X hits on this document

17 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

7 / 7

Max SF

259.92

282.49

7.99

BM ­Mid Span

372.73

377.87

1.36

BM ­Corner

147.11

154.14

4.56

Max SF

79.68

78.93

­0.95

BM ­Mid Span

204.67

220.74

7.28

BM ­ Corner

339.94

413.63

17.82

4399

Side Walls

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING Volume 1, No 3, 2010

Research article

Bottom Slab

Copyright 2010 All rights reserved Integrated Publishing services

ISSN 0976

5. Conclusions From the analysis it can be observed that bending moment and shear force obtained for 2D and 3D model are approximately same. A 2D model can be effectively used for analysis purpose for all the loading condition mentioned in IRC: 6 and Directorate of bridges & structures (2004), Code of practice for the design of substructures and foundations of bridges Indian Railway Standard. Further research is needed to verify the use of 2D model for different parameters such as dynamic analysis, soil structure interaction etc.

  • 6.

    REFERENCES

  • 1.

    Ronghe G.N. And Gatfane Y.M. "Analysis And Design Of A Bridge By A Push Back

System. A Dissertation of M.tech In structural Engineering. 2004­2005.

2. Directorate of bridges & structures (2004), Code of practice for the design of

substructures and foundations of bridges

ndian Railway Standard.

3. IRC: 21­2000, Standard Specifications And Code Of Practice Road Bridges The Indian Road Congress.

4. IS 456:2000, Plain and Reinforced concrete code for practic Standards.

Bureau of Indian

5. IRC: 6­2000, Standard Specifications And Code Of Practice Road Bridges The Indian Road Congress.

6. IRC: 8­2000, Design criteria for pre­stressed concrete road bridges (Post­Tension

concret

The Indian Roads Congress.

564

Document info
Document views17
Page views17
Page last viewedMon Dec 05 20:56:34 UTC 2016
Pages7
Paragraphs274
Words2084

Comments