/1231.

6
http://kids.britannica.com/comptons/art-18377/A-suspension-bridge-
with-forces-of-tension-represented-by-red

vii
Akio Kasuga, Development of extradosed structures in the bridge
construction & Recent technology of prestressed concrete bridges in
Japan

viii
Menn, Christan. (1990). Prestressed Concrete Bridges.
Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, Switzerland.

ix
Mermigas , konstatinos kris (2008), Behaviour and Design of
EXTRADOSED BRIDGES

x
EXTRADOSED BRIDGES

xi
EXTRADOSED BRIDGES, Page 46,Chap 3, VOl 1

xii
EXTRADOSED BRIDGES, Mermigas Section 3 ,

xiii
EXTRADOSED BRIDGES, Mermigas Section 3.4.9 ,
67 | P a g e

xiv
Chio Gustave Chiao, Structural behavior and design criteria of
extradosed bridges: general insight and state of the art, Page 391

xv
Jacques Mathivat, The Cantilever Construction Of Prestressed
Concrete Bridges
Page 383 , Structural behavior and design criteria of extradosed
bridges: general insight and state of the art

xvi
EXTRADOSED BRIDGES , Page 54 VOL 1, ,

xvii
Gustavo Chio, Structural behavior and design criteria of extradosed

xviii
Dos Santos, Structural behavior and design criteria of extradosed

xix
Mermigas , konstatinos kris (2008),, Behaviour and Design of
EXTRADOSED BRIDGES, Page 59, 54 VOL 1,

xx
Akio Kasuga, Development of extradosed structures in the bridge
construction & Recent technology of prestressed concrete bridges in
Japan

xxi
Construction Engineering Report on Naluchi Bridge (Cable Stayed
Bridge) by Ghulam Rasool & Co.

xxii
Pictures taken at Muzaffarabad

xxiii
Bridge) by Ghulam Rasool & Co.

xxiv
Nespak, (2008) ,Initail Draft report Nalchi Muzzafrabad

xxv
(LRFD C4.5.1, AASHTO 2007).

68 | P a g e

xxvi
Caltrans (2008). Bridge Design Specification , CA 4.5.2.2,

xxvii
AASHTO 4.6.1 ,AASHTO Guide Specification for LRFD Sesmic Bridge
Design

xxviii
Bridge) by Ghulam Rasool & Co

xxix
Nespak, (2008) ,Initail Draft report Nalchi Muzzafrabad

Structural Analysis of Extradozed Bridge in Naluchi, Muzaffrabad

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Structural Analysis of Extradozed Bridge in Naluchi, Muzaffrabad

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Signed by: Miski ''qaal_475@yahoo.

Вам также может понравиться