Received: 17 October 2018 Revised: 8 April 2019 Accepted: 25 June 2019

DOI: 10.1002/suco.201800263

TECHNICAL PAPER

Precast versus cast in-situ concrete in the construction

of post-tensioned box-girder bridges: Span effect

Muhammad A. Haider1 | Mustafa Batikha2 | Taha Elhag2

1
AECOM Middle East, Abu Dhabi, UAE
2
School of Energy, Geoscience,
Infrastructure and Society, Heriot-Watt
University, Dubai, UAE
Correspondence
Mustafa Batikha, School of Energy,
Geoscience, Infrastructure and Society,
Heriot-Watt University, Dubai, UAE.
Email: m.batikha@hw.ac.uk
Abstract
In this research, the effect of span and construction method on the designed cross
section, construction time, and cost of box-girder bridges has been explored. Two
types of construction techniques used in bridges were investigated and compared:
cast in-situ post-tensioned concrete and precast segmental bridge. To satisfy the
aim of this work, the structural design was analyzed for different span lengths
(40, 50, 60, 70, and 80 m) to evaluate the designed depth and required pre-
stressing strands, and then design outcomes were utilized in estimating the con-
struction duration and cost of cast in-situ and precast segmental construction
methods. Furthermore, the research has been extended to identify the impact of
construction duration on the total cost of studied bridges. This investigation
shows that the cost of a box-girder bridge is affected by the span and the con-
struction method where the precast segmental way was found to be less
expensive.

KEYWORDS
box-girder bridges, capital cost, cast in-situ concrete, construction duration, precast segmental
concrete, prestressed concrete

1 | INTRODUCTION solutions have been proposed for a cheap and short-duration

Bridges have a high functional role in impacting the society
as they offer an easy and low-cost transportation together
with travel-time saving. Therefore, the construction of brid-
ges has been in high demand since an early civilization age.
Today, the call for more bridges' construction has dramati-
cally increased. For example, the U.S. Department of Trans-
portation indicated that 38,998 urban highway bridges have
been built from 2000 to 2016 in the United States.1 More-
over, the annual report by the Roads and Transport Author-
ity (RTA) in Dubai addressed that the number of bridges in
Dubai has reached a total of 456 bridges in 2016.2 There-
fore, due to the significant increase in bridges' number,
Discussion on this paper must be submitted within two months of the print
publication. The discussion will then be published in print, along with the
authors' closure, if any, approximately nine months after the print publication.
construction of bridges. However, the method of construc-
tion is also affected by many factors such as the constituent
materials, the site conditions, the life cycle cost, the environ-
mental impact, market prices, and the influence on the sur-
rounding business during construction.3,4 On the other hand,
the construction material and the cross section of the bridge
were found to be significantly linked to the structural form
and operation cost of the bridge where the modern trend
these days is to design bridges with less maintenance
required. For example, a bridge with few joints and bearings
are most preferable to avoid the leakage.5 However, the span
of the bridge also plays an important role in selecting the
material and cross section types. For spans less than 40 m, I
girder can be used whether from steel-concrete composite or
prestress concrete.3,6,7 Regarding the material cost, many
studies set that a steel-concrete composite I girder could be

56 © 2019 fib. International Federation for Structural Concrete wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/suco Structural Concrete. 2020;21:56–64.
HAIDER ET AL.
cheaper than using a prestressed-concrete I girder up to
30 m span.7 It should be pointed out that the difference in
the span limit among studies depends on the market prices.
When the maintenance of the bridge (life cycle) is taken into
consideration, all previous researches agreed that a
prestressed-concrete I girder is more economic for 20 m
span.3,7 The life cycle of a prestressed-concrete beam can
reach to a 45% less cost as indicated by Batikha et al.7 It
may be noted that early maintenance actions guide to a bet-
ter structural performance of the bridge.8 Therefore, the life
cycle cost of a steel-concrete composite beam may dramati-
cally increase.
For spans more than 40 m, using cellular or box cross
section becomes more economical. The construction of a
box-section bridge can be either in-situ concrete, precast
segments of 4–5-m longitudinal length or steel box section.5
The latter can be used for the longest spans in order to
decrease the self-weight of the bridge.5 The precast pres-
tressed balanced cantilever box-girder bridges may achieve a
150 m span.9 In fact, the need for accelerated bridge con-
struction (ABC) through the precast method becomes an
urgent demand via many advantages this method offers such
as limitation in construction time, reducing the traffic disrup-
tion and the construction impact on the surrounding busi-
ness, high material quality-control, etc.4,10 Moreover, speed
in construction is significantly wanted in countries with
severe weather such as the high heat (e.g., 55 C) and humid-
ity (e.g., 90%) that the UAE has annually along almost
6 months.
Regarding the cost of the bridge construction, Turai and
Waghmare11 show that a precast bridge is always less costly.
The reduction in construction cost may reach a 31% cheaper.
Furthermore, the pay back period (PBP) of the invested cash
for a precast bridge is 2.5 years in comparison with 3.8 years
for a cast in-situ bridge.11 Bakker12 studied many solutions
for a bridge of two spans of 30 m each. Bakker's work sum-
marized that the precast solution offers 61% less construc-
tion duration than the in-situ activity. Although a precast
bridge registered a 5% higher construction cost than an in-
situ bridge, the CO2 emission was 26% lesser with a precast
solution showing the positive impact of this solution on the
environment. It is worth mentioning that Florida Department
of Transportation13 estimates the construction cost of a long-
span precast high bridge from segmental concrete box girder
with cantilever construction to be 24% less than the con-
struction cost of a continuous bridge using prestressed
girder. However, the cost-comparison studies between the
precast segmental bridges and the in-situ type of construc-
tion are still so limited. Moreover, the effect of the bridge
span on the cost of both kinds of construction is yet unclear.
Therefore, the current study is trying to compare the cast in
place bridge and precast segmental bridge construction
57
techniques in the UAE where the bridge number is rapidly
in an increase. The effect of the bridge span on the construc-
tion cost is discussed in this work through 10 bridges stud-
ied. Furthermore, the construction duration was determined
and converted into a cost. So, the total cost was derived at
the end to provide a proper view of the decision maker.
It is worth mentioning that the casting of box
section using “the one pour method” and “the precast seg-
mental balanced cantilever technique”14 is studied in this
research as they are the most common practice in the UAE.
The “one pour method” has two approaches to casting in-
situ a box section. The first approach is casting the bottom
slab first through temporary holes in the top slab. Here, a
minimum of 2 m deck-deep is required to allow the laborers
to access the void space of the box section for spreading and
vibrating the poured concrete. In the second approach, the
concrete flows from the webs to reach the bottom slab.
Then, external vibrators can be utilized to complete the con-
creting process.14 In this research, the second approach has
been used as it is more common and in line with the Middle
East local market practice.
2 | STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS O F
DIFFERENT SPANS OF BOX-GIRDER
BRIDGES
2.1 | Geometry, loadings, and material
properties
In order to achieve a rational comparison assessment
between cast in-situ box girder and precast segmental brid-
ges, five different two-span bridges of span lengths (40, 50,
60, 70, and 80 m) are considered for each type of bridge
construction technique.
The cross section of the box-girder bridge is shown in
Figure 1 which illustrates the dead and live loading consid-
ered for 10.4-m wide constant width box-girder section. The
bridge barrier load of 25 kN/m has been adopted considering
the size of TL-4 type barrier in accordance with AASHTO
LRFD15 standard, while deck asphalt thickness of 100 mm
has been assumed. HL-93 Live loads have been applied as
article 3.6.1.2 of AASHTO standard15 where HL-93 loads
consist of a truck load (Figure 2a) and tandem load
(Figure 2b). The severe effect by one of them has been taken
after adding a design lane load which is a uniformly distrib-
uted load of 9.3 kN/m per lane.15 It should be noted that the
configuration of bridge section in Figure 1 allows for two
lanes to occur. The dynamic allowance factor of 1.33 has
been counted by enhancing the HL-93 Truck and HL-93
Tandem loadings.15
The concrete material was considered to have a cylindri-
cal characteristic compressive strength equals to 50 MPa and
58 HAIDER ET AL.

FIGURE 1 Box-girder deck section loading diagram

FIGURE 2 HL-93 loads15

modulus of elasticity of 38 GPa, while the steel reinforce- seven-wire strands were used where each strand has
ment has 500 MPa yield strength and 200 GPa elastic modu- 15.24 mm diameter and ultimate tensile strength of
lus. For prestressed section design, super low relaxation 1860 MPa.
HAIDER ET AL. 59

FIGURE 3 Bridge model by

MIDAS16

TABLE 1 Comparison summary of cast in-situ and precast box-girder design section in relation to span lengths

No. of tendons Tendons Moment and shear force comparison

jacking
force ULS
Bottom External
Span Web Top slab slab tendon Total force Moment Applied Shear
length Self weight (tendons/ (tendons/ (tendons/ (tendons/ (0.75*Pu) capacity moment capacity Applied
S. no (m) Deck type (kN/m) strands) strands) strands) strands) (kN) (kN.m) (kN.m) (kN) shear (kN)
1 40 Cast in-situ 130 12/18 42,185 62,000 55,000 9,548 8,574
2 50 post-tensioned 138 12/22 51,559 91,548 83,777 12,410 11,737
deck
3 60 158 12/26 60,934 144,546 143,120 18,918 16,066
4 70 198 12/33 77,339 212,690 197,000 30,398 19,135
5 80 215 12/40 93,744 284,100 267,250 35,910 22,703
6 40 Precast 141 14/9 4/9 6/25 60,934 70,686 63,259 12,906 10,181
7 50 segmental 147 16/10 4/10 6/27 70,699 96,564 93,706 16,506 12,321
deck
8 60 157 18/10 4/10 6/30 78,120 143,499 133,882 22,551 14,784
9 70 172 20/12 4/12 8/33 107,806 192,762 177,670 29,080 17,550
10 80 180 24/12 4/12 10/40 143,741 233,517 215,000 37,954 20,000

Abbreviation: ULS, ultimate limit state.

2.2 | FEM modeling and results
Using finite element method by MIDAS Civil Ver 2.1,16
10 bridges have been simulated utilizing a two-node beam
element (Figure 3) where each node has six degrees of free-
dom. MIDAS software allows the time-dependent effect
(creep and shrinkage) to be undertaken into account during
the analysis. Bearings are modeled with elastic link by pro-
viding relative fixity in X, Y, and Z direction and connected
to the superstructure with the joint conditions that reflect the
actual articulation of bridge bearings. The monolithic pier is
simulated with beam elements and connected to the deck via
rigid link. The bottom of monolithic pier is fixed in both
translation and rotation, taking into account the rigidity of
the footings founded on piles (Figure 3).
As seen in Table 1, the bending and shear diagrams have
been obtained using a linear elastic analysis (LEA) and com-
pared with the ultimate capacities by AASHTO LRFD.15
Moreover, Table 1 shows clearly that the section was almost
optimized since the margin of safety between the stress resul-
tants and the capacities is within 10%.
60 HAIDER ET AL.

Deck Cross sectional Area (m2) 10.00 benefit to the deflection due to very long spans and heavy
9.50
Cast In-situ Box-Girder weight of cast in-situ deck with corresponding long-term
9.00 8.62
8.50
Precast Segmental Box-Girder creep effect due to deck weight and superimposed dead
8.00 loads. Therefore, the deck deflections of a cast in-situ con-
7.92
7.50 struction are found to be higher than a precast segmental
7.00 7.21
6.29 construction type.
6.50 6.88
5.89
6.00 5.66 6.34
5.50
5.20 5.53 3 | C O S T A N D T I M E A N A L Y S I S FO R
5.00
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 DIFFERENT TYPES O F BOX-GIRDER
Span length (m) BRIDGES
FIGURE 4 Deck cross-sectional area in terms of span length and
This section presents the cost and time analysis for both cast
method of construction
in-situ and precast segmental box-girder bridge. The con-
struction costs of 10 different bridge span lengths were esti-
22.00
Deck Cross sectional Inertia (m4 )

20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
2.80
4.00
2.00
0.00
30
FIGURE 5 Deck cross-sectional inertia in terms of span length
and method of construction
Figures 4 and 5 present the relative differences between
precast construction and cast in-situ construction with
respect to span length of the bridge. As it can be shown from
Figure 4, cast in-situ construction offers 8% less area than
precast construction for 40 m span because the obtained
shear force and bending moment by the precast bridge are
19 and 15%, respectively, more than their counterparts of the
cast in-situ bridge (Table 1). As the span length increases,
the difference reduces till 60 m span; a cast in-situ box-
girder area becomes higher by 20% compared with a precast
segmental deck section for 80 m span length, due to the
lower stress resultants for the 80 m precast bridge (Table 1).
This means that the weight of the deck and dead loads will
be higher for a long span bridge using cast in-situ construc-
tion scheme and affects the design of piers and foundation
which will result in large substructure sizes and less eco-
nomic. On the other hand, the second moment of inertia
remains same from span length ranging from 40 to 60 m
span length (Figure 5). Then after, the second moment of
inertia for the cast in-situ box girder starts getting higher up
to 18% than the precast-girder for 80 m bridge span.
Although the reduction in the inertia increases the deflection,
18% gain of inertia for the cast in-situ deck will have minor
20.08 mated using unit rates of common types of bridge projects in
Cast In-situ Box-Girder
UAE. Comparisons and evaluation of the costs of the differ-
14.13
Precast Segmental Box-Girder ent bridge options were also conducted. Similarly, construc-
16.98
tion durations for the 10 bridge projects were developed
8.99 12.52 using Middle East project database. Furthermore, a study
8.97
was conducted to convert the effect of construction duration
4.64
into equivalent cost which was finally combined with con-
4.62 struction cost estimation to achieve overall bridge costs and
2.80
time comparisons for both cast in-situ and precast segmental
40 50 60 70 80 90 bridges. The cost analysis carried out in this study is based
Span Length (m) on the prices and work practices in the UAE. The findings
of this research could be generalized in similar GCC coun-
tries with similar market conditions. However, these out-
comes may not be applicable in other countries and regions
with different market environment such as labor costs, mate-
rial costs, etc.
3.1 | Comparison and analysis of construction
costs
A detailed cost in Emirati Dirhams (AED) of five box-girder
bridges of different spans and different section depths is pro-
vided in Table 2. The additional costs required for a cast in-
situ bridge cover the formwork installation. Whereas, the
additional costs of a precast bridge cover the precasting yard,
lifting cranes, and transportation of the precast segments to
the construction site. Based on Table 2, it is worth noting
that the formwork cost for a cast in-situ bridge is about 22%
of the total cost, while the additional cost for a precast bridge
is around 16% of the total cost. On the other hand, the mate-
rials cost in a precast bridge comes higher to balance with
the low value of other costs.
Table 3 and Figure 6 exhibit a comparison of the total
capital costs of the studied bridges projects. It can be
observed that for span lengths ranging from 40 to 60 m the
cost of cast in-situ box-girder bridge is less than precast seg-
mental box girder constructed using launching crane erection
method. For a span length of more than 60 m, it can be seen
HAIDER ET AL. 61

TABLE 2 Cost details of cast in-situ and precast segmental box-girder deck

Cast in-situ deck Precast segmental deck

Concrete Materials Other Total Concrete Materials Other Total

Span length (m) quantity (m3) cost (AED) cost (AED) cost (AED) quantity (m3) cost (AED) cost (AED) cost (AED)
2 × 40 416 927,844 253,281 1,181,125 453 1,104,481 215,533 1,320,014
2 × 50 553 1,201,932 347,000 1,548,932 589 1,408,698 276,892 1,685,590
2 × 60 760 1,571,929 452,880 2,024,809 755 1,728,105 347,870 2,075,975
2 × 70 1,109 2,220,012 562,408 2,782,420 963 2,345,082 432,693 2,777,775
2 × 80 1,379 2,711,648 749,760 3,461,408 1,154 2,989,465 511,667 3,501,132

TABLE 3 Cost comparison summary of cast in-situ and precast segmental box-girder deck

Cast in-situ Precast segmental Cast in-situ deck Precast segmental deck (precast/cast in-situ)
Span length (m) deck (AED) deck (AED) cost per meter (AED/m) cost per meter (AED/m) cost index
2 × 40 1,181,125 1,320,014 14,764 16,500 1.12
2 × 50 1,548,932 1,685,590 15,489 16,856 1.09
2 × 60 2,024,809 2,075,975 16,873 17,300 1.03
2 × 70 2,782,420 2,777,775 19,874 19,841 1
2 × 80 3,461,408 3,501,132 21,634 21,882 1.01

4,000,000
(Precast/Cast in-situ) cost 
Cost of Box-Girder (AED)

3,461,408 3,501,132 1.40

3,500,000 Cast In-situ Deck
1.12 1.09
Precast Segmental Deck 2,782,420 2,777,775 1.20
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,024,809 2,075,975 1.00
1.03 1.00 1.01
index

1,548,932 1,685,590
2,000,000 0.80
1,181,125 1,320,014
1,500,000 0.60 Present study
1,000,000 0.40 FDOT Cost Index- Simple span
500,000 0.20 FDOT Cost Index- Continous span
0 0.00
40 50 60 70 80 40 50 60 70 80
Span Length (m) Span length (m)

FIGURE 6 Cost comparison of cast in-situ and precast box- FIGURE 7 Cost index of precast/cast in-situ box girder
girder bridge deck

more expensive than an estimated conventional cast in-situ

that costs of cast in-situ and precast segmental box-girder
bridge. However, the cost index ranges between 1.0 and
bridge are nearly the same. However, the aforementioned
1.12 for all spans between 40 and 80 m (Figure 7). There-
cost comparison does not account for the effect of duration
fore, it is concluded that there is no significant difference in
of the two construction methods.
the costs of precast and cast in-situ bridge girders for this
In Figure 7, the cost ratio of precast to cast in-situ deck
range of spans.
has been further compared with FDOT13 cost index. It was
found that FDOT cost index ratio in the case of a cast in-situ
simple-span bridge was similar for 40 m span and slightly
higher but in a close range for all other bridges index ratios.
3.2 | Comparison and analysis of construction
durations
In the case of a continuous-span bridge, the FDOT cost
index is much lower than the index obtained by the current The duration of structural construction works has a direct
study. However, the findings of this study confirm that they impact on the capital cost of construction. It is evident from
are in-line with the cost ranges of the FDOT. Furthermore, a the history of bridge construction that the durations of pre-
study by Stamnas and Whittemore in 200517 on a real pre- cast segmental bridges are shorter than cast in-situ box-
cast bridge project of 35.1 m span showed that it was 8% girder bridges.
62 HAIDER ET AL.

TABLE 4 Construction duration summary of cast in-situ and precast segmental bridges

Cast in-situ Precast segmental Cast in-situ/precast segmental

Span length (m) construction duration construction duration bridge time index
2 × 40 9.0 months 6.5 months 1.38
2 × 50 10 months 7.0 months 1.43
2 × 60 11.5 months 8.0 months 1.44
2 × 70 13.0 months 8.5 months 1.53
2 × 80 15.0 months 9.5 months 1.58

16
15.0 cost compared to other bridges. It was estimated that a con-
14
11.5
13.0 ventional construction for a bridge of 185 ft (56 m) may
Duration (Months)

12
9.0
10.0
10
8.0
8 Table 4 are almost within the range of the FHA report
8.5
6 in 2006.
6.5 7.0
4 Cast In-situ Deck  Construction Duration
2 Precast segmental Construction Duration
0
40 50 60 70
Span Length (m)
FIGURE 8 Construction duration of cast in-situ and precast box
girder
Based on previous bridge construction projects in UAE,
Table 4 and Figure 8 explore the durations for different
span lengths and duration ratios of different types of deck
options for this study. Figure 8 shows that the cast in-situ
bridge duration for 40 m span is 9 months; however, as the
span increases the duration also increases to reach
15 months for 80 m bridge span causing prolongation of
construction duration of 6 months. This prolongation in
time is due to the progressive start and finishing of activi-
ties constraining early completion of cast in-situ bridges.
On the other hand, the precast girder duration for 40 m
span is 6.5 months and reaches up to 9.5 months for 80 m
span. The increase in duration is only 3 months due to the
execution of multiple activities running in parallel; there-
fore, taking less time. Furthermore, Figure 8 demonstrates
that the construction duration of cast in-situ and precast
box-girder deck is directly proportional to the length of the
bridge. It is also evident that the rate of increase of con-
struction duration of a cast in-situ deck is faster than a pre-
cast girder. The delay in construction of a cast in-situ
bridge is expected due to the installing and removing of the
formwork together with the concreting works. Therefore,
precast construction achieves a considerable reduction in
construction duration. A survey undertaken by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHA) in the United States in
200618 recorded that prefabricated bridges save time and
9.5
take between 40 and 100% more time than using the precast
method. It can be seen that the determined time indexes in
The durations of cast in-situ and precast box girder were
converted into their money value equivalent. The cost as a
function of time has also been considered and estimated to
80 make the total cost difference of both deck options. For this
purpose, the cost related items during construction activities
at site are considered in accordance to the price specified in
Spon's Civil Engineering and Highway Price Book, com-
piled by AECOM.19 The cost rates are based on UK con-
struction market; therefore, a conversion factor was used
based on international construction costs factors compiled
by Neal and Rawlinson20 where the international currency
conversion from UK to UAE has been estimated at 0.9 based
on the international market Forex conversion rates in the
second quarter of 2015.
Table 5 shows an estimation of the total cost of cast in-
situ box girder including the cost of general time-related
items (e.g., site staff salaries, plant maintenance, site trans-
port of staff, contractor office rental, etc.). The per month
general items costs as estimated in Table 5 were factored
with construction duration difference between cast in-situ
and precast box-girder bridges.
Figure 9 displays the total cost variation for different
span lengths of both options of box-girder bridges. The cost
of concrete deck includes the cost of general items which
increases the overall bridge cost. By comparison, it has been
observed that, for span length of 40 and 50 m, the costs of
both options are almost similar. However, for span lengths
more than 50 m, precast box girder is found to be efficient
and less expensive than the cast in-situ option. Although the
maximum relative difference between the cast in-situ bridge
and the precast segmental bridge is 10% (Table 5). The
shorter construction duration of a precast bridge in Table 4
impacts positively on other factors (e.g., transportation, envi-
ronment, surrounding business, etc.).
 HAIDER ET AL. 63

TABLE 5 Total cost of cast in-situ and precast box girder including time related general costs

Cast in-situ Precast Percentage

construction construction General items cost General items Total cost difference
Bridge span duration duration cast in-situ cost precast Total cost of cast of precast (cast in-situ/
length (m) (month) (month) bridge (AED) bridge (AED) in-situ deck (AED) deck (AED) precast) %
2 × 40 9 6.5 431,001 311,279 1,612,126 1,631,292 −1
2 × 50 10 7 598,613 419,029 2,147,545 2,104,619 2
2 × 60 11.5 8 826,086 574,669 2,850,895 2,650,644 7
2 × 70 13 8.5 1,089,476 712,350 3,871,896 3,490,125 10
2 × 80 15 9.5 1,436,671 909,892 4,898,080 4,411,023 10

Due to the effect of shorter construction duration of pre-

6,000,000
cast construction technique compared with prolonged dura-
Cost of Box-Girder (AED)

4,898,080
Total Cost of Cast in-situ Deck
5,000,000
3,871,896
tion of cast in-situ construction, precast segmental bridges
Total Cost Precast Segmental Deck
are less expensive up to 10% lower compared to a cast-in-
4,000,000
2,850,895
4,411,023
situ bridge for two 80 m long spans.
3,000,000 From structural standpoint, both the precast and cast in-
2,147,545 3,490,125
1,612,126 2,650,644
2,000,000 situ box-girder bridges are appropriate options. Both bridge
1,631,292 2,104,619 types have high structural redundancy, torsional restraint,
1,000,000
and aesthetically pleasing appearances. Nevertheless, if a
0 project has construction space constraints, short construction
40 50 60 70 80
Span Length (m)
duration, and large-scale construction works, then precast
segmental bridge is considered to be the most feasible option
FIGURE 9 Cost variation of cast in-situ and precast box girder taking into consideration the advantages resulting from the
with respect to span reduction of construction duration.

4 | CONCLUSI ON S OR CI D

Mustafa Batikha https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8064-7928

In this work, the effect of bridge-span and construction
method on the cost and duration of bridges has been
explored. Two methods of construction have been dis-
cussed: cast-in-situ construction versus precast segmental REF ER ENC ES
technique. 1. U.S. Department of Transportation. Transportation statistics
In the first part of this study, the analysis and design of annual report. Bureau of transportation statistics. Washington, DC:
both options of box-girder bridges have been carried out U.S. Department of Transportation, 2017.
using finite element linear elastic analysis of MIDAS civil 2. Roads and Transport Authority (RTA). Annual report 2016.
engineering software. Optimum cross section for each Dubai: Roads and Transport Authority, 2017.
3. Singh N, Devgan NP, Kalra AM, Pal S. Effect on economy on
bridge has been estimated and checked in accordance with
successive increase in the span of bridges. Paper presented at: Pro-
AASHTO LRFD design code to examine the effect of
ceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Civil, Structural
bridge spans on box-girder deck section properties. Then, a and Transportation Engineering (ICCSTE'16); 2016 May 5–6;
comparative assessment has been undertaken using the fol- Paper No. 114, Ottawa, Canada.
lowing key factors: (a) effect of bridge spans on construc- 4. Yavuza F, Attanayake U, Aktan H. Economic impact on sur-
tion cost; (b) effect of bridge spans on construction rounding businesses due to bridge construction. Proc Comput
duration; (c) effect of bridge spans on combined construc- Sci. 2017;109C:108–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.
tion cost and duration. 05.301.
5. Obrien EJ, Keogh DL, O'Connor AJ, Lehane BM. Bridge deck
It was found that, for a bridge span of more than 60 m,
analysis. 2nd ed. New York, NY: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis
the cast-in-situ method produces higher cross-sectional area Group, 2015.
which increases the weight of the deck and dead loads, and 6. Jagtap BC, Shahezad M. Comparative study of prestressed con-
hence less economic piers and foundations together with crete girder and steel plate girder for roadway over bridge. Int J
more long-term effect by creep. Sci Res Sci Eng Technol. 2016;2(1):113–117.
64 HAIDER ET AL.

7. Batikha M, Al Ani O, Elhag T. The effect of span length and A U T H O R B I O G R A P HI E S

girder type on bridge costs. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the
International Conference on Advances in Sustainable Construction Muhammad A. Haider, Principal
Materials & Civil Engineering System (ASCMCES−17); 2017
Structural Engineer
Apr 18–20; Sharjah, UAE.
8. García-Segura T, Yepes V, Frangopol DM, Yang DY. Lifetime
AECOM Middle East
reliability-based optimization of post-tensioned box-girder bridges. Abu Dhabi, UAE
Eng Struct. 2017;145:381–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct. mh39@hw.ac.uk
2017.05.013.
9. Corven J Post-tensioned box girder design manual. Federal High-
way Administration Report No. FHWA-HIF-15-016. Washington,
DC: Federal Highway Administration; 2016. Mustafa Batikha, Assistant Professor
10. Tomek R. Advantages of precast concrete in highway infrastruc-
Heriot-Watt University
ture construction. Proc Eng. 2017;196:176–180. https://doi.org/10.
Dubai, UAE
1016/j.proeng.2017.07.188.
11. Turai V, Waghmare A. A study of cost comparison of precast con- m.batikha@hw.ac.uk
crete vs cast-in-place concrete. Int J Adv Eng Res Appl. 2016;2
(2):112–122.
12. Bakker M. Prefab vs in situ concrete viaducts [MSc thesis]. Delft:
Delft University of Technology; 2014.
13. FDOT. Transportation costs reports: bridge costs. Tallahassee, FL: Taha Elhag, Associate Professor
Florida Department of Transportation, 2014.
Heriot-Watt University
14. Benaim R. The design of prestressed concrete bridges-concepts
Dubai, UAE
and principles. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2008.
15. AASHTO LRFD. Bridge design specifications: Customary t.elhag@hw.ac.uk
U.S. units. Washington, DC: American Association of State High-
way and Transportation Officials, 2012.
16. MIDAS Information Technology Co. Ltd. MIDAS Civil, version
2.1: MIDAS/standard user's manual. South Korea: MIDAS Infor-
mation Technology Co. Ltd, 2017.
17. Stamnas PE, Whittemore MD. All-precast substructure accelerates
construction of prestressed concrete bridge in New Hampshire.
PCI J. 2005;50(3):26–39.
18. Federal Highway Administration. Prefabricated bridge elements &
systems (PBES) cost study: Accelerated bridge construction suc- How to cite this article: Haider MA, Batikha M,
cess stories. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation,
Elhag T. Precast versus cast in-situ concrete in the
2006.
19. AECOM. Spon's civil engineering and highway works price book.
construction of post-tensioned box-girder bridges:
London: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis, 2017. Span effect. Structural Concrete. 2020;21:56–64.
20. Neal T, Rawlinson S. International construction cost report. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201800263
London: ARCADIS, 2016.