Tristram Avenue Viaduct Northern Busway,

Auckland

Simon Cook BE Civil (Hons.)

Design Engineer, Connell Wagner Limited, Auckland NZ
Graduate Member of Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand

Simon is a Bridge Engineer and has been working with Connell Wagner since
graduation from the University of Auckland in 2003 with a Bachelor of Engineering
(Civil) Hons. Simon was responsible for the modelling, design and detailing of the
substructure of Tristram Avenue Viaduct including treatment of the complex seismic
loading and soil structure interaction.

David Moore
Senior Engineer, Connell Wagner Pty Limited, Sydney NSW
Member of Institute of Engineers, Australia - Chartered Professional Engineer

David is a Structural Engineer in the Bridges and Structures Group of Connell

Wagner’s Sydney office. He has 5 years experience in bridge and civil engineering
design. During the detailed design of Tristram Avenue Viaduct, David was seconded
to the Auckland Office to undertake the superstructure design and detailing for
Tristram Avenue Viaduct.

Sue Carter MEngBSc (Hons)

Senior Engineer, Connell Wagner Limited, Auckland NZ
Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers (UK), Chartered Engineer (UK)

Sue graduated from the University of Manchester, Institute of Science and

Technology (UMIST), UK, with a MEngBSc (Hons) in Civil Engineering in 1996. Prior
to moving to New Zealand in 2004, Sue spent eight years with the Bridge Division of
Mott MacDonald in Croydon, UK. Sue was the structural design team leader
responsible for delivery of all structural elements of the Northern Sector of the
Northern Busway, including Tristram Avenue Viaduct.

Contacts: Sue Carter Phone +64 9 523 6446

Email: carters@conwag.com
 Tristram Avenue Viaduct Northern Busway,
Auckland
Simon Cook, Design Engineer, Connell Wagner Limited, Auckland NZ
David Moore, Senior Engineer, Connell Wagner Limited, Sydney NSW
Sue Carter, Senior Engineer, Connell Wagner Limited, Auckland NZ

SYNOPSIS
At a glance, Tristram Avenue Viaduct may appear to be a relatively ordinary 360m
long, 12-span Super-T girder structure. However, upon closer inspection, the design
and detailing challenges of poor ground conditions coupled with seismic loading
become evident.
The structure is a key element of Auckland’s $200 million Northern Busway Project
for Transit New Zealand, which aims to provide an alternative to the heavily
congested motorway for residents of the North Shore.
This paper describes how innovation at tender stage introduced realignment of the
geometry which reduced the main span of the bridge and therefore allowed the use
of conventional precast prestressed concrete girders. The paper also discusses the
governing influence of the deep alluvial soils present beneath the proposed structure
and approach embankments. Such was the extent of this alluvial material, that the
most economical approach was to extend the bridge structure instead of installing
ground improvement measures beneath the approach embankments. The alluvial
soils provided little lateral support to the piled foundations and this resulted in a
structure sensitive to and a design largely governed by seismic events.

INTRODUCTION
Connell Wagner’s commission to
undertake design and construction
supervision of the Northern Sector of
the Northern Busway commenced in
March 2003. The Busway is a
purpose built 11km, two-lane
carriageway running parallel to the
existing State Highway 1 on the North
Shore of Auckland. The objectives of
the whole project include increasing
the person carrying capacity of the
motorway corridor, particularly during
periods of peak demand, and
facilitating the general improvement of
passenger transport systems between
Fig 1 – Location Plan
the North Shore and central
Auckland.
Tristram Avenue Viaduct is the key feature of the grade separated Busway over the
heavily trafficked and strategically critical Tristram Avenue intersection. The design
solution over the interchange required consideration of several issues, both technical
and functional before a preferred solution could be determined.

THE DESIGN OF TRISTRAM AV VIADUCT -: COOK PAGE 1 OF 12

THE DESIGN OF TRISTRAM AV VIADUCT -: COOK
PAGE 2 OF 12
Figure 2 – Intersection Geometry, Scheme and Final Designs
SCHEME DESIGN
The figure on the previous page shows the plan geometry of the existing and
remodelled intersection and illustrates how the final design accommodates two
remodelled motorway ramps and five lanes of Tristram Avenue. Elevations of
scheme and final designs are also included together with a simplified geological long
section.
The scheme design was a three span structure with a main span of 40m and
extensive approach embankments. Due to tight spatial constraints, these approach
embankments comprised vertical mechanically stabilised earth (MSE) walls. The
scheme design also required significant realignment of adjacent lanes of State
Highway 1, which alone would have been a substantial task.
GEOLOGICAL PROFILE
The geology includes:
• Surface man-placed fills comprising batter construction or earthworks spillage
associated with the construction of State Highway 1. The fill is a mixture of silts
and silty gravels.
• Alluvial soils comprising Holocene stream deposits (silts, clays and organic-rich
material) interfingered with Pleistocene-aged Tauranga Group Alluvium (mainly
interbedded clays and silty clays with some peat). These are typically weak,
highly compressible deposits found to depths of up to 28m at the site location.
Typical parameters: φ=25o, c’= 4kPa, Es=1.8 to 4 MPa, γ=19kN/m3,
• East Coast Bays Formation (part of the Waitemata Group) comprising alternating
beds of weak siltstone and sandstone. These typically occur at about 20 to 28m
below existing ground level and the upper surface is highly to completely
weathered with the consistency of residual soil. Typical parameters: Residual
ECBF: φ=26o, c’= 10kPa, Es=3.8 MPa, γ=19kN/m3, ECBF: φ=30o, c’= 10kPa,
Es=15Mpa, γ=20kN/m3, Ultimate bearing capacity = 6MPa.
EVOLUTION OF DESIGN
Length of structure
Ground investigations highlighted the large extent of alluvial soils beneath the MSE
wall embankments on the approaches to the proposed three-span scheme design.
Because these soils were of low strength and were expected to consolidate up to
1600mm, their treatment to increase stability and minimize settlement became a
critical aspect of the design. Settlements of this magnitude have been observed
behind the existing motorway bridge abutments.
A number of solutions were considered including lightweight embankment fill and
ground improvement measures such as stone columns and piled rafts. Further
analysis indicated that the piled raft formation supporting the MSE walls was the only
solution appropriate for the geometrical and geological constraints of the site.
Cost estimates were undertaken for extending the bridge structure instead of
installing MSE wall approaches on piled rafts. These indicated that the most
economical approach was to extend the bridge structure as far as possible.
Span length
The span lengths are governed by the need to provide a clear span over Tristram
Avenue Intersection. Our tender proposal was based on realignment of the Busway

THE DESIGN OF TRISTRAM AV VIADUCT -: COOK PAGE 3 OF 12

geometry within the extremely tight designation boundary. Not only did this mean
that substantial realignment of the existing motorway could be avoided, but also that
the main span of the bridge could be reduced to 30m, thus allowing the use of
conventional precast prestressed concrete girders. For construction efficiency and
cost saving, 30m spans have been adopted for the remainder of the viaduct.

DESCRIPTION OF FINAL DESIGN

Mainly due to restrictions on the vertical alignment of the Busway, the total length of
the viaduct is limited to twelve 30m spans, or 360m. MSE walls form short approach
embankments comprising sidling fills to the existing motorway embankment. Short
sections of piled raft ground improvement measures are still required beneath these
approach embankments to limit settlement and improve global stability.
At the piers, the substructure comprises a pair of 1050 diameter reinforced concrete
columns supported by a pair of 1500 diameter bored cast-in-place concrete piles
socketed into the underlying Waitemata Sandstone. The abutments headstocks are
supported on a pair of 1050 diameter piles which are sleeved through the MSE walls.
The superstructure comprises four 1500 deep, 2500 wide pre-cast concrete
“generation 2” Super-T girders, a cast in-situ reinforced concrete deck with a
minimum thickness of 160mm and cast in-situ reinforced concrete parapets. The
Super-T girders are simply supported, but the bridge deck is continuous over three
spans with link slabs over the piers. Standard single module expansion joints are
located at every third pier and at the abutments.
Elastomeric bearings, designed to the requirements of AS 5100 Bridge Design Code3
have been selected for ease of installation and to minimise cost. A series of load
combinations were considered to determine the governing load case for the bearings,
including a combination of dead loads only, temperature, creep, shrinkage and
seismic loads. An amendment to the Bridge Manual, requiring top and bottom
dowelling of such bearings, was published mid way through detailed design of the
viaduct. Although Transit NZ ruled that the design did not have to comply with this
amendment, the issue of bearings crawling under cyclic loading was addressed by
including dowels between the base of the bearing and the headstock concrete.
For aesthetic and clearance benefits over the existing motorway ramps, the girders
incorporate halving joints at the piers, but are also detailed to allow bearing
replacement. Longitudinal and transverse seismic restraint systems are also
incorporated and end diaphragms are cast between the girders at each pier and
abutment.

Fig 3 – Typical Section through Deck

THE DESIGN OF TRISTRAM AV VIADUCT -: COOK PAGE 4 OF 12

SUBSTRUCTURE MODELLING
A full 3D model of the structure was created using the SPACE GASS software
package. The resistance of the subsoil profile to lateral deflection of the piles was
modelled using Winkler springs. The stiffness of the springs represents the modulus
of subgrade reaction for each soil type encountered and a limiting lateral reaction
was calculated for each soil or rock type. If this was exceeded, the soil was assumed
to act plastically and the spring replaced with an applied load equal to the limiting
force. To give the model some boundary conditions, vertical pinned supports were
modelled at the base of each pile.
The elastomeric
bearings supporting
the girders were
modelled as very
short vertical
members fixed at the
base and pinned at
the connection to the
girders. The stiffness
of these members
was adjusted until
they replicated the
longitudinal shear
Fig 4 – Spacegass Model stiffness properties of
the actual bearings.
These members were given a high transverse stiffness to represent the restraint of
the concrete shear blocks in the transverse direction.

There are large concrete pits connected to the back of the abutment headstocks to
accommodate jointing of a high voltage cable route which runs along the entire
length of the Busway. The frictional resistance of these pits provides a significant
stiffening effect against longitudinal seismic forces and is modelled by stiff Winkler
springs.

SUBSTRUCTURE DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

The design philosophy set out in the Transit New Zealand Bridge Manual1 is similar
to that of other NZ design codes when dealing with seismic design. Structures are
designed to withstand the loading generated by an earthquake of a specified return
period which in this case was 1000 years. Structures must satisfy three criteria;
• After an event with a return period of significantly less than the design value
damage should be minor and there should be no disruption to traffic.
• After the design return period event the structure must be useable by emergency
traffic, although some temporary repairs may be required.
• After an event with a return period significantly higher than the design value, the
structure should not collapse. Although damage may be significant, it should be
useable by emergency traffic after repairs. Permanent repair should be possible.
The seismic analysis of the substructure was carried out in accordance with the
Bridge Manual using the equivalent static forces method. This method allows the
expected horizontal forces exerted on the structure to be assessed based on the

THE DESIGN OF TRISTRAM AV VIADUCT -: COOK PAGE 5 OF 12

natural period of the structure, the ground conditions (site subsoil category), the
geographical location of the structure within New Zealand and associated likelihood
and magnitude of seismic events (zone factor, Z), and finally the relative importance
of the structure (risk factor, R). The Bridge Manual stipulates that the minimum
design horizontal force on the structure (the base shear) is 5% of the seismic mass.
The period of the structure was calculated using the dynamic frequency analysis
capability of SPACE GASS. The software calculates as many natural frequencies
and associated mode shapes as required. In most cases only the first mode (lowest
frequency) in each direction (longitudinal and transverse) is of interest as the higher
modes are unlikely to be excited by a seismic event.

SUBSTRUCTURE DESIGN PROCESS

Ductility and displacements
Early design calculations indicated that providing adequate structural capacity to
withstand the loading associated with the design event would not be the main design
challenge. Instead the main focus of the design became controlling seismic
displacements such that the structure could be detailed to accommodate them and
still remain useable after a seismic event.
There are certain economical issues related to the design of a structure for an event
that has a small probability of occurring during its design life. Acknowledging this,
the Bridge Manual permits seismic displacements in excess of the elastic limit – i.e.
under the design event, elements of the structure are allowed to yield and deform
plastically up to a given limit, thus dissipating a proportion of the seismic load in
plastic hinge zones. Special detailing is required to ensure plastic hinges form in the
required manner and in the intended locations.
The displacement ductility factor is the ratio of total design seismic displacement to
elastic displacement. For example, for a ductility of 1, the structure remains elastic
and therefore the required yield capacity of the structural elements is higher than for
a ductility of 2. The total deflection of a structure during a seismic event is relatively
independent of its ductility.
To give an initial indication of the magnitude of seismic displacements, equivalent
static forces corresponding to a ductility of 1 were applied to the model. Several
design iterations were undertaken to establish the most suitable pile diameters and
socket lengths in order to keep displacements within a suitable range, whilst also
providing adequate end bearing capacity in the weak sandstone.
The longitudinal and transverse natural periods derived from this analysis (2.9s
longitudinally and 2.2s transversely) were used to determine the value of the seismic
coefficient which would result in a base shear equal to 5% of the seismic mass. This
in turn was used to calculate the ductility of the structure at the 5% limit which
effectively gives the maximum design ductility. The Bridge Manual has additional
limits on ductility depending on the form of the structure and ease of access to repair
potential plastic hinges locations.

THE DESIGN OF TRISTRAM AV VIADUCT -: COOK PAGE 6 OF 12

 This analysis indicated that
Tristram Avenue Viaduct
could be designed for a
ductility of 1 – i.e. it would
stay fully elastic under
seismic loading. This is due
to the long periods caused
by the inherent flexibility of
the structure. Design
calculations showed that the
piles and columns would
require close to minimum
reinforcement content.
Reducing the diameters of
the piles and columns was
considered, but seismic
Fig 5 - Longitudinal and transverse mode shapes deflections would have
increased to unacceptable
levels and founding in the weak sandstone would have become problematic. The
structural design therefore proceeded on the basis of an elastically responding
structure i.e., one which does not rely on the formation of ductile plastic hinges to
dissipate energy during the design seismic event.
Collapse mechanisms
During an extreme seismic event, the Bridge Manual requires that elastic structures
are at no greater risk of collapse than ductile structures. As such, the piers have
been detailed such that in an event significantly higher than the design earthquake,
ductile hinges will form. This is achieved by ensuring that in potential plastic hinge
zones, the shear capacity of the piers exceeds the flexural capacity corresponding to
that shear, meaning that failure would be in flexure (ductile) rather than in shear
(brittle). The shear capacity of the piers corresponds to an event with a return period
of approximately 1 in 2000 years where as the overall design return period for the
structure is 1 in 1000 years.
Bearing design
Analysis of the structure indicated that the elastomeric bearings at the abutments
were subjected to high shear deformations. This was caused by the combined effect
of large deflections of the bridge deck due to the low lateral stiffness of the soils
coupled with the restraining effect of the large concrete cable pits attached to the
back of the abutment headstocks. Longitudinal deflections of up to 200mm were
predicted which was far in excess of the allowable deflections for the selected
elastomeric bearings.
The solution was to specify elastomeric bearings with a PTFE surface bonded to the
top of the bearing and stainless steel plates fixed to the girder soffits. These were
selected in preference to more expensive sliding pot style bearings or prohibitively
large elastomeric bearings. Lateral displacement was limited by reinforced concrete
lateral restraint blocks cast between the girders.

THE DESIGN OF TRISTRAM AV VIADUCT -: COOK PAGE 7 OF 12

Conventional elastomeric bearings were used at the piers. The shear deflection of
these bearings during a seismic event was kept within allowable limits by the size of
the gap left between the back of the girders and the pier headstock upstand.
Knock-off Corbel
Knock off corbels were
detailed at the abutments
due to the magnitude of
the longitudinal
displacements. These
are sacrificial elements
with intentional planes of
weakness which are
designed to break away to
prevent the abutment
back wall and the
superstructure from
colliding and damaging
each other. They are
designed to be easily
replaced after a seismic
event.
Fig 6 - Knock-off corbel
Sensitivity Analysis
Due to inherent uncertainties in ground conditions and exact soil parameters, a series
of sensitivity analyses were carried out. The model was re-analysed with the Winkler
spring stiffness constants halved and then doubled and the effect on the period and
hence equivalent static forces determined. The worst-case sensitivity analysis gave
moments and shears in the piles within 10% of those from the original model.
Pier Expansion Joints
Section 5.3.5 (a) of the Bridge Manual states that allowance shall be made at
superstructure movement joints for out of phase movement of two adjacent sections
of a structure. A further set of load combinations was added to the model to assess
the effect of this out of phase movement on the pier expansion joints. These
displacements (based on a weighted square root of the sum of the squares) indicated
that large gaps would be required to prevent adjacent sections colliding during an
event. This caused several detailing concerns associated with the horizontal
movement capacities of the expansion joints and bearings.
The gap between the pier headstock upstand and girder was reduced and the pier
headstock upstand designed to withstand impact from one or more sections of the
superstructure. The load would therefore be transferred directly from superstructure
to substructure rather than being transferred through the bearings. This situation
was investigated by replacing the bearings with rigid members and reanalysing for
the load combinations that caused this kind of “lock up”. The resulting moments and
shears in the pier members were found to be no greater than those from the in-phase
earthquake that does not cause lock up.

THE DESIGN OF TRISTRAM AV VIADUCT -: COOK PAGE 8 OF 12

Seismic Linkages
To ensure the security
of all spans against
loss of setting in an
extreme seismic
event, seismic
linkages have been
detailed between all
simply supported
spans. These
linkages are a second
line of defence that
come into action when
the seismic event
exceeds the design
event. Fig 7 - Loose linkage

At continuous piers i.e. piers without expansion joints, this is simply achieved via the
tension capacity of the link slab forming a “tight linkage”. At pier expansion joints,
”loose linkages” are required to allow the expansion joint to function under normal
use, while protecting the superstructure from unseating during a seismic event. The
loose linkage comprises a large diameter galvanised reinforcing bar (grade 500E
Reid bars) with 40mm thick stopper plates and toroidal rubber buffers at each end.
These linkages pass through the diaphragms cast between the ends of the girders
and the pier headstock upstands. If seismic deflections exceed those expected
during the design event, the linkages will prevent unseating whilst the toroidal buffers
prevent shock loading.

SUPERSTRUCTURE DESIGN
General
The girders selected for the design of Tristram Avenue Viaduct are Generation II
Super-T girders. The dimensions and strand configurations of the Super-Ts is based
on the New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) Bridge Section Standard
Drawings for Type 4 girders (RTA standard drawing RTAB033). Material properties
and exposure classifications have been derived from those recommended in NZS
3101 – Design of Concrete Structures2. Connell Wagner was the first design
consultant to introduce both Generation I and Generation II Super-T girders onto
Transit NZ projects in New Zealand.
The bridge parapet size and shape were determined by the requirements of the
Bridge Manual for a Type F barrier with Level 5 Barrier Performance.
Superstructure modelling
The superstructure was modelled using a combination of SAM 2000 software
complete with the NZ standards module and the SPACE GASS analysis package.
A 2D flat plate grillage model was created in SAM 2000 with longitudinal beams
representing the Super-T girders and a finite element plate deck representing the
cast in-situ concrete deck. Unlike a typical grillage model, the composite beam
sections position the neutral axis of the girders below deck level and the finite

THE DESIGN OF TRISTRAM AV VIADUCT -: COOK PAGE 9 OF 12

element plate deck more accurately distributes parapet and edge loads away from
the edge girder, creating a more efficient design. Because all twelve bridge spans are
the same length, it was possible to model the superstructure as a single, simply
supported span.
Moving traffic loads were applied to the grillage model to create an envelope of
design bending moments and shear forces. Two live load cases were considered;
the standard HN-HO-72 traffic loading applied in accordance with the Bridge Manual
and a Light Rail Transit (LRT) load in accordance with the North Shore Busway
Planning and Design Manual to address the option of future light rail services using
the Busway.

Super-T Girders Design Process

The design of the Super-T girders was primarily undertaken using SAM 2000
software. Serviceability and ultimate limit state requirements were checked for
various live and permanent load combinations including transfer of prestress loads.
The software checks the girders against AS 5100.2, however a thorough check of the
girder design and material properties was performed to ensure that the design was in
accordance with the Bridge Manual and NZS 3101.
The girders have half-joints at the pier supports which were designed using strut-and-
tie modelling.
Partially-prestressing, using the method of allowable stress increment for
serviceability design, was adopted for the girder design. This creates a more
economical girder and helps to control cracking under serviceability conditions.
The serviceability state Load Category II was used for Group 1A (or HN loads) and
Load Category IV for all other groups (or HO loads) - refer section 4.2.1 of the Bridge
Manual. The allowable stress increment method for precast beams is addressed in
NZS 3101 Cl.16.3.12.1. The code allows a stress increment of 100 MPa for Load
Category II and 200 MPa for Load Category IV. The tensile strength of concrete was
taken as zero.
The non-prestressed reinforcement in the bottom flange of the girder also assists in
controlling the upward deflection of the girders at transfer.
Pier and Abutment Headstocks
Due to the non-flexural nature of the concrete pier and abutment headstocks, strut-
and-tie modeling was considered the most appropriate analysis method. The strut-
and-tie trusses were modeled in SPACE GASS, which gave the tensile and
compressive loads required to design the steel reinforcement and check the concrete
compression struts. Particular attention was given to the design of the half-joint
corbel to minimise the chance of tensile crack development at the re-entrant corner.
Continuous Concrete Parapets
A feature of the design is the use of parapets which are continuous between
expansion joints– i.e. over 90m lengths.
During the initial design phase, the parapets were designed as discontinuous
elements with vertical joints at five metre intervals. This had two main disadvantages:
The regular joints in the parapet meant that the forces transferred to the deck slab in
the event of a vehicle impact were high because load spread along the parapet was

THE DESIGN OF TRISTRAM AV VIADUCT -: COOK PAGE 10 OF 12

limited by the joints. The parapets would have a stiffening effect on the link slabs
which meant that they would not flex as intended under live loads. This would cause
unacceptable moment concentrations and possibly cracking in the link slab adjacent
to joints in the parapet. One solution was to de-bond the parapet over the length of
the link slab, but this meant that the loading in the parapet would increase further
where it cantilevered over the link slab. Detailing continuity of the drainage channel
which runs against the toe of the parapet would also have become more complex
and could have created ongoing maintenance concerns.
The chosen solution was to remove all joints in the parapets between expansion
joints. The continuous parapet effectively becomes a structural member composite
with the edge girder, stiffening the whole system. This induces high tensions and
negative bending moments in the parapet over the piers. A conservative approach
was adopted for the parapet design, assuming that the bridge was of monolithic
construction. This meant that live loads, dead loads and loads induced from
prestressing, temperature gradients, creep and shrinkage were all applied to the
parapet.
For comparative purposes the design of the continuous parapet was undertaken
using two slightly different computer models in SAM software. The first model was
based on the plate deck model used for the girder design and the second model was
a 3D finite element model of the Super-T girders and deck, with the parapet modelled
as an additional beam with its neutral axis offset above the deck. The results from
the two models were in close agreement.

Fig 8 - Plate model Fig 9 - FE model

The design also considered that this continuous parapet may be damaged in the
event of a vehicle impact. To analyse the effect of this, part of the parapet was
removed from the model. As might be expected, loads in the parapet reduced and
more load was distributed to the external girder. For this reason, even though the
parapets were designed as continuous elements, the girders were still designed as
simply supported elements.
In the transverse direction, a yield line method was used to design the bridge
parapets for vehicle impact as recommended in AS 5100. To ensure ease of repair
following a collision, the Bridge Manual requires that the parapet ‘fails’ before the
bridge deck. As such, the recommended load factor of 1.2 was applied to the traffic
impact loads for the design of the bridge deck at the parapet connection.

THE DESIGN OF TRISTRAM AV VIADUCT -: COOK PAGE 11 OF 12

CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS
At the time of submitting this paper, ground
improvement work on the bridge approaches and
piling work on the pier piles has commenced. Work
on the superstructure is due to commence in May
2006.

CONCLUDING REMARKS
This paper has described how design and detailing
work has addressed the challenging ground
conditions and seismic loading whilst complying with
restrictive spatial constraints of the Tristram Avenue
site. When construction work is completed in
December 2007, the structure will be a key
component of the Northern Busway helping to
“Bridge the Gap” in the public transport network for
residents of the North Shore who commute to
Auckland City. Fig 10 – Piling at Pier 8
March 2006
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The permission granted by Transit New Zealand to publish the information in this
paper is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES
1. Bridge Manual, Second Edition 2003, Transit New Zealand.
2. NZS 3101, Part 1, 1995 – The Design of Concrete Structures
3. AS 5100, 1994 – Bridge Design

THE DESIGN OF TRISTRAM AV VIADUCT -: COOK PAGE 12 OF 12