CHAPTER -7

CONCLUSIONS
From the design problem carried out in the project, the following conclusions can be
made:
1) The savings of materials in Limit state method is almost nil for the deck slab as
compared to working stress method.
2) In case of 10 m span, it can be seen from the results the savings in steel for Limit state
method in the design for B.M in girder at mid span and quarter span are 30 % and
50 % less respectively as compared to Working stress method.
3) In case of 15m span, the savings in the concrete and steel in the design for B.M by
Limit state method at mid span are 7.3 % and 0 % less respectively as compared to
Working stress method.
4) In case of 15m span, the savings in concrete and steel in the design for B.M by limit
state method at quarter span are 7.3 % and 15.6 % less respectively as compared to
Working stress method.
5) In case of 20m span, the savings in the concrete and steel in the design for B.M by
Limit state method at mid span are 9.5 % and 2 % respectively as compared to
Working stress method.
6) In case of 20m span, the savings in the concrete and steel in the design for B.M by
Limit state method at quarter span are 9.5 % and 0 % less respectively as compared
to Working stress method.
7) In case of 20m, 15m, 10m span the difference in the shear reinforcement for girder
is negligible.

It can be concluded that the Limit state method is economical than Working stress
method.

121

CHAPTER -8
SCOPE OF FURTHER STUDY
1. The current study is limited to the load combination of dead load, SIDL
and live load. The study can be extended by including longitudinal forces,
accidental actions, wind load etc.
2. The current study was done for R.C.C. T beam girder which can be
extended to prestressed girders.
3. The comparison can be checked for longer spans as the results may vary
when the B.M due to external loads is more.

122

REFERENCES

(1) Amit Saxena & Dr. Savita Maru COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE ANALYSIS
AND DESIGN OF T-BEAM GIRDER AND BOX GIRDER SUPERSTRUCTURE,
Published in IJREAT International Journal of Research in Engineering & Advanced
Technology, Volume 1, Issue 2, April-May, 2013.
(2) B.H.Solanki & Prof.M.D.Vakil Comparative study for flexure design using

IRC

112:2011 & IRC 21:2000, Published in International Journal of Scientific &

Engineering Research, Volume 4, Issue 6, June-2013.
(3) Kamde D, John B and Hulagabali A (2014) Comparative Study for the Design of
single span bridge using AASHTO LRFD and Indian Standard Method,
International Conference on Advances in Engineering & Technology 2014 (ICAET2014) Page no:44.
(4) B.H.Solanki & Prof.M.D.Vakil comparative study for shear design using IRC
112:2011 & IRC 21:2000, Published in International Journal of Scientific &
Engineering Research, Volume 4, Issue 6, June-2013.
(5) E. C Hambly, Bridge Deck Behavior, chapman and Hall, Second Edition. 1991
(6) N Krishna Raju, Design of Bridges, Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
New Delhi, fourth Edition.
(7) IRC: 6-2010, Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges,
Section: II, loads and stresses.
(8) IRC: 112-2011, code of practice for concrete road bridges.
(9) IRC: 21-2000, Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges,
Section: III, cement concrete (plain and reinforced).

123