See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318456874

Analysis and Design of Box Type Minor Railway Bridge

Article  in  International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology · July 2017

CITATIONS READS

4 23,701

3 authors:

Zaman Kazmi Ashhad Imam

Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences
7 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS    25 PUBLICATIONS   161 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Vikas Srivastava
Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences
75 PUBLICATIONS   630 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Efficient utilization of industrial waste in highway View project

Blending of concrete with innovative materials View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ashhad Imam on 16 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)
Volume 8, Issue 7, July 2017, pp. 295–306, Article ID: IJCIET_08_07_032
Available online at http:// http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=7
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF BOX TYPE MINOR

RAILWAY BRIDGE
Zaman Abbas Kazmi
Post Graduate Student,
Department of Civil Engineering, SHUATS,
Allahabad - 211007, U.P, India

Ashhad Imam
Assistant Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering, SHUATS,
Allahabad - 211007, U.P, India

Vikas Srivastava
Associate Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering, SHUATS,
Allahabad - 211007, U.P, India

ABSTRACT
This study demonstrates the structural analysis and design of RCC box type minor
bridge using manual approach (i.e. MDM method) and by computational approach
(Staad-pro) using IRS - CBC codes. The structural elements (top slab, bottom slab, side
wall) were designed to withstand Ultimate Load criteria (maximum bending moment
and shear force) due to various loads (Dead Load, Live Load, SIDL, LL surcharge, DL
surcharge) and serviceability criteria (Crack width) and a comparative study of the
results obtained from the above two approach has been carried out to validate the
correctness of the results. Further, it was also observed that the analysis using manual
calculation becomes very tedious and cumbersome and for a complex type of structure,
thus it is quite a complex task to perform the analysis manually, so the use of
computational method (Staad – pro and excel sheet) becomes the obvious choice for
design. The results obtained using MDM method shows a good agreement with the
results obtained from computational methods.
Key words: Box Bridge, Moment distribution Method, Railway Minor Bridge, STAAD-
Pro.
Cite this Article: Zaman Abbas Kazmi, Ashhad Imam and Vikas Srivastava, Analysis
and Design of Box Type Minor Railway Bridge, International Journal of Civil
Engineering and Technology, 8(7), 2017, pp. 295–306.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=7

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 295 [email protected]

 Zaman Abbas Kazmi, Ashhad Imam and Vikas Srivastava

1. INTRODUCTION
Bridge construction nowadays has achieved a worldwide level of importance. With rapid
technology growth the conventional bridge has been replaced by innovative cost effective
structural system. The efficient dispersal of congested traffic, economic considerations, and
aesthetic desirability has increased the popularity of box type bridges these days in modern
highway systems, including urban interchanges. They are prominently used in freeway and
bridge systems due to its structural efficiency, serviceability, better stability, pleasing aesthetics
and economy of construction. They are efficient form of construction for bridges because it
minimizes weight, while maximizing flexural stiffness and capacity. It has high torsional
stiffness and strength, compared with an equivalent member of open cross section. Although
significant research has been underway on advanced analysis for many years to better
understand the behaviour of all types of box bridges, the results of these various research works
are scattered and unevaluated. Hence, a transparent understanding of more recent work on
straight and curved box bridges is highly desired which divulged the attention towards aiming
a present study. The main objective is to provide a clear vision about the analysis and design of
box type minor railway bridges. This study would enable bridge engineers to better understand
the behaviour of Box Bridge outlining a different approach towards analysis and design. Some
of the brief summary of the research are presented here:
Sharif (2016) [1] presented the study on analysis and design of railway Box Bridge and
comparison between Staad software and MDM results. The structural elements were designed
to withstand maximum bending moment and shear force. On the hand, Paval et.al (2011) [2]
presented a study of basic design of a prestressed concrete box girder bridge and described the
linear, non-linear and time history analysis of the concrete spread box girder superstructure
when subjected to different loads simulating the effect of traffics. The behaviour of the bridge
superstructure was analysed using the structural analysis software SAP 2000. Load deformation
curves were plotted, variation in the bridge’s properties and the ultimate load carrying capacities
were compared to those of the basic bridge configuration. Nevertheless, Chandrakant et.al
(2014) [3] have carried out a finite element analysis of box culvert which was supposed to be
designed for balancing the flood water on both sides of earth embankment to reduce flood level
on one side of road thereby decreasing the water head consequently reducing the flood menace.
The structural elements were required to be designed to withstand maximum bending moment
and shear force. Accordingly excel program was also developed for analysis and it was
compared with software results. The results shown a similar trend of values obtained from
software as well as excel program. Pathak (2014) [7] also presented a study on bending, shear,
axial and torsion for horizontally curved RCC box bridges using 3-D FEM based software SAP
2000. Moreover, Dhande at.al (2017) [4] carried out a comparative analysis and design of deck
slab of minor bridge by effective width method and finite element method. It was concluded
that the Effective Width Method was time consuming, as for each wheel we had to calculate
area and it was a tedious job for longer vehicles with number of axles, hence it was better to opt
for an alternative which would provide the similar results with less efforts and time. On the
other hand, Krishna e.al (2015) [5] presented the analysis of the underpass RCC bridge. The
Underpass RCC Bridge has been used for traffic movement and control. The model was
analyzed for bending moment, shear force and axial thrust for different loading combinations
as per IRC: 6 standards. The box structure directly rests on soil and soil pressure acts at the
sidewalls. Soil structure interaction theories were applied to base and side walls to obtain the
pressure values to study the response of structure. However, minuscule of research shows an
application of soft computing techniques in bridge engineering section. Amongst which, Shukur
at.al (2014) [6] have proposed the Genetic Algorithms (GAs) technique as as an effective

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 296 [email protected]

 Analysis and Design of Box Type Minor Railway Bridge

method to optimize the structure and the results of this method were verified by using Sequential
Quadratic Programming (SQP) method.

2. PRELIMINARY INFORMATION
This study was a part of contract package of Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor – Design and
Construction of Civil, Structures and Track works for double line Railway under which a box
type minor bridge of 13.5 m span was supposed to be constructed along the route via
Mughalsarai to New Karchana Station. Specific details for the design are discussed below:
• The box cross section for 1m strip is considered for analysis and the loads and load combinations
are applied.
• Though the minimum ballast cushion is 4 0 0 mm, for the dispersion width of live load, rail
and sleeper load, cushion of 300 mm is considered as conservative approach and in
accordance with the clause 2.2.2 of IRS Concrete bridge rule [8].
• Minimum Haunch size of 1 50 mm x 1 5 0 mm is considered for box vent size.
• 100 mm thick PCC shall be provided over 300 mm thick sand filling for Precast Box Segments.
• The minimum soil bearing capacity for RCC box Structures is assumed to be 100 kN/m2
(minimum), if the soil bearing capacity is less than 100 kN/m2 sand filling of appropriate
thickness is to be done below founding level as per codal provision.
• The design life of a structure is that period for which it shall be designed to fulfil its intended
function. The design life of all bridge structures is considered as 100 years [9].
A box structure with top slab, side wall and bottom slab is shown in Fig. 1 along with the
loads and reactions. The top slab is subjected to uniformly distributed loads while the sidewalls
are subjected to trapezoidal load varying along the height of the structure. The bottom slab is
directly resting on soil and is taken as a spring support.

Figure 1 2-D model showing with loads and reaction

2.1. Design Consideration

Various cases generally adopted for design are:
Case 1: Dead load and live load acting from outside as well as earth pressure, while no water
pressure from inside (i.e. Design of Box Bridge by considering the box as in empty conditions,
no water will flow from it).

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 297 [email protected]

 Zaman Abbas Kazmi, Ashhad Imam and Vikas Srivastava

Case 2: Dead load and live load acting from outside as well as earth pressure, while water
pressure acting from inside (i.e. designing the by considering that it is half full).
Case 3: Dead load and live load acting from outside as well as earth pressure, while water
pressure acting from inside (i.e. designing the box by considering that it is full).
Note: General analysis for all the three cases were carried out. Based on the values of bending
moment and shear force it was found that case 1 produces the critical values. Thus the design
was carried out manually and computationally only for case 1 as it is the worst possible scenario.

2.2. Geometry as Per General Arrangement Drawing (GAD)

Components and Section of Box Bridge is shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. It depicts the position of
rail level, sleepers, ballast, formation level and foundation level. A cushion of 100 mm is
provided when the formation level doesn’t coincide with the box top level. Side walls are
subjected to earth filling and the bottom slab is provided with a 100 mm thick PPC concrete. It
has a clear horizontal and vertical opening of 6 m and 3 m respectively in 0.2 m soil fill. The
length of the span is 13.5 m. A uniform thickness of 600 mm is provided at top and bottom slab
and at sidewalls. Haunches of 300 × 300 mm are provided with weep holes having perforated
pipes 2 Nos. of 150 mm diameter to assist water pass easily. Concrete grade of M 35 and Steel
grade of Fe 500 is adopted.

Figure 2 Components of box structure

Figure 3 Cross section of cast in-situ box

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 298 [email protected]

 Analysis and Design of Box Type Minor Railway Bridge

Staad Sectional model of the box structure is shown in Fig. 4. The effective horizontal width
and vertical height is 6.6 m and 3.6 m respectively. The bottom slab is assumed to the resting
directing on soil and spring supports are applied to it.

3. METHODOLOGY
• Manual analysis of RCC box has been done using Moment Distribution Method (MDM) [11].
• Manual design has been carried out using working stress method (WSM) [10].
• Computational analysis has been done using Staad-Pro.
• Computational design for flexural behaviour has been done using Ultimate limit State (ULS)
and crack check has been done using Serviceability limit State (SLS) [8].

Figure 4 Sectional outline of staad model

4. RESULTS
4.1. Moment distribution Method (MDM) results
The analysis was done for all the three cases (as discussed in section 2.1). Table 1 shows
bending moment and direct Shear values for Top Slab, Side Wall and Bottom Slab for all the
three cases as shown above. However, the design has been done by Working Stress Method
(WSM) [10] for case 1 only as it gives the critical (maximum) values of the three cases.
Moreover, the reinforcement details for the critical condition (i.e. case 1) have been depicted in
Table 2. The results obtained from manual calculations were comparable to the results obtained
from computational calculations.

4.2. Computational results (STAAD Pro Analysis)

Analysis of the box type minor bridge for empty box condition with dead loads and live loads
on top and earth pressure and surcharges at the side wall has been done using excel sheet and
staad-pro . Load cases were formed based on IRS-CBC codal provisions (clause no 11.2) [8]

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 299 [email protected]

 Zaman Abbas Kazmi, Ashhad Imam and Vikas Srivastava

followed by several load combinations for SLS and ULS moment and shear. Fig. 5 to Fig. 7
shows accordingly the variations of B.M and S.F at top slab, side wall and bottom slab for the
worst possible load combination obtained using Staad Pro. These B.M and S.F values were used
to design the minor bridge based on ULS and SLS criteria.

Table 1 B.M and Direct Force Result for Top Slab, Side Wall and Bottom Slab
B.M at end Direct Force (for
B.M at Centre (F)
Elements Case (D) depth hd)
(N-m)
(N-m) (N)
i 642641 100057 154721
Top
ii 86711 307679 53908
slab
iii 510471 272521 17048
i -177465 114624 504121
Side Wall ii 273024 350687 274975
iii 343126 272521 274975
i 717176 114624 190498
Bottom
ii 103209 350687 70890
Slab
iii 559278 272521 34552

Table 2 Reinforcement Details for Top Slab, Side Wall and Bottom Slab
Bar ϕ Distribution steel Stirrup bar
Elements Ast (mm2) Spacing (mm) Spacing (mm)
(mm) (mm2) ϕ (mm)
Top slab 4718 20 110 1410 8 100
Side Wall 3066 20 100 1200 8 100
Bottom Slab 5000 20 100 1480 8 100
• Serviceability Limit State [SLS] condition
In this the structural members are to be checked for stresses in materials i.e., concrete and steel.
Parameters like crack width, deflection, shrinkage and creep are required to be checked under
SLS condition. In the present study, crack width is the defining parameter and the limiting value
of crack was found to be 0.2 mm [12].

Figure 5 Maximum B.M diagram (SLS)

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 300 [email protected]

 Analysis and Design of Box Type Minor Railway Bridge

Figure 6 Maximum B.M diagram (ULS)

Figure 7 Maximum SF diagram (ULS)

• Ultimate Limit State [ULS] condition
In this the structural members are to be checked for flexure, shear and torsion. In the present
study torsion was not applicable, thus critical bending moment and shear values were calculated
and design has been done accordingly based on ULS criteria [12].
Note: The ultimate limit and service limit state load factors are directly applied in model in
terms of load combinations to get worst stresses. The combinations considered are shown in
Tables 4-6 for both SLS and ULS conditions.

Table 3 Load Factor for SLS Moment for Load Combinations from 50-56
Load Factors (SLS MOMENT)
Load Comb.
DL EP SIDL DLS LL LLS1 LLS2 REMARKS
50 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 MAX V + MAX H
51 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.1 - - MAX V + MIN H
52 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 - 1.0 1.0 MIN V + MAX H
53 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 - 1.0 - MIN V + PARTIAL H
54 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.0 - MAX V + PARTIAL H
55 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 - - 1.0 MIN V + PARTIAL H
56 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.1 - 1.0 MIN V + PARTIAL H

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 301 [email protected]

 Zaman Abbas Kazmi, Ashhad Imam and Vikas Srivastava

Table 4 Load Factor for ULS Moment for Load Combinations from 100-106
Load Factors (ULS MOMENT)
Load Comb.
DL EP SIDL DLS LL LLS1 LLS2 REMARKS
100 1.25 1.70 2.00 1.70 1.75 1.70 1.70 MAX V + MAX H
101 1.25 1.70 2.00 1.70 1.75 - - MAX V + MIN H
102 1.25 1.70 2.00 1.70 - 1.70 1.70 MIN V + MAX H
103 1.25 1.70 2.00 1.70 - 1.70 - MIN V + PARTIAL H
104 1.25 1.70 2.00 1.70 1.75 1.70 - MAX V + PARTIAL H
105 1.25 1.70 2.00 1.70 - - 1.70 MIN V + PARTIAL H
106 1.25 1.70 2.00 1.70 1.75 - 1.70 MIN V + PARTIAL H

Table 5 Load Factor for ULS Shear for Load Combinations from 200-205
Load Factors (ULS SHEAR)
Load Comb.
DL EP SIDL DLS LL LLS1 LLS2 REMARKS
200 1.25 1.70 2.00 1.70 1.75 1.70 1.70 MAX V + MAX H
201 1.25 1.70 2.00 1.70 1.75 - - MAX V + MIN H
202 1.25 1.70 2.00 1.70 - 1.70 1.70 MIN V + MAX H
202 1.25 1.70 2.00 1.70 - 1.70 - MIN V + PARTIAL H
203 1.25 1.70 2.00 1.70 1.75 1.70 - MAX V + PARTIAL H
204 1.25 1.70 2.00 1.70 - - 1.70 MIN V + PARTIAL H
205 1.25 1.70 2.00 1.70 1.75 - 1.70 MIN V + PARTIAL H

4.2.1. Design summary

Summary of Design Bending Moment and Shear Force is shown in Table 6. Load combination
from 50-56 is for Maximum B.M (SLS condition), load combination from 100-106 is for
maximum B.M (ULS condition) and load combination from 200-206 is for maximum S.F (ULS
condition). To calculate permanent SLS B.M (Mg), all live loads were turned off in staad editor
and then critical B.M value was extracted from case 50-56. Live load SLS B.M (Mq) is
calculated by subtracting permanent SLS B.M (Mg) from Total SLS B.M (M). After critical
values for each section has been obtained design is carried out based on ULS and SLS criteria.
Reinforcement detailing like bar diameter, bar spacing, Reinforcement provided and
minimum reinforcement required (based on IRS CBC) is shown in Table 7. The minimum
reinforcement was 0.2 % of the area of concrete (Ac) [8]. The reinforcement provided was more
than the minimum reinforcement requirement. Hence the reinforcement detailing was
acceptable and safe according to the Ultimate Limit State criteria.
Note: The bar number provided in Table 7 helps in scheduling of reinforcement as shown in
Fig. 8, thus by only showing bar number in the reinforcement diagram, details like diameter
provided and bar spacing can be understood thereby reducing the complexity of the
reinforcement diagram.
Serviceability criteria were based on crack width calculations. The calculated crack width
was found to be within the permissible crack width limit of 0.2 mm. Hence the design was
acceptable and safe according to serviceability Limit State criteria [8].
The detailed reinforcement drawing of the box structure is shown in Fig. 8. Reinforcement
Scheduling has been done using bar number notation like 01, 01a, 02 etc to reduce the
complexity of the drawing. Bar diameter, spacing and link (tie) (if any) can be easily understood
from the bar number.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 302 [email protected]

 Analysis and Design of Box Type Minor Railway Bridge

Table 6 Summary of Design Bending Moment and Shear Force

SLS Live
Beam Load Max Max
BM ULS load
no. comb. SLS ULS
BM position perman SF BM
(BM/ SLS/UL BM BM
ent (kN) SLS
shear S (kNm) (kNm)
(kNm) (kNm)
Location Face
Top Slab - Top 32-30 51/101 1 1 1 1
1
Mid part Bottom 32-30 51/101 395 92 613 303
718
Top Slab - Top 28-4 56/106 221 49 351 172
3
Haunch Zone Bottom 28-4 56/106 1 1 1 1
Side Wall - Outside 26-2 56/106 331 71 521 260
4
Haunch Zone Inside 26-2 56/106 1 1 1 1
105
Side Wall - Outside 24-22 56/106 280 55 427 225
6
Mid part Inside 24-22 52/102 1 1 1 1
Bottom Slab Top 14-1 54/106 1 1 1 1
7 - Haunch
Zone Bottom 14-1 56/106 248 76 387 172
747
Bottom Slab Top 8/9 51/101 406 124 619 282
9
- Mid part Bottom 8/9 51/106 1 1 1 1

Table 7 Main Reinforcement Detail

Min Reinf
Bar Reinforce (0.2% of
Bar dia
Bar spacing ment effective Ac)
BM POSITION Provided Check
No. c/c provided rqd as per
(mm)
(mm) (mm2) IRS –
CBC(mm2)
6 25 220
Mid span 4460 3122 OK
6a 25 220
Top Slab 7 20 220
Support 4a 25 220 5085 1393 OK
4 20 220
1 25 220
Mid span 4460 3153 OK
1a 25 220
Bottom
2 20 220
Slab
Support 4a 25 220 5085 1536 OK
4 20 220
4 20 220
Outer
4a 25 220 5085 2124 OK
Face
Side Wall 2 20 220
Inner 5 16 220
1427 1052 OK
Face 5a 12 220

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 303 [email protected]

 Zaman Abbas Kazmi, Ashhad Imam and Vikas Srivastava

5. DISCUSSION
Calculations were done using manual approach and computational approach and Results were
compared in the table below (Table 9). Comparison of manual and staad results is shown in
Table 9. It is seen that results obtain from Staad pro is much higher than that of manual
approach. This is due to the fact that Staad keeps much higher factor of safety than prescribed
by the code in order to ensure that the structure is safe. Disparity in Bending Moment for Top
slab may be because of different method (WSM and LSM) adopted for design.

Figure 8 Detailed reinforcement drawing for box structure

Table 9 Comparison of B.M between Manual and Staad- Pro Calculations

Position MDM B.M (kN-m) Staad – Pro B.M (kN-m)
Top slab (mid) 642 613
Bottom slab (mid) 717 917
Side wall (mid) 350 427
Table 10 shows the comparison of reinforcement obtained from manual and computational
approach. The detailing was found to be similar for both cases and hence validate the results.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 304 [email protected]

 Analysis and Design of Box Type Minor Railway Bridge

Table 10 Comparison of Reinforcement between manual and staad-pro calculations

Reinforcement (Staad
Position Reinforcement (Manual)
pro)
Ast (mm2) 4718 4462
Top slab (mid) Diameter (mm) 20 25
Spacing (mm c/c) 100 220
Ast (mm2) 5000 4462
Bottom slab (mid) Diameter (mm) 20 25
Spacing (mm c/c) 100 220
Ast (mm2) 3066 3659
Side wall (mid) Diameter (mm) 20 25
Spacing (mm c/c) 100 220

6. CONCLUSION
The main objective of this project was to study the behaviour of box type minor railway bridge
when subjected to different combination of loads in terms of bending moment and Shear force
variations. The design was completed by using Working Stress Method in case of Manual
Approach and using Ultimate Limit State method and Serviceability Limit State method in case
of Computational Approach (Staad Pro).So from analysis and design we concluded:
1. The critical sections considered are the centre of span of top and bottom slabs and the haunch
and at the centre and haunch of the vertical walls since the maximum design forces develop at
these sections due to various combinations of loading patterns.
2. The study shows that the maximum design forces developed for the loading condition when the
top slab is subjected to the dead load and live load and sidewall is subjected to earth pressure
and surcharges, and when the culvert is empty.
3. The maximum negative moment develop at the mid section of the top slab for the condition that
the box is empty and the top slab carries the dead load and live load.
4. The maximum positive moment develop at the haunch section of the top slab for the condition
that the box is empty and the top slab carries the dead load and live load.
5. The maximum positive moment develop at the mid section of the bottom slab for the condition
that the box is empty and the top slab carries the dead load and live load.
6. The maximum negative moment develop at the haunch section of the bottom slab for the
condition that the box is empty and the top slab carries the dead load and live load.
7. The maximum positive moment develop at the haunch of vertical wall when the box is
empty and when lateral pressure (Earth pressure, Live Load Surcharge and Dead Load
Surcharge) acts.
8. It was observed that Computational method (Staad Pro) was much more competent than
Moment Distribution Method (MDM) in term of efficiency of result and time consumption.
9. The dimension of a bridge plays a governing role for the involvement of various loads and there
cases for the designing purpose.
10. It is found that for designing any railway bridge relevant IRS codes were to be very meticulously
followed.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 305 [email protected]

 Zaman Abbas Kazmi, Ashhad Imam and Vikas Srivastava

REFERENCE
[1] Sharif A.H. (2016), Analysis and Design of Railway Box Bridge and Comparison between
Staad Software and MDM Results, International Journal of Scientific Development and
Research (IJSDR), 1(8), pp 1-7.
[2] Paval B. (2016), Analysis of Multi-Cell Prestressed Concrete Box-Girder Bridge,
International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research IJETSR, 3(4), pp
106-113.
[3] Chandrakant L.A.and Malgonda P.V. (2014), Finite Element Analysis of Box Culvert,
International Journal of Advanced Technology in Engineering and Science IJATES, 2(6),
pp 93-102.
[4] Dhande M. and Chaudhari M.M. (2017), Comparative Analysis and Design for Deck Slab
of Minor Bridge by Effective Width Method and Finite Element Method, International
Conference on Recent Trends in Engineering Science and Technology (ICRTEST), 5(1),
pp 529-531.
[5] Krishna D.V. and Chakravarthy B.J. (2015), RCC Underpass Design, Modelling and
Analysis Using Parametric Study of Soil Structure Interactions, International Journal of
Advance Research, IJOAR, 3(8), pp 1-5.
[6] Shukur A.H.K.A., Jumaili M.A A. and Hussein H.A. (2014), Optimal Design of Reinforced
Concrete Box Culvert by Using Genetic Algorithms Method, International Journal of
Scientific & Engineering Research (IJSER), 5(1), pp 1890-1898.
[7] Pathak M.K. (2014), Performance of RCC Box type Superstructure in Curved bridges,
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 5(1), pp 2257 -2266.
[8] IRS - Concrete Bridge Code 1997
[9] IRC SP 054: Project Preparation Manual for Bridge.
[10] IS: 456-2000. Plain and reinforcement concrete. Code of practice. Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi.
[11] Pinoy math comunity, http://www.mathalino.com/reviewer/strengthmaterials/moment-
distribution-method
[12] Design Manual SMEC India pvt. Ltd.
[13] Surana Samyak, TP Manoj and Santhi A.S, A Parametric Study of Integral Bridges
Subjected To Thermal Loading. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology,
8(4), 2017, pp. 431–440.
[14] Kalpana Mohan and S. P. Vijaykumar, Analysis of Bridge Girder with Beam and without
Beam. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 7(5), 2016, pp.337–346.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 306 [email protected]

View publication stats