This document entails Effect of the Type of Connection Used Between the Deck and Pier on Seismic Response of Extradosed Bridge.

© All Rights Reserved

8 views

Effect of the Type of Connection Used Between the Deck and Pier on Seismic Response of Extradosed Bridge

This document entails Effect of the Type of Connection Used Between the Deck and Pier on Seismic Response of Extradosed Bridge.

© All Rights Reserved

- Book1.xlsx
- PSC Girder 23.75
- Theory of Indeterminate Structures_Syed Ali Rizwan
- PCSB-LRFD-RPT(T)-CBC-CTR8.1-002 080611.docx
- Design of One-way Slab
- Plate Results and Design Forces
- Wood
- Blockwork Wall Rev Final
- Chapter 2 Bending shearing tension.pdf
- Copy of Trench Design
- Elasticity Applications 04 Beam Theory
- 6
- MIT2_080JF13_Lecture5.pdf
- Influence Line
- RetainingWall Design
- Is 456 Amendments - 2013
- Analysis Formulae
- 4_pure_bending1.pdf
- Study of Concrete Beams by Replacing Coarse Aggregates with Rubber Waste
- Rak-83_3100 Fatigue Design Example_1

You are on page 1of 10

deckaper

and TitleonLine

the piers 1 response of extradosed bridges

seismic

Industrial University of Santander

SUMMARY:

This paper presents the influence of the type of connection used between deck and piers, piers height, and the

seismic hazard of the area where a bridge is built, on the seismic response of an extradosed bridge with a main

span length of 100 m. For the first parameter, a monolithic connection and a simple supported scheme were

studied. The seismic load, defined in accordance with the Colombian Bridge Design Code, consists of

earthquake-response spectra for three different regions with high, intermediate and low seismic hazard. Results

show that a monolithic connection is more suitable for regions with low seismic hazard. For the other two

regions, due to better deck behaviour when this is supported on the piers, the supported scheme is preferred.

Keywords: Extradosed Bridge, seismic response, deck-pier connection, height of the piers.

1. INTRODUCTION

The Extradosed bridge is an established structural type in Asian countries like Japan, China and South

Korea, where the seismic activity is an aspect of concern. In Europe and The Americas, its use has

been increasing with good acceptance, see Fig. 1. This fact points to a future application in areas with

a wide range of seismic risk which demands studies in order to understand its seismic response.

Figure 1.1. Global distribution of extradosed bridges (constructed, in construction and in phase project)

As in other structural bridge types, the seismic behaviour of the extradosed bridge depends on several

factors like the type of earthquake input, mass and stiffness distribution, type of supports, connection

between the deck and the piers, among others. For the last parameter mentioned, Chio (2000) y Meiis

(2007) studied the bridge behaviour under static loads, finding that monolithic connections are

favourable. For the severe seismic conditions of Japan, Otsuka et al. (2002) analyzed the behaviour of

extradosed bridges with main span lengths of 150, 200 and 250 m. Despite the fact that the authors

included the deck-pier connection as a variable, they did not show results regarding this parameter

because the study was mainly focused on comparing construction costs with cable-stayed bridges and

PC-box girder bridges.

This work presents the influence of the type of connection used between the girder and the piers, the

height of the piers and the seismic hazard of the area where the bridge is built on seismic response of

an extradosed bridge with a total length of 220 m. This kind of preliminary studies is helpful to

understand the seismic behavior of the bridge and will establish a basis for future definition of design

criteria. The paper describes the characteristics of the parametric study and the results for main

structural elements. Finally, based on results and a shallow calculation of quantity of materials,

recommendations regarding the type of connection between the deck and piers, depending on seismic

hazard, are provided.

2. PARAMETRIC STUDY

Geometric characteristics of the bridge were defined from the design criteria presented in Benjumea,

Chio, and Maldonado (2010). The bridge has a main span length (L) of 100 meters and two side spans

of 60 m, see Fig 2.1. The deck consists of a single cell box section with constant height of 2.9 meters,

see Fig 2.2. The height of the towers is L/10, half the required for a cable-stayed bridge. The piers are

supposed to be fixed at the base. At the top, two types of connection were studied: a scheme with the

deck supported on the piers using POT-bearings (which establish a pinned connection) and a

monolithic connection. Through this paper, these patterns are named A and M respectively. The

heights of the piers (Hp) studied are L/4, 3/8L and L/2. At abutments, the bridge is supported on roller-

supports, although for bridges constructed in high seismic areas and with a piers height equal to 50

meters, because of excessive longitudinal displacements, it was necessary to adopt elastomeric

supports. The elastomeric stiffness was chosen so that longitudinal displacements for the bridges were

under 10 cm.

60 m 100 m 60 m

For high seismic hazard and

Hp=50 m 13.75 5 @5.5m 18.75 46.25 m 7.5 m 46.25 m 18.75 5 @5.5m 13.75

27.5 m 27.5 m

L100-A

10

k

(25, 37.5 & 50 m)

Section at Section 1

support Section at L100-M

midspan

Pier Cross

Section

5

var

Section at

Section 1

Midspan Section at

ty

supports

C

L

1.1 0.4 2.0 3.65 5.65 1.5 tx

C

10 m

L

var

ty

0.2

y

tx

0.2

0.15

15.1

var

0.45 0.45 x

2.9

0.45

0.2

2.9

1 4.58 1

ty

0.45

14.3

15.1

tx tx

var

ty

Numerical models of the bridge were developed and studied by means of linear static and dynamic

analysis using the finite element software SAP2000Advanced v.14.2.4. Beam-column elements were

used for modelling the deck, towers and piers while cable elements were considered for extradosed

cables. Force transmission between extradosed cables and the deck, and between the deck and the

piers is achieved through rigid-link elements, see Fig. 2.3. Extradosed bridges with deck supported on

piers (pattern A) were modelled by releasing rotational DOF at the top of piers. For the modal analysis

the eigenvalue problem was solved on the utilization of the stiffness matrix of the bridge in the dead-

load deformed state as proposed by Abdel-Ghaffar & Nazmy (1991). A total of 200 modes were

considered. These modes are able to represent more than 80% of the total modal mass. In all cases a

constant damping value of 2% was used for all modes. This value is slightly higher than that reported

by Niihara et. al (2001). To obviate the effects of construction, it has been assumed that the bridge is

built on formwork in one step. Finally, Table 2.1 summarizes the characteristics of the bridges studied.

Bridge Deck-Pier Connection Height of the piers

L100-Hp25-M 25 m

L100-Hp37.5-M (M) Monolithic 37.5 m

L100-Hp50-M 50 m

L100-Hp25-A 25 m

(A) Deck Supported

L100-Hp37.5-A 37.5 m

on Piers

L100-Hp50-A 50 m

The mechanical properties of the concrete used for the deck, towers and piers are: fc = 39.2 MPa, a

elastic modulus Ec,28=2.55x104 MPa and a self-weight = 23.5 kN/m3. Stress limits for concrete are

presented in Table 1. It is important to point out that the maximum allowable tension stress of concrete

has not been limited to a null value; therefore the amount of internal prestress calculated may reflect

lower values than those for projects using this type of bridges. However, this does not affect the

conclusions as we have used the same design criteria for all bridges studied.

Without seismic load With seismic load

Compression Stress 15.69 MPa (0.4fc) 23.54 MPa (0.6fc)

Tension Stress 3.12 MPa 3.90 MPa

For the extradosed cables, a 0.6 steel strand with an ultimate tensile strength fpu=1860 MPa, Es

1.999x105 MPa and =77.14 kN/m3 was considered. For the design of cables, the procedure described

by Dos Santos (2006) has been used. Fatigue verification in service limit state and allowable stress in

the ultimate limit state has been made in accordance with the provisions of the SETRA (2001) design

guide-line.

2.3. Loads

The loads are defined for highway bridges in the Colombian Code Seismic Design of Bridges (AIS,

1995). Considered load cases are: the dead load (D), which takes into account self-weight of the

elements and a permanent load (barriers and asphalt carpet) of 16.6 kN/m, the prestress forces on

extradosed cables (P) and internal prestress (Pi), the traffic load (L), which consists of a uniform load

of 11.4 kN/m plus a floating load of 120 kN per lane (four load hypotheses were assumed), and

seismic load (EQ), which consists of three design response spectra for three different zones with

coefficients of acceleration of 0.05, 0.15 and 0.30, corresponding to areas of low, intermediate and

high seismic hazard respectively, see Figure 2.4. These spectra are associated with a soil profile type

S2 with a site coefficient equal to 1.2.

Response Spectra

0.7

High Seismic Hazard (A=0.30)

0.6 EQ3

0.5 Intermediate Seismic Hazard (A=0.15)

Sa/g

0.4

EQ2

Low Seismic Hazard (A=0.05)

0.3

EQ1

0.2

0.1

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Period (s)

Figure 2.4. Traffic load hypothesis (left) and response spectra (right)

Load combinations for service limit states (SLS) and ultimate limit states (ULS) analyzed are

presented in Table 2.2. In all cases for the ELU, the forces in extradosed cables and internal prestress

were not factored with the same coefficient of dead load; according to Mermigas (2008) this method is

more reasonable for bridges with a rigid deck. Actions such as wind, temperature, and the sudden

breakage of extradosed cables were not analyzed, since the primary objective was to study the effects

of seismic actions.

Combination SLS ULS

IA D + (L) +P + Pi 1.3[DD + 2.2 (L)] + P + Pi

IB D +P + Pi 1.3[DD] +P + Pi

VII D + EQ +P + Pi 1.0[DD] + EQ/R + P + Pi

D=1.0 and 0.75; R= 3 for flexo-compression design of piers; R=1 for shear design

3. RESULTS

Modal shapes corresponding to fundamental periods are shown in Figure 3.1. It can be noted that in

bridges with short piers, the first modal shape corresponds to vertical movements due to flexure of the

central span of the deck, while after increasing the pier height the modal shape corresponds to an

overall longitudinal displacement of the bridge. Figure 3.1 allows us to examine the effect of the type

of connection between the deck and the piers: when the deck is supported on piers, there is a reduction

in the global stiffness of the bridge. As a result, the periods of vibrations will increase and thus a

decrease in the modal acceleration values will be achieved, a favorable effect for bridges constructed

in sites with a rock or hard soil profile (Priestley, Seible, & Calvi, 1996).

L100 Hp25 A L100 Hp25 M

T0=1.339 s MPPX= 0%- MPPY = 0%- MPPZ =0.6% T0=0.894 s MPPX = 0%- PPMY= 0%- MPPZ =16.6%

T0=1.466 s MPPX = 73.94%- MPPY = 0%- PPMZ=0% T0=1.259 s MPPX = 70.25%- MPPY = 0%- MPPZ =0%

L100 Hp50 A

L100 Hp50 M

T0=2.287 s MPPX = 73.35%- MPPY = 0%- MPPZ =0%

T0=1.852 s MPPX = 72.5%- MPPY = 0%- MPPZ =0%

MPP = Mass participation factors in percent for directions X, Y and Z

Although the stress oscillations in cables due to earthquakes can become larger than those of the traffic

load, see Fig. 3.2, the fatigue problem will be controlled by the latter, since the frequency of

occurrence of large magnitude earthquakes is low and therefore the accumulated damage, if any,

would be much lower. For this reason, it is clear that the fatigue problem in extradosed cables will be

controlled by traffic load, regardless of the seismic hazard of the area where the bridge is built. For

bridges with an A-type pattern, the stress change due to traffic load in cables (L) is about 55 MPa,

whereas an M-type bridge scheme presents stress changes on the order of 44 MPa. This fact obliges

the design engineer to reduce cable presolicitation for bridges with A pattern, conducing to a less

efficient use of material. Regardless of the seismic zone and the height of the piers, the total weight of

extradosed cables for bridges with M-patterns remained constant (228.5 kN) while in bridges with A-

patterns an increase in seismic hazard and the height of the piers obliged to increment the area of the

cables located near the tower because of higher stress in those. As a result, bridges with A-patterns

constructed in high seismic zones exhibited a total extradosed cable weight of 239.7 kN.

Group VII

Group IA

Group VII

Group IA

Figure 3.2. Comparison of stress change in cables due to traffic and earthquake loads

3.3. Deck Behaviour

From Figure 3.3, which is representative of all bridges studied, it can be concluded that regardless of

the type of connection between the deck and the piers, in zones with low seismic hazard the traffic

load will govern the maximum deflections in the deck. For that zone, bridges with A-patterns exhibit

higher deflections values. However, in zones with high seismic hazard, bridges with M-patterns show

greater seismic deflections than those for A-patterns. This effect results from the transmission of

bending moments in the deck-pier connection joint for bridges with monolithic connections. This

behavior is similar to that found by Tuladhar and Dilger (1999) in their studies for cable-stayed

bridges.

Bridge L100-Hp25

A-Pattern / M-Pattern

Vertical deflection (m)

0.05

Abscissa (m)

-0.15

D+P+L+Pi D+P+EQ1+Pi D+P+EQ2+Pi D+P+EQ3+Pi

Figure 3.3. Comparison of vertical deflection in function of seismic hazard and deck-piers connection pattern

Figure 3.4 illustrates longitudinal bending moments and axial forces for bridges L100-Hp37.5-A and

L100-Hp37.5-M, which are representative for the remaining bridges. From that figure, it can be

observed that in areas of low seismic hazard, the bending moments are governed by the traffic load,

being lower for the M-pattern. When the bridge is projected on a zone with high or intermediate

seismic hazard, the monolithic connection introduces seismic bending moments of great magnitude,

which are 1.5 to 2 times higher than those that occur on bridges A-pattern.

A-Pattern / M-Pattern A-Pattern / M-Pattern

-120000 5000

0

Bending Moment (kN-m)

-70000 -5000

Axial (kN)

-10000

-20000

-110 -60 -10 40 90 -15000

-20000

30000

-25000

-30000

80000

-35000

Abscissa (m) Abscissa (m)

D+P+L D+P+L-mn D+P+EQ1-mx D+P+L)mx D+P+L-mn

D+P+EQ1-mx D+P+EQ2-mx

D+P+EQ2-mx D+P+EQ3-mx D+P+EQ1-mn D+P+EQ3-mx D+P+EQ1-mn

D+P+EQ2-mn D+P+EQ3-mn D+P+EQ2-mn D+P+EQ3-mn

Figure 3.4. Comparison of deck behaviour in function of seismic hazard and deck-piers connection pattern

If we analyze the maximum bending moment in terms of seismic hazard and the ratio Hp/L, see Fig.

3.5, it can be concluded that for traffic loads, regardless of the type of connection used between the

deck and the piers, the influence of the height of the piers in the behavior of the superstructure is not

significant. However, for seismic actions and M-pattern bridges, an increase in the height of the piers

produces an increase in the bending moments on supports and central span, an effect that does not take

place in A-pattern bridges.

at mid-span at lateral span at supports Hp/L

100000 90000 -30000

1/4 3/10 7/20 2/5 9/20 1/2

90000 80000

-50000

80000 70000

Bending Momment (kN-m)

70000

60000 -70000

60000

50000

50000 -90000

40000

40000

30000 -110000

30000

20000

20000

-130000

10000 10000

Hp/L Hp/L

0 0 -150000

1/4 3/10 7/20 2/5 9/20 1/2 1/4 3/10 7/20 2/5 9/20 1/2

Figure 3.5. Maximum values of bending moment on the deck in function of ratio Hp/L, seismic hazard and

deck-piers connection pattern

Typical bending moment diagrams, shear forces and deflection of the piers for both types of

connections are plotted in Figure 3.6. This figure allows us to observe that in bridges with A-patterns,

seismic actions will always govern the design of these elements, unlike M-pattern bridges, in which

the design will be governed by traffic load in zones with low seismic hazard, and by the earthquake

load in zones with intermediate and high seismic hazard. For both types of connections studied, the

maximum longitudinal deflections occur for earthquake loads, being greater for A-pattern bridges

because of a higher flexibility.

Longitudinal deflection - (A-pattern) (A-pattern) Longitudinal Shear - (A-pattern)

35 35 35

30 30 30

25 25 25

Height (m)

Height (m)

Height (m)

20 20 20

15 15 15

10 10 10

5 5

5

0 0

0

-1000000 -500000 0 500000 1000000 -40000 -20000 0 20000 40000

-0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3

Deflection (m) Moment (kN-m) Shear (kN)

Longitudinal deflection - (M-pattern) (M-pattern) Longitudinal Shear - (M-pattern)

35 35 35

30 30 30

25 25 25

Height (m)

Height (m)

Height (m)

20 20 20

15 15 15

10 10 10

5 5 5

0 0 0

-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 -1000000 -500000 0 500000 1000000 -40000 -20000 0 20000 40000

Deflection (m) Moment (kN-m) Shear (kN)

When comparing the maximum internal forces on the piers, see Fig. 3.7, it is observed that the

longitudinal bending moment remains constant for low and intermediate seismic hazard zones,

regardless of the height of piers. However, in zones with high seismic hazard, an increase in piers

height produces an increment in bending moments. Regarding shear forces, an increase in piers height

leads to a reduction in shear forces, which is a result of the lower stiffness of the piers. For all bridges

studied, shear forces are greater in bridges with M-patterns, except in the case of short piers.

350000 40000

35000

300000

30000

Bending Moment (kN-m)

250000

Shear (kN)

25000

200000

20000

150000

15000

100000

10000

50000 5000

0 0

Hp/L 1/4 3/10 7/20 2/5 9/20 1/2 1/4 3/10 7/20 2/5 9/20 1/2

Hp/L

Figure 3.7. Maximum values of bending moment and shear on piers in function of ratio Hp/L, seismic hazard

and deck-piers connection pattern

Table 3.1 presents the total volume of concrete required to build the bridge. This shows that there is no

significant effect of the type of connection between the deck and the piers and/or the seismic hazard of

the zone. Furthermore, Figure 3.8 illustrates the total amount of steel (active and passive) and the

relative percentage difference between the maximum and minimum. This figure offers a glimpse of

similar amounts for all bridges built in areas of low seismicity, and some advantage for the A-pattern

bridges projected for intermediate and high seismic zones.

With the exception of low seismic hazard zones, where a M-pattern appears more favorable for the

structure, these results demonstrate that there is not a type of connection that offers significant

advantages compared to the other, and that the particular characteristics of the project will help to

decide what type of connection should be used. This result is consistent with the current trend in

Extradosed bridges, see Figure 3.9, where a strong parity for both type of connections studied in this

paper was found.

Seismic Hazard

Low Intermediate High

Model Vol. (m3) Vol. (m3) Vol. (m3)

L100-Hp25-M 2951.77 2951.77 3124.77

L100-Hp37.5-M 3400.77 3400.77 3526.77

L100-Hp50-M 3849.77 3849.77 3849.77

L100-Hp25-A 2951.77 2951.77 3077.77

L100-Hp37.5-A 3400.77 3400.77 3526.02

L100-Hp50-A 3849.77 3849.77 3849.77

Low Seismic Hazard Intermediate Seismic Hazard High Seismic Hazard

4000 5000 8000

L100-A L100-A L100-A 0.44%

4.21% 4500 5.45%

3500 L100-M 7000 L100-M

L100-M

4000 15.10%

3000 14.63% 6000

0.17% 3500 0.76%

Weight (kN)

Weight (kN)

Weight (kN)

2500 3000 5000

0.20%

2000 0.28% 2500 4000

2000 3000

1500

1500

1000 2000

1000

500 500 1000

0 0 0

Hp/L =1/4 Hp/L =3/8 Hp/L =1/2 Hp/L =1/4 Hp/L =3/8 Hp/L =1/2 Hp/L =1/4 Hp/L =3/8 Hp/L =1/2

Figure 3.8. Total steel weight as a function of seismic hazard, deck-piers connection patterns and ratio

Hp/L

40

SinNo

dato

Data

35 5

Tablero Apoyadoon Piers

Deck Supported

30

Monolithic

Unin Connection

Monoltica

# of Bridges

25 14

20

17

15

4

10 1

18 1

2 9 2

8

5 6

6 6

2 2 2 2 1

0

Japan

Asia

Europe

The

Africa

China

S. Korea

Rest of

Oceania

Americas

Figure 3.9. Number of bridges constructed and under construction by type of deck-piers connection

4. CONCLUSIONS

A parametric study on the seismic response of an extradosed bridge with main span length of 100

meters and side spans of 60 meters was developed in this paper. The modified parameters are the type

of connection between the deck and the piers, the seismic hazard of the area where the bridge is built,

and the height of the piers. The main geometric characteristics of the bridge were taken from

Benjumea, Chio & Maldonado (2010), the extradosed cables are dimensioned using the method

proposed in Dos Santos (2006) and has been verified with the design guide SETRA (2001). The

imposed actions are in accordance with Colombian regulations for the design of bridges. The main

conclusions of the study are:

- For zones with low seismic hazard, it is advantageous to use a monolithic connection between the

deck and piers because this connection improves the performance of the deck and the extradosed

cables due to the frame scheme achieved. This connection is reaffirmed as the design of the piers

results in very similar values of longitudinal and shear reinforcement compared to the deck-supported-

on-piers scheme.

- For areas with intermediate and high seismic hazard, a better performance of the deck when this is

supported on the piers is obtained. Nevertheless, both types of connections studied here can be used.

When the height of the piers increases, it seems reasonable to use decks supported on those elements,

however, only a rigorous study that takes into account the characteristics of the zone, the construction

method used, the restriction of the project and actions such as wind and temperature, could help the

design engineer to define the type of connection between the deck and piers to be used.

- In bridges with monolithic connections the height of the piers does not affect the structural response

of the deck under traffic loads and low earthquakes. This effect occurs because of the relative high

stiffness of the deck in extradosed bridges. However, for moderate and high earthquakes, an increase

on the piers height induces a rise in the forces on the deck. When the deck is supported on piers, the

effect of the piers height is negligible.

AKCNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to thank the Industrial University of Santander and the Administrative Department of

Science, Technology and Innovation, COLCIENCIAS, for the financial support given for research project #

8540.

REFERENCES

Abdel-Ghaffar, A., and Nazmy, A. S. (1991). 3-D Non-Linear Seismic Behaviour of Cable-Stayed Bridges.

ASCE Journal of Structural, 117:11, 34563476.

AIS (1995). Cdigo Colombiano de Diseo Ssmico de Puentes (Norma AIS-200-95), Asociacin Colombiana

de Ingeniera Ssmica.

Benjumea, J., Chio G., and Maldonado E. (2010), Comportamiento estructural y criterios de diseo de los

puentes extradosados: visin general y estado del arte. Revista Ingeniera de Construccin, 25:3, 383-398.

Chio, G. (2000), Comportamiento Estructural y Criterios de Diseo de los Puentes con Pretensado Extradosado.

Tesis Doctoral. Barcelona: Universidad Politcnica de Catalua.

Dos Santos, D. (2006), Comportamento Estrutural de Pontes com Pretenso no Extradorso. Tesis de Mestrado.

So Paulo: Escola Politcnica da Universidade de So Paulo.

Meiss, U. (2007), Anwendung von Strukturoptimierungsmethoden auf den Entwurf mehrfeldriger

Schrgseilbrcken und Extradosed Bridges. Doctoral Dissertation. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.

Mermigas, K. (2008), Behaviour and Design of Extradsed Bridges. MSc Thesis. Toronto: University of Toronto.

Niihara, Y., Tetsuya, K., Yamanobe, S., and Hishiki, Y. (2001).

PC (Study on Damping Characteristics of Extradosed Bridges).

Journal of structural Engineering - A , 47:2, 489-500.

Otsuka, H., Wakasa, T., Ogata, J., Yabuki, W. and Takemura, D. (2002). Comparison of structural characteristics

for different types of cable-supported prestressed concrete bridges. Structural Concrete, 3:1, 3-21.

Priestley, M. J., Seible, F., & Calvi, G. M. (1996). Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges. New York: John

Wiley & Sons, Inc.

SETRA (2001). Haubans - Recommandations de la commission interministrielle de la prcontrainte. Service

dtudes Techniques des Routes et Autoroutes. France.

Tuladhar, R. and Dilger W. (1999), Effect of support conditions on seismic response of cable-stayed bridges.

Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 26:5, 631-645.

- Book1.xlsxUploaded byinseniorshah
- PSC Girder 23.75Uploaded byras_deep
- Theory of Indeterminate Structures_Syed Ali RizwanUploaded byqsultan
- PCSB-LRFD-RPT(T)-CBC-CTR8.1-002 080611.docxUploaded byJulio Guzman
- Design of One-way SlabUploaded byAbdelqader Shurrab
- Plate Results and Design ForcesUploaded bythirumalaichettiar
- WoodUploaded byJillian Howard
- Blockwork Wall Rev FinalUploaded byrameshkaa
- Chapter 2 Bending shearing tension.pdfUploaded byashish_pradhan75
- Copy of Trench DesignUploaded bykingshuksir
- Elasticity Applications 04 Beam TheoryUploaded byqaiserkhan001
- 6Uploaded byEnri05
- MIT2_080JF13_Lecture5.pdfUploaded byPredatator90
- Influence LineUploaded byLeonardo the
- RetainingWall DesignUploaded byIvan Kelam
- Is 456 Amendments - 2013Uploaded byshivani
- Analysis FormulaeUploaded byHany Seif-Aldien Nasser
- 4_pure_bending1.pdfUploaded byزبید اللہ
- Study of Concrete Beams by Replacing Coarse Aggregates with Rubber WasteUploaded byAdvanced Research Publications
- Rak-83_3100 Fatigue Design Example_1Uploaded byjrandeep
- Sample_Question_Papers.pdfUploaded byYagnik Bandyopadhyay
- CH23Uploaded byPrabhat Singh
- Trabajo de DiseñoUploaded byBryam Cabrera
- AVION-PROBLEMA (PIPER-Semi...)_PART=D=[LOADS... TzMx]_(IaFe-14).pdfUploaded bySkyIsTheLimit Băă
- Slab Culvert Irc 21 Irc 112Uploaded byRupendra pal
- MOS 08092009Uploaded byBhavesh Pipaliya
- 118809Uploaded byOktay
- t109.pdfUploaded byRAM PRASAD
- Spur Gear DesignUploaded byMaharaja Kanthasamy
- Test ConfigurationsUploaded byThiago Delgado

- virlogeux2001.pdfUploaded byprakhar
- 335278106 AP SPEC Metro ViaductUploaded byAnonymous ToMbL1jgTg
- TENSACCIAI - Stay cablesUploaded bynovakno1
- Static and Dynamic Behavior of Extradosed Bridges - KoffiUploaded bykfdani
- Doka -Bridge FormworkUploaded bykukesold
- Recent technology of prestressed concrete bridges in Japan.pdfUploaded byYuli Ana Fransisca Santana
- Extradosed BridgeUploaded byVenkat Palli
- Extradosed Bridge PDFUploaded byMel
- Guidelines for Seismic DesignUploaded byRudranath Bhattacharya
- Spanning_Bridges_Using_Extradosed_Cables_Jatinder_Singh_Pahuja_Tandon_Consultant_1497558814.pdfUploaded byVanbaobbkk Le
- DSI-Multistrand Stay Cable Systems en 01Uploaded bysertackcdg
- n2 Mcrp-cp N-01, 02, 03 Advertisement FinalUploaded byjie yin
- Setra Cable StaysUploaded bySoowhan Jung
- halc1Uploaded byIndra Mishra
- Company Presenjkgiwfegtation[MIDAS]Uploaded byaka_yugha
- Fast Track Design and Construction of Bridges in India.docUploaded bySa Reddi
- REPORT.docxUploaded byJoy Cee
- List of Structures With Structural ArrangementUploaded byVenkata Mayur
- Doka Bridge FormworkUploaded byRafa Rahmat Faddis
- Prestressed concrete bridges.pdfUploaded byedisonmalahito
- Japan ReportUploaded byGerardo Arotoma Veliz
- Project Risk Review Presentation RevUploaded byManukantShrotriya
- Extra Dosed BridgesUploaded byMiguel Perez
- The Impact of the Sunniberg Bridge on Structural Engineering, SwitzerlandUploaded byorpharion
- Gumjae Bridge - Extradosed Bridge Parametric StudyUploaded byKhaled El-Banna
- Kwidzyn Bridge – Poland - VSLUploaded byAnonymous efXzvzOV
- 0-6729-1Uploaded bylamkinpark3373
- 02 Technical Lecture ED BRIDGEUploaded byRohit Kumar
- SECM-15-014.pdfUploaded byAnonymous efXzvzOV
- Extradosed BangladeshUploaded bySimone Bertola