structural evaluation of bow string and …€¦ · paper is to evaluate different type of tied...

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 671 [email protected]

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 9, Issue 3, March 2018, pp. 671–682, Article ID: IJCIET_09_03_069

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=9&IType=3

ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF BOW STRING

AND NETWORK ARCH BRIDGE WITH

DIFFERENT DESIGN PARAMETERS AND

BRACINGS

Ketan Rane

Structural Engineering Department, Vellore Institute of Technology,

Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India

Simon Jayasingh

Assistant Professor, Structural and Geotechnical Department,

Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India

Visuvasam J

Assistant Professor, Structural and Geotechnical Department,

Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India

Suraj Sangtiani

Structural Design Engineer, Pankaj Associates and Consultant Engineers,

Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India

ABSTRACT

Tied arch bridges have significant advantages in economical and atheistic

appearance which provide suitable option for bridges of long span. The aim of this

paper is to evaluate different type of tied arch bridges subjected to traffic loading,

wind loading and temperature loading as per IRC code by using MIDAS-Civil

software and comparing the results. To do so, bridge of span 60m sustained by cross

girder 5m apart with rise of arch 15% to 19% of span with one lane and two lane

traffic along with different hanger system such as vertical hanger (bowstring), Neilsen

hanger with different angles and V-hanger system are modeled. Arch height to span

length ratio has significance for optimizing the steel quantity of main girder of bridge

as the arch acts in compression form, due to arch action the forces resolved and

transferred to main girder. By conducting following analysis, two aims are: Eigen

value method is used to find the appropriate wind bracing system for bridge among

cross beam, K-bracing and X-bracing by evaluating and comparing the behavior of

mode shapes, frequency and time period. P-Δ analysis is done to observe the rise in

bending moment in members due to secondary moments caused by the primary

deflections.

Keywords: Bowstring, Neilsen, V-hanger, Cross beam, K-bracing, X-bracing.

Structural Evaluation of Bow String and Network Arch Bridge with Different Design Parameters

and Bracings


Cite this Article: Ketan Rane, Simon Jayasingh, Visuvasam J and Suraj Sangtiani,

Structural Evaluation of Bow String and Network Arch Bridge with Different Design

Parameters and Bracings, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology,

9(3), 2018, pp. 671–682.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=9&IType=3

1. INTRODUCTION

Steel bridges are significant component of infrastructure in structural engineering which

combines economical and atheistic in an innovative way. Arch bridges are special shaped

bridges in which the arch action helps to transfer the load to main girder while being in a pure

compression nature. Tied arch bridges are structure with main girder as a tie member holding

the arch. Tied arch bridge with vertical hangers holding the tie member and arch are known as

bowstring bridges while inclined hangers crossing once between tie member and arch is

known as Neilsen network arch.

As per pervious study P-Δ analysis and influence line diagrams has been used for finding

upper bracing for wind in bowstring bridge [1 and 2]. John Edward Finke and GendaChen

studied dynamic and service condition effects on K-bracing and X-bracing of arch bridges [3].

In a study of mode shapes, E. G. Macias and R.C. Triguero evaluate modal behaviour with

moving load in different lane at opposite directions [4]. In recent researches modal analysis

has been carried about by eigenvalue method analysis for comparing frequencies and time

period [5 and 6]. R Ahsan and N. Islam investigated arch rise to span ratio ith finding

economical arrangement of hanger ore conducted studies conclude the optimum angle of

cross hangers for ielsen arch bridges to be ithin to for different length by

comparing bending moments and axial forces in arch [8 and 9]. For tied arch bridges, the

appropriate rise percentage gives significant advantages for designing economical steel

structure [10, 11, and 12]. N. Pnevmatikos described the importance of box and rectangular

hollow sections over other regular sections for arch member due to advantages in bending and

torsion in bridges [13]. The various hanger arrangements: vertical hanger, with and without

constant slope of hangers, different angle hangers and V-hangers are studied and difference

are investigated to find appropriate hanger system [14,15,16, and 17].

Various types of hanger arrangement according to the system of hangers:

Bowstring system consists of vertical hanger which ties the arch with main girder.

Neilsen systems have inclined hangers with crossing each other at least once. This system is

formed at early 19th century by O. F. Neilsen.

V-hanger system includes the hangers which converge at main girder at one point such as V

shape.

Figure 1 Bowstring Bridge Figure 2 Neilsen Arch

Figure 3 V-Hanger

Ketan Rane, Simon Jayasingh, Visuvasam J and Suraj Sangtiani


2. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

The appropriate rise percentage of arch provides optimum and economical design criteria for

tied arch bridges. This paper shows the results of analytical data for bowstring and other two

types of network arch bridges to identify the optimum rise to span ratio. This study is also

carried out to find the most suitable hanger arrangement for the tied arch bridges with

appropriate wind bracing system for lateral wind load.

3. METHODLOGY

3.1. Problem Statement

All three types of tied arch bridge: a) with vertical hanger b) Neilsen system with different

hanger angles c) with V-hanger system are modeled for 60m span length with varying rise to

span ratio of 15% to 19%. Angle from 60 degree to 65 degree of hangers are varied only for

Neilsen type of bridge. Height of structure above the ground is assumed as 10m and Mumbai

region is taken for temperature and wind calculation. The slab thickness and wearing coat

thickness is taken as 200mm and 75mm. Bridges are modeled for one lane (total width 6m

with 5m carriageway) and two lane (total width 10m with 9m carriageway).

3.2. Modelling

In this study, the rise to span ratio for all three type of tied arch bridges has been varied from

15% to 19% of span length with three different types of wind bracing. While for Neilsen arch

bridges with different angle of hangers, the angle between hangers and main girder are been

varied within 60 degree to 65 degree for studying the optimum angle in Neilsen arch system.

Following are the various rise to span ratio 15% to 19%, figures for 60m span length: -

Figure 4 15%, 16% and 17% arch rise to span ratio

Figure 5 18% and 19% arch rise to span ratio

Different angle arrangement from 60 degree to 65 degree for Neilson tied arch models for

different angles are shown in figure: -

Figure 6 Different angle for hanger arrangement


and Bracings


Models by varying both rise to span ratio and type of bracing for bowstring and V-hanger

system: -

Figure 7 Bowstring with Figure 8 Bowstring with Figure 9 Bowstring with

Cross Beam K-bracing X-bracing

Figure 10 V-hanger with Figure 11 V-hanger with Figure 12 V-hanger with


Models for Neilsen arch with different angles in combination with change in rise to span

ratio, type of bracing and angle of hangers: -

Figure 13 Neilsen arch with Figure 14 Neilsen arch with Figure 15 Neilsen arch with


3.3. Parameters

3.3.1. Element and Boundary Condition

MIDAS-Civil software is used for modeling structural elements of tied-arch bridge. Hangers

and bracing members are modeled as a truss member to transfer the axial force only, no

bending moments will not come for these members. Pined supports are applied at all end

nodes of the arch at both ends.

3.3.2. Beam End Release

Beam end release are provided at end nodes of all cross girders, so that bending moments at

the end node of cross girder gets zero and transferred to the main girder. Bending moment in



arch is carried over to main girder by applying beam end releases at all four end modes of

arch which causes zero bending moment at end nodes of arch.

3.3.3. Section

I sections are efficient in flexural behavior, as the web increases the shear capacity and

flanges resist the bending moments. Rectangular hollow section for arch element and square

hollow section for bracing element is used due to high bending and twisting resistance with

aesthetic advantages and light weight properties. Hangers are generally solid circular rods

which are considered only as a truss member and designed for axial force only.

3.3.4. Material Properties

Strength is the main criteria for bridge designing which requires high steel grades.

Economical and optimum dimensions and efficient weight can be achieved by using high

grade steel which provides high strength and durability.

Table 1 Material Properties

Properties Value

Steel

Steel grade Fe 590

Modulus of elasticity 2.05e+08 kN/m2

Poisson’s ratio 0.3

Thermal coefficient 1.2e-05 1/C

Density 76.98 kN/m3

Concrete

Density 25 kN/m3

Wearing coat

Density 22 kN/m3

3.4. Loading

Loading calculations has been done according to IRC codes which are used for bridge

designing. Vehicular loads applied with different load condition as stated in the code due to

different lanes. These vehicular loads are applied on the basis of highways, industrial and

specified area, type of bridge, heavy load movement.

Wind, temperature and live load calculations are done refereeing to IRC 6 code. Live load

combinations for design purpose are applied on the basis of number of lanes. For one lane

carriageway (width 4.25m to 5.3m), class A vehicle is placed at a distance minimum of 0.15m

from the carriageway edge to vehicle outer tyre and remaining part of carriageway is loaded

with uniform intensity of 500 kg/m2throughout the length. For two lane carriageway (width

5.3m to 9.6m), vehicle of class 70R is applied at a distance minimum of 1.2m from the

carriageway edge to vehicle outer tyre in first case. While in second case for two lane, two

class A vehicle is being placed on carriage way with 1.2m distance between both the vehicles

and the outer class A vehicle tyre will be minimum 0.15m away from the carriageway edge.

The standard centre to centre of tyre distance for class A vehicle is 1.8m and centre to centre

distance of tyre for class 70R is 1.93m. Weight of slab and wearing coat is converted into load

and applied as a floor load in two way distribution, due to which the load distribution takes

place on both cross girder and main girder properly.


and Bracings


4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Bending Moment Variation in Main Girder

Rise and drop variation in main girder is observed for identifying the optimum rise to span

ratio for various different type of tied arch. Approximately 45% to 55% of steel is required for

main girder as compare to whole steel bridge structure. The minimum bending moment and

shear force is observed at different percentage of rise which recommends the lesser quantity

of steel section is required and gives the economical design. The same behavior is observed in

arch and hangers. 25% to 35% of steel quantity of bridge is generally needed for arch section.

Due to maximum steel quantity of main girder, the variation in main girder is observed and

recorded for concluding the optimum rise to span ratio.

4.1.1. One Lane Bowstring and V-Hanger Main Girder Result Comparison

Figure 16 Bowstring One lane (BM) Figure 17 V-Hanger One Lane (BM)

4.1.2. One Lane Neilsen Arch Main Girder Result Comparison

Figure 18 Neilsen Arch One Lane Figure 19 Neilsen Arch One Lane

Cross Beam (BM) K-bracing (BM)

Figure 20 Neilsen Arch One Lane X-bracing (BM)

1500

1700

1900

2100

2300

2500

2700

2900

15 16 17 18 19

BE

ND

ING

MO

ME

NT

BOWSTRING ONE LANE (BENDING MOMENT)

BM CROSS BEAM

BM K-BRACING

BM X-BRACING

600

650

700

750

800

850

15 16 17 18 19

BE

ND

ING

MO

ME

NT

V-HANGER ONE LANE (BENDING MOMENT)

BM CROSS BEAM

BM K-BRACING

BM X-BRACING

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

15 16 17 18 19

BE

ND

ING

MO

ME

NT

NEILSEN ARCH ONE LANE CROSSBEAM (BENDING

MOMENT)

BM 60 CROSS

BEAM

BM 61 CROSS

BEAM

BM 62 CROSS

BEAM

BM 63 CROSS

BEAM

BM 64 CROSS

BEAM 400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

15 16 17 18 19

BE

ND

ING

MO

ME

NT

NEILSEN ARCH ONE LANE K-BRACING (BENDING

MOMENT)

BM 60 K-BRACING

BM 61 K-BRACING

BM 62 K-BRACING

BM 63 K-BRACING

BM 64 K-BRACING

BM 65 K-BRACING

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

15 16 17 18 19

BE

ND

ING

MO

ME

NT

NEILSEN ARCH ONE LANE X-BRACING (BENDING MOMENT)

BM 60 X-BRACING

BM 61 X-BRACING

BM 62 X-BRACING

BM 63 X-BRACING

BM 64 X-BRACING

BM 65 X-BRACING



4.1.3. Two Lane Bowstring and V-Hanger Main Girder Result Comparison

Figure 21 Bowstring Two lane (BM) Figure 22 V-Hanger Two Lane (BM)

4.1.4. Two Lane Neilsen Arch Main Girder Result Comparison

Figure 23 Neilsen Arch Two Lane Figure 24 Neilsen Arch Two Lane

Cross Beam (BM) K-bracing (BM)

Figure 25 Neilsen Arch Two Lane X-bracing (BM)

4.2. Modal Analysis

Vibration occurs at particular frequencies which causes mode shapes of structure and can be

observed by doing analytically modal analysis. Steel structural elements are very vulnerable

to vibrations. Modal analysis helps to identify the appropriate wind bracing system by

comparing frequency at first 3 modes of the structure. More frequency indicates more

stiffness, which provides more strength to the structure.

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

15 16 17 18 19

BE

ND

ING

MO

ME

NT

BOWSTRING TWO LANE (BENDING MOMENT)

BM CROSS BEAM

BM K-BRACING

BM X-BRACING

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

15 16 17 18 19

BE

ND

ING

MO

ME

NT

V-HANGER TWO LANE (BENDING MOMENT)

BM CROSS BEAM

BM K-BRACING

BM X-BRACING

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

15 16 17 18 19

BE

ND

ING

MO

ME

NT

NEILSEN ARCH TWO LANE CROSSBEAM (BENDING

MOMENT)

BM 60 CROSS

BEAM

BM 61 CROSS

BEAM

BM 62 CROSS

BEAM

BM 63 CROSS

BEAM

BM 64 CROSS

BEAM 400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

15 16 17 18 19

BE

ND

ING

MO

ME

NT

NEILSEN ARCH TWO LANE K-BRACING (BENDING

MOMENT)

BM 60 K-BRACING

BM 61 K-BRACING

BM 62 K-BRACING

BM 63 K-BRACING

BM 64 K-BRACING

BM 65 K-BRACING

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

15 16 17 18 19

BE

ND

ING

MO

ME

NT

NEILSEN ARCH TWO LANE X-BRACING (BENDING MOMENT)

BM 60 X-BRACING

BM 61 X-BRACING

BM 62 X-BRACING

BM 63 X-BRACING

BM 64 X-BRACING

BM 65 X-BRACING


and Bracings


4.2.1. Modal Analysis for One Lane Bowstring and V-Hanger with 17% Rise

Figure 26 Frequency - Bowstring One Lane Figure 27 Frequency - V-Hanger One Lane

4.2.2. Modal Analysis for One Lane Neilsen Arch with 17% Rise

Figure 28 Frequency - Neilsen Arch Figure 29 Frequency - Neilsen Arch

One Lane 60degree One Lane 65degree

4.2.3. Modal Analysis for Two Lane Bowstring and V-Hanger with 17% Rise

Figure 30 Frequency - Bowstring Two Lane Figure 31 Frequency - V-Hanger Two Lane

0.13638

0.415289

0.506055

0.12074

0.482857

0.583219

0.12074

0.482857

0.581473

1st MODE

2nd MODE

3rd MODE

BOWSTRING - ONE LANE FREQUENCY

X-BRACING K-BRACING CROSS BEAM

0.120559

0.39089

0.482231

0.120559

0.482231

0.582936

0.120559

0.482231

0.581578

1st MODE

2nd MODE

3rd MODE

V-HANGER - ONE LANE FREQUENCY


0.120523

0.389994

0.482104

0.120523

0.482104

0.582503

0.120523

0.482104

0.581226

1st MODE

2nd MODE

3rd MODE

NEILSEN ONE LANE - 60 ̊ FREQUENCY


0.120538

0.390423

0.482166

0.120538

0.482166

0.582287

0.120538

0.482166

0.580997

1st MODE

2nd MODE

3rd MODE

NEILSEN ONE LANE - 65 ̊ FREQUENCY


0.107284

0.369338

0.40623

0.096203

0.384697

0.565508

0.096203

0.384697

0.55264

1st MODE

2nd MODE

3rd MODE

BOWSTRING - TWO LANE FREQUENCY


0.096111

0.352077

0.38438

0.096111

0.38438

0.562287

0.096111

0.38438

0.549861

1st MODE

2nd MODE

3rd MODE

V-HANGER - TWO LANE FREQUENCY




4.2.4. Modal Analysis for Two Lane Neilsen Arch with 17% Rise

Figure 32 Frequency - Neilsen Arch Figure 33 Frequency - Neilsen Arch

Two Lane 60degree Two Lane 65degree

4.3. P-Delta Analysis

Due to primary deflection of the structure, more forces are generated due to structural

irregularity which causes additional moments in members by induced secondary shear force.

The generated load multiplied by the displacement horizontally occurred gives the generated

moment. The instability of system caused due to generated force increases the instability. The

adverse effect of wind and seismic load can be observed by doing P-delta analysis. The effect

of p delta analysis is observed in main girder, arch and hanger.

4.3.1. Percentage Increase in Bending Moment of One Lane Bowstring with 17% Rise

Table 2 P-delta Percentage Increase - Bowstring One Lane

Bowstring One Lane 17

Type of Bracing Cross Beam K-bracing X-bracing

Increase in Main Girder Bending Moment (%) 3.586162 3.458673 3.490115

4.3.2. Percentage Increase in Bending Moment of One Lane Neilsen Arch with 17% Rise

Table 3 P-delta Percentage Increase - Neilsen Arch One Lane

Neilsen Arch One Lane 17

Angle of Hanger 60 degree



61 degree



62 degree



63 degree



64 degree



65 degree



0.096093

0.351102

0.384316

0.096093

0.384316

0.561161

0.096093

0.384316

0.548855

1st MODE

2nd MODE

3rd MODE

NEILSEN TWO LANE- 60 ̊ FREQUENCY


0.096101

0.351561

0.384347

0.096101

0.384347

0.561196

0.096101

0.384347

0.548878

1st MODE

2nd MODE

3rd MODE

NEILSEN TWO LANE- 65 ̊ FREQUENCY



and Bracings


4.3.3. Percentage Increase in Bending Moment of One Lane V-Hanger with 17% Rise

Table 4 P-delta Percentage Increase - V- Hanger One Lane

V Hanger One Lane 17



4.3.4. Percentage Increase in Bending Moment of Two Lane Bowstring with 17% Rise

Table 5 P-delta Percentage Increase - Bowstring Two Lane

Bowstring Two Lane 17



4.3.5. Percentage Increase in Bending Moment of Two Lane Neilsen Arch with 17% Rise

Table 6 P-delta Percentage Increase - Neilsen Arch Two Lane

Neilsen Arch Two Lane 17

Angle of Hanger 60 degree



61 degree



62 degree



63 degree



64 degree



65 degree



4.3.6. Percentage Increase in Bending Moment of Two Lane V-Hanger with 17% Rise

Table 7 P-delta Percentage Increase - V-Hanger Two Lane

V Hanger Two Lane 17



5. CONCLUSIONS

For one lane, 17% rise is appropriate for bow string bridge with cross beam. While for

bowstring with k-bracing and x-bracing 16% rise to span length is appropriate. In Neilsen arch

bridge with cross beam and varied angle of 60 degrees 17% rise is optimum and for other type

of Neilsen bridge 19% rise is optimum. For all V-hanger type of system in one lane 17% rise

is optimum.



Same optimum ratios for bowstring and Neilson arch bridge is been observed for two lane

bridge. But for V-hanger type of bridge, 18% rise to span ratio is optimum.

K-bracing is most efficient type of bracing system for both one lane and two lane as seen after

comparing the results of frequencies calculated by modal analysis.

Increase of 3.46 to 3.59% of bending moment in main girder is observed in one lane

bowstring, in Neilson arch bridge 0.1 to 0.35% of increase is observed while, in V-hanger 0.55

to 0.58%. In two lane bridge, 5.55 to 6.2% of additional moment is observed in bowstring and

for Neilsen arch and V-hanger system increase in bending moment due to initial displacement

is noted as 0.08 to 0.51% and 0.94 to 1.12% respectively. Which shows the less change or

increase in bending moment of main girder in Neilsen arch bridges as compare to other type of

bridges.

Approximate minimum steel quantity weight of bowstring main girder for one lane is 7.02

kN/m and for main girder of Neilsen arch is 5.67 kN/m while for V-hanger system the steel

requirement for main girder is 6.22 kN/m. Two lane main girder of bowstring requires

minimum steel quantity of 8.22 kN/m and 6.75 kN/m amount of approximate steel is require

for Neilsen arch while 7.17 kN/m for V hanger is calculated minimum approximately for

considered loading.

REFERENCES

[1] Răcănel, Ionuţ Radu, Vlad Daniel Urdăreanu, and Andrei Radu "“Bo string” Arches in

Langer System Without Wind Bracing." Romanian Journal of Transport

Infrastructure 4.1 (2015): 67-77.

[2] Namin, Aria Aghajani. “Structural evaluation of tied-arch and truss bridges subjected to

wind and traffic loading.” Diss. Eastern Mediterranean University (EMU), 2012.

[3] Finke JE. “Static and dynamic characterization of tied arch bridges”. Missouri University

of Science and Technology; 2016.

[4] acıas EG, Castro-Triguero R, Gallego R, Carretero J, Gómez-Casero M. “Operational

Modal Analysis and Detection of Non-Linear Structural Behavior of Bowstring Arch

Bridge.”

[5] Ribeiro, Diogo, et al. "Finite element model updating of a bowstring-arch railway bridge

based on experimental modal parameters." Engineering Structures 40 (2012): 413-435.

[6] Qiu, Wen-Liang, et al. "Stability Analysis of Special-Shape Arch Bridge." 淡江理工學刊 13.4 (2010): 365-373.

[7] Islam, N., and R. Ahsan. "Optimization of hanger arrangement of network arch

bridges." Proceedings of the IABSE-JSCE Joint Conference on Advances in Bridge

Engineering-II. 2010. 8–10.

[8] Vlad, Mihai, Gavril Kollo, and Vladimir Marusceac. "A Modern Approach to Tied-Arch

Bridge Analysis and Design." Buletinul Institutului Politehnic din lasi. Sectia Constructii,

Arhitectura 61.2 (2015): 75.

[9] Tveit, P. "Preliminary Design of Network Arch Road Bridges–Examples with Spans of

135 and 160 m." (2003).

[10] Beyer, William Edward. “Preliminary analysis and hanger adjustment of tied arch

bridges.” Diss. Montana State University-Bozeman, College of Engineering, 1984.

[11] Beyer, Lily. "History of Arched Bridges in New Hampshire ” (2012).

[12] Pedro Pereira Clemente Andrade Gonçalves “Preliminary Design of a Bowstring tied-

arch deck.” (2012).


and Bracings


[13] Nikos Pnevmatikos “Standard bridge beams with spans up to 100m for road, rail and

walkway bridges.” (2 1 )

[14] Varennes, Maxime. "Design of a single-track railway network arch bridge: According to

the Eurocodes." (2011).

[15] da Costa, Bernardo Morais. “Design and Analysis of a Network Arch Bridge.” Novas

Edições Acadêmicas, 2017.

[16] Smit, T. J. M. "Design and construction of a railway arch bridge with a network hanger

arrangement." Journal of Civil Engineering Research 2013, Delft University of

technology, pg 1 214 (2013).

[17] Mato, Francisco Millanes, Miguel Ortega Cornejo, and Jorge Nebreda Sanchez. "Design

and Construction of Composite Tubular Arches with Network Suspension System: Recent

Undertakings and Trends." Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 5.3 (2011).

[18] Steen, George Perry. "Design study of a three span continuous tied-arch bridge." (1939).

[19] Koshi, Alika, and Laju Kottalil. "Performance Comparison of Through Arch Bridge at

Different Arch Positions." International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research,

2016, pp. 515–518.

[20] Gogou, Eleni. "Use of high strength steel grades for economical bridge design." (2012).

[21] A. R. Krishnan, R. Leslie and Unnikrishnan S “Damage Detection in Bowstring Girder

Bridge using Dynamic Characteristics.” International Journal of Engineering Research &

Technology (IJERT), 2015, pp. 168–171.

[22] IRC 6: “Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section II –

Loads and Stresses ”

[23] IRC 24: “Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section V –

Steel Road Bridges ”

[24] IS 800:2007 “General Construction In Steel - Code Of Practice ”

structural evaluation of bow string and …€¦ · paper is to evaluate different type of tied...

Documents