DOCSLIB.ORG

Bridge Construction Practices Using Incremental Launching

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bridge Construction Practices Using Incremental Launching BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES USING INCREMENTAL LAUNCHING Requested by: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Highway Subcommittee on Bridge and Structures Prepared by: Mike LaViolette HNTB Corporation Kansas City, Missouri 64106 Terry Wipf Yoon-Si Lee Jake Bigelow Brent Phares Bridge Engineering Center Center for Transportation Research and Education Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 50011 December, 2007 The information contained in this report was prepared as part of NCHRP Project 20-07, Task 229, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board. Acknowledgements This study was requested by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and conducted as part of National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 20-07. The NCHRP is supported by annual voluntary contributions from the state Departments of Transportation. Project 20-07 is intended to fund quick response studies on behalf of the AASHTO Standing Committee on Highways. The report was prepared by Mike LaViolette of HNTB Corp., Terry Wipf, Yoon-Si Lee, Jake Bigelow and Brent Phares of The Bridge Engineering Center at Iowa State Univeristy. The work was guided by a task group which included Ahmad Abu-Hawash, Robert J. Healy, Finn Hubbard, Vasant Mistry, Danna Powell, David Rogowski, Mohammed Sheikhizadeh, and Dan Timmons. The project was managed by David B. Beal, P.E., NCHRP Senior Program Officer. Disclaimer The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board or its sponsors. This report has not been reviewed or accepted by the Transportation Research Board's Executive Committee or the Governing Board of the National Research Council. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................V INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 REVIEW OF CURRENT PRACTICE............................................................................................2 Literature Review ................................................................................................................2 Survey of State DOT Bridge Engineers.............................................................................15 MANUAL OF BEST PRACTICE.................................................................................................22 Preliminary Design and Planning Considerations .............................................................22 Final Design Phase Considerations....................................................................................24 Recommended Construction Phase Considerations ..........................................................27 Applicability and Limitations of Incremental Launching..................................................29 Case Studies.......................................................................................................................31 STRATEGIC PLAN FOR INCREASING USE OF INCREMENTAL LAUNCHING METHOD ..........................................................................................................................55 APPENDIX A............................................................................................................................. A-1 Database of Incrementally Launched Bridges ................................................................ A-1 APPENDIX B ..............................................................................................................................B-1 Survey of State DOT Bridge Engineers...........................................................................B-1 APPENDIX C ..............................................................................................................................C-1 Details of Incremental Launching Systems .....................................................................C-1 APPENDIX D............................................................................................................................. D-1 Example Details for Launched Bridge Projects.............................................................. D-1 APPENDIX E ..............................................................................................................................E-1 Example Specifications for Steel Erection by Launching ...............................................E-1 - iii - LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Launching nose resting on a temporary pier ..................................................................12 Figure 2. Port Wakefield Road Bridge launching - Australia........................................................13 Figure 3. Blanchetown Bridge launching - Australia. ...................................................................14 Figure 4. K.S. Tubun flyover bridge launching nose.....................................................................30 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Perceived advantages of ILM compared to conventional construction...........................17 Table 2. Perceived disadvantages of ILM compared to conventional construction ......................18 Table 3. Types of useful tools for design of ILM projects ............................................................19 Table 4 Types of useful tools to promote consideration of ILM projects .....................................21 iv SUMMARY Bridge construction over deep valleys, water crossings with steep slopes, or environmentally protected regions can offer many challenges. The incremental launching method (ILM) for bridge construction may offer advantages over conventional construction, including creating minimal disturbance to surroundings, providing a more concentrated work area for superstructure assembly, and possibly increased worker safety given the improved erection environment. The ILM involves assembly of the bridge superstructure on one side of an obstacle to be crossed, and then movement (or launching) of the superstructure longitudinally into its final position. Despite potential advantages for certain situations, the use of the ILM for bridge construction has been very limited in the United States. The objective of the work summarized in this report was to provide bridge owners, designers, and contractors with information about the ILM, including applications, limitations and benefits. To clarify the ILM procedure and the current state of practice, a comprehensive literature search and survey were conducted. Recommendations pertaining to best practices for planning, design, and construction activities, as well as applications and limitations for the ILM are also provided. Case studies are presented, which provide specific ILM bridge project information. The use of the ILM for bridge construction will never be the most efficient way to construct every single bridge. However, it is thought that a wider understanding of the applicability and potential benefits would allow potential owners, designers, and contractors to make well-informed decisions as to its use for their upcoming projects. v INTRODUCTION Bridges have been constructed using the incremental launching method (ILM) for many years. In this method of construction, the bridge superstructure is assembled on one side of the obstacle to be crossed and then pushed longitudinally (or “launched”) into its final position. The launching is typically performed in a series of increments so that additional sections can be added to the rear of the superstructure unit prior to subsequent launches. The launching method has also been applied to tied-arch or truss spans, although these are fully assembled prior to launching. The incremental launching method will never become the most economical procedure for constructing all bridges. The ILM requires a considerable amount of analysis and design expertise and specialized construction equipment. However, the ILM may often be the most reasonable way to construct a bridge over an inaccessible or environmentally protected obstacle. When used for the appropriate project, the ILM offers a number of significant advantages to both the owner and the contractor, including the following: • Minimal disturbance to surroundings including environmentally sensitive areas • Smaller, but more concentrated area required for superstructure assembly • Increased worker safety since all erection work is performed at a lower elevation The ILM can be used to construct a bridge over a wide range of challenging sites which feature limited or restricted access, including those with the following characteristics: • Deep valleys • Deep water crossings • Steep slopes or poor soil conditions making equipment access difficult • Environmentally protected species or cultural resources beneath the bridge It is estimated that over 1,000 bridges worldwide have been constructed using the incremental launching method. Swanson (1979) states that the first incrementally launched highway bridge in the United States was constructed near Covington, Indiana in 1977. One of the earliest published reports in North America, however, describes the construction of a railroad truss span for the Canadian Pacific Railway in 1907. Despite the advantages listed, the incremental launching method of construction has seen very limited application in the United States.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Evaluation of a High Performance Concrete Box Girder Bridge
    Evaluation of a High Performance Concrete Box Girder Bridge Andreas Greuel T. Michael Baseheart, Ph. D. Graduate Research Assistant Associate Professor of Civil University of Cincinnati Engineering Cincinnati, Ohio University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, Ohio Bradley T. Rogers Engineer LJB, Inc. As part of the FHWA (Federal Highway Admin- Dayton, Ohio istration) High Performance Concrete Bridge Program, two full-scale truckload tests of Bridge GUE-22-6.57 were carried out. The main ob- jectives of these tests were to investigate the static and dynamic response of the high perfor- Richard A. Miller, Ph. D. mance concrete (HPC) structure. A secondary Associate Professor of Civil Engineering objective was to investigate the load transfer University of Cincinnati between the box girders through experimental Cincinnati, Ohio middepth shear keys. The structure was loaded using standard Ohio Department of Transporta- tion (ODOT) dump trucks. A model test of the bridge was conducted as well. It was found that the bridge behavior is well predicted using sim- ple models. The bridge behaves as a single unit and all girders share the load almost equally. Bahram M. Shahrooz, Ph. D. The dynamic behavior of the bridge is typical Associate Professor of Civil for comparable structures. Engineering University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, Ohio 60 PCI JOURNAL he use of high performance con- located on US Route 22, a heavily in that the Ohio box girder has only a crete (HPC) can lead to more traveled two-lane highway near Cam- 5 in. (127 mm ) thick bottom flange Teconomical bridge designs be- bridge, Ohio. rather than the 5.5 in.
    [Show full text]
  • Suspension Bridges
    Types of Bridges What are bridges used for? What bridges have you seen in real life? Where were they? Were they designed for people to walk over? Do you know the name and location of any famous bridges? Did you know that there is more than one type of design for bridges? Let’s take a look at some of them. Suspension Bridges A suspension bridge uses ropes, chains or cables to hold the bridge in place. Vertical cables are spaced out along the bridge to secure the deck area (the part that you walk or drive over to get from one side of the bridge to the other). Suspension bridges can cover large distances. Large pillars at either end of the waterways are connected with cables and the cables are secured, usually to the ground. Due to the variety of materials and the complicated design, suspension bridges are very expensive to build. Suspension Bridges The structure of suspension bridges has changed throughout the years. Jacob’s Creek Bridge in Pennsylvania was built in 1801. It was the first suspension bridge to be built using wrought iron chain suspensions. It was 21 metres long. If one single link in a chain is damaged, it weakens the whole chain which could lead to the collapse of the bridge. For this reason, wire or cable is used in the design of suspension bridges today. Even though engineer James Finlay promised that the bridge would stay standing for 50 years, it was damaged in 1825 and replaced in 1833. Suspension Bridges Akashi Kaiko Bridge, Japan The world’s longest suspension bridge is the Akashi Kaikyo Bridge in Japan.
    [Show full text]
  • Review on Applicability of Box Girder for Balanced Cantilever Bridge Sneha Redkar1, Prof
    International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395 -0056 Volume: 03 Issue: 05 | May-2016 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072 Review on applicability of Box Girder for Balanced Cantilever Bridge Sneha Redkar1, Prof. P. J. Salunke2 1Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, MGMCET, Maharashtra, India 2Head, Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, MGMCET, Maharashtra, India ---------------------------------------------------------------------***--------------------------------------------------------------------- Abstract - This paper gives a brief introduction to the 1874. Use of steel led to the development of cantilever cantilever bridges and its evolution. Further in cantilever bridges. The world’s longest span cantilever bridge was built bridges it focuses on system and construction of balanced in 1917 at Quebec over St. Lawrence River with main span of cantilever bridges. The superstructure forms the dynamic 549 m. India can boast of one such long bridge, the Howrah element as a load carrying capacity. As box girders are widely bridge, over river Hooghly with main span of 457 m which is used in forming the superstructure of balanced cantilever fourth largest of its kind. bridges, its advantages are discussed and a detailed review is carried out. Concrete cantilever construction was first introduced in Europe in early 1950’s and it has since been broadly used in design and construction of several bridges. Unlike various Key Words: Bridge, Balanced Cantilever, Superstructure, bridges built in Germany using cast-in-situ method, Box Girder, Pre-stressing cantilever construction in France took a different direction, emphasizing the use of precast segments. The various advantages of precast segments over cast-in-situ are: 1. INTRODUCTION i. Precast segment construction method is a faster method compared to cast-in-situ construction method.
    [Show full text]
  • Modern Steel Construction 2009
    Reprinted from 2009 MSC Steel Bridges 2009 Welcome to Steel Bridges 2009! This publication contains all bridge related information collected from Modern Steel Construction magazine in 2009. These articles have been combined into one organized document for our readership to access quickly and easily. Within this publication, readers will find information about Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC), short span steel bridge solutions, NSBA Prize Bridge winners, and advancement in coatings technologies among many other interesting topics. Readers may also download any and all of these articles (free of charge) in electronic format by visiting www.modernsteel.org. The National Steel Bridge Alliance would like to thank everyone for their strong dedication to improving our nation’s infrastructure, and we look forward to what the future holds! Sincerely, Marketing Director National Steel Bridge Alliance Table of Contents March 2009: Up and Running in No Time........................................................................................... 3 March 2009: Twice as Nice .................................................................................................................. 6 March 2009: Wide River ..................................................................................................................... 8 March 2009: Over the Rails in the Other Kansas City ........................................................................ 10 July 2009: Full House .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bridges for Planes, Trains, but Not Automobiles by David A
    bridges for Planes, Trains, buT noT auTomobiles By David A. Burrows, P.E., LEED AP BD+C ® British Airways 747 crossing beneath the Taxiway “R” bridge, June, 2012. Courtesy of City of Phoenix Aviation Department. Copyright s described in the August edition of STRUCTURE® maga- zine, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport opened the first stage of their automated transit system, PHX Sky Train™, on April 8, 2013. Thousands of passengers have already boarded the Sky Train and experienced the comfortable five A th minute ride from the 44 Street Station through the East Economy Lot Station, over Taxiway “R” (more than 100 feet above Sky Harbor Blvd.), ending at Terminal 4. The next phase, known as Stage 1A, is currently under con- struction and continues Sky Train’s route from Terminal 4 to Terminal 3. Scheduled to be open in early 2015, Stagemagazine 1A, similar to the Stage 1 construction,S faces theT task ofR crossing U an active C T U R E taxiway. Unlike the first Stage’s crossing above Taxiway “R”, the current phase of construction crosses beneath Taxiways “S” and “T”. Both Stages’ taxiway crossings presented several design and construction challenges. A US Airways jet passes beneath the Taxiway R crossing with the PHX Sky Train overhead. Courtesy of City of Phoenix Aviation Department. The World’s First In addition to the challenging geometry was the schedule constraint On Oct. 10, 2010, a celebration to mark the re-opening of Taxiway for constructing the bridge. Because the construction required the “R” was held by the City of Phoenix with members of the City’s taxiway to be closed, a limited shutdown period of six months was Aviation Department, designers, contractors and media watching possible due to airport operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Visit Ohio's Historic Bridges
    SPECIAL ADVERTISING SECTION Visit Ohio’s Historic Bridges Historic and unique bridges have a way of sticking in our collective memories. Many of us remember the bridge we crossed walking to school, a landmark on the way to visit relatives, the gateway out of town or a welcoming indication that you are back in familiar territory. The Ohio Department of Transportation, in collaboration with the Ohio Historic Bridge Association, Ohio History Connection’s State Historic Preservation Office, TourismOhio and historicbridges.org, has assembled a list of stunning bridges across the state that are well worth a journey. Ohio has over 500 National Register-listed and historic bridges, including over 150 wooden covered bridges. The following map features iron, steel and concrete struc- tures, and even a stone bridge built when canals were still helping to grow Ohio’s economy. Some were built for transporting grain to market. Other bridges were specifically designed to blend into the scenic landscape of a state or municipal park. Many of these featured bridges are Ohio Historic Bridge Award recipients. The annual award is given to bridge owners and engineers that rehabilitate, preserve or reuse historic structures. The awards are sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration, ODOT and Ohio History Connection’s State Historic Preservation Office. Anthony Wayne Bridge - Toledo, OH Ohio Department of Transportation SPECIAL ADVERTISING SECTION 2 17 18 SOUTHEAST REGION in eastern Ohio, Columbiana County has Metropark’s Huntington Reservation on the community. A project that will rehabilitate several rehabilitated 1880’s through truss shore of Lake Erie along US 6/Park Drive.
    [Show full text]
  • A Look at Bridges: a Study of Types, Histories, and the Marriage of Engineering and Architecture Cody Chase Connecticut College
    Connecticut College Digital Commons @ Connecticut College Architectural Studies Integrative Projects Art History and Architectural Studies 2015 A Look at Bridges: A Study of Types, Histories, and the Marriage of Engineering and Architecture Cody Chase Connecticut College Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/archstudintproj Recommended Citation Chase, Cody, "A Look at Bridges: A Study of Types, Histories, and the Marriage of Engineering and Architecture" (2015). Architectural Studies Integrative Projects. Paper 73. http://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/archstudintproj/73 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Art History and Architectural Studies at Digital Commons @ Connecticut College. It has been accepted for inclusion in Architectural Studies Integrative Projects by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Connecticut College. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author. CODY CHASE SENIOR INTEGRATIVE PROJECT: INDEPENDENT STUDY ARCHITECTURAL STUDIES CONNECTICUT COLLEGE 2015 A"LOOK"INTO"BRIDGES" A"Study"of"Types,"Histories,"and"the"Marriage"of" Engineering"and"Architecture" " Cody"Chase"‘15" Architectural"Studies"Major,"Art"History"Minor" Senior"IntegraHve"Project" " Why Bridges? Where to begin? TYPES OTHER • Arch • Glossary • Beam/Girder/Stringer • Materials • Truss • History of Failures • Suspension • Models • Cable-Stayed • Moveable Span What makes a bridge stand up? FORCES ***Compression:
    [Show full text]
  • Ch. 407 Structural Steel
    2012 INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION—2012 DESIGN MANUAL CHAPTER 407 Steel Structure NOTE: References to material in 2011 Design Manual have been highlighted in blue throughout this document. 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 2 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 5 407-1A Plate Thicknesses ........................................................................................................ 5 407-1B Flange Grouping for Fabrication ................................................................................ 5 407-1C Girder Weld Splice Details ......................................................................................... 5 407-1D Safety Handrail Details ............................................................................................... 5 407-1E Bearing Restraints ....................................................................................................... 5 407-2A Weathering Steel (Paint Limits) .................................................................................. 5 407-2B Drip Bar Details .......................................................................................................... 5 407-4A Annual Traffic Growth Rates ...................................................................................... 5 407-4B Schematic of Top Flange
    [Show full text]
  • Arched Bridges Lily Beyer University of New Hampshire - Main Campus
    University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository Honors Theses and Capstones Student Scholarship Spring 2012 Arched Bridges Lily Beyer University of New Hampshire - Main Campus Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/honors Part of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Beyer, Lily, "Arched Bridges" (2012). Honors Theses and Capstones. 33. https://scholars.unh.edu/honors/33 This Senior Honors Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses and Capstones by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CIVIL ENGINEERING Arched Bridges History and Analysis Lily Beyer 5/4/2012 An exploration of arched bridges design, construction, and analysis through history; with a case study of the Chesterfield Brattleboro Bridge. UNH Civil Engineering Arched Bridges Lily Beyer Contents Contents ..................................................................................................................................... i List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... ii Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter I: History
    [Show full text]
  • Steel Bridge Design Handbook Vol. 13
    U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Steel Bridge Design Handbook Bracing System Design Publication No. FHWA-HIF-16-002 - Vol. 13 December 2015 FOREWORD This handbook covers a full range of topics and design examples intended to provide bridge engineers with the information needed to make knowledgeable decisions regarding the selection, design, fabrication, and construction of steel bridges. Upon completion of the latest update, the handbook is based on the Seventh Edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. The hard and competent work of the National Steel Bridge Alliance (NSBA) and prime consultant, HDR, Inc., and their sub-consultants, in producing and maintaining this handbook is gratefully acknowledged. The topics and design examples of the handbook are published separately for ease of use, and available for free download at the NSBA and FHWA websites: http://www.steelbridges.org, and http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge, respectively. The contributions and constructive review comments received during the preparation of the handbook from many bridge engineering processionals across the country are very much appreciated. In particular, I would like to recognize the contributions of Bryan Kulesza with ArcelorMittal, Jeff Carlson with NSBA, Shane Beabes with AECOM, Rob Connor with Purdue University, Ryan Wisch with DeLong’s, Inc., Bob Cisneros with High Steel Structures, Inc., Mike Culmo with CME Associates, Inc., Mike Grubb with M.A. Grubb & Associates, LLC, Don White with Georgia Institute of Technology, Jamie Farris with Texas Department of Transportation, and Bill McEleney with NSBA. Joseph L. Hartmann, PhD, P.E. Director, Office of Bridges and Structures Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Steel Bridge Design Handbook
    U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Steel Bridge Design Handbook Design Example 4: Three-Span Continuous Straight Composite Steel Tub Girder Bridge Publication No. FHWA-HIF-16-002 - Vol. 24 December 2015 FOREWORD This handbook covers a full range of topics and design examples intended to provide bridge engineers with the information needed to make knowledgeable decisions regarding the selection, design, fabrication, and construction of steel bridges. Upon completion of the latest update, the handbook is based on the Seventh Edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. The hard and competent work of the National Steel Bridge Alliance (NSBA) and prime consultant, HDR, Inc., and their sub-consultants, in producing and maintaining this handbook is gratefully acknowledged. The topics and design examples of the handbook are published separately for ease of use, and available for free download at the NSBA and FHWA websites: http://www.steelbridges.org, and http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge, respectively. The contributions and constructive review comments received during the preparation of the handbook from many bridge engineering processionals across the country are very much appreciated. In particular, I would like to recognize the contributions of Bryan Kulesza with ArcelorMittal, Jeff Carlson with NSBA, Shane Beabes with AECOM, Rob Connor with Purdue University, Ryan Wisch with DeLong’s, Inc., Bob Cisneros with High Steel Structures, Inc., Mike Culmo with CME Associates, Inc., Mike Grubb with M.A. Grubb & Associates, LLC, Don White with Georgia Institute of Technology, Jamie Farris with Texas Department of Transportation, and Bill McEleney with NSBA. Joseph L. Hartmann, PhD, P.E.
    [Show full text]
  • Single-Span Cast-In-Place Post-Tensioned Concrete
    LRFD Example 1 1-Span CIPPTCBGB 1-Span Cast-in-Place Cast-in-place post-tensioned concrete box girder bridge. The bridge has a 160 Post-Tensioned feet span with a 15 degree skew. Standard ADOT 32-inch f-shape barriers will Concrete Box Girder be used resulting in a bridge configuration of 1’-5” barrier, 12’-0” outside [CIPPTCBGB] shoulder, two 12’-0” lanes, a 6’-0” inside shoulder and a 1’-5” barrier. The Bridge Example overall out-to-out width of the bridge is 44’-10”. A plan view and typical section of the bridge are shown in Figures 1 and 2. The following legend is used for the references shown in the left-hand column: [2.2.2] AASHTO LRFD Specification Article Number [2.2.2-1] AASHTOLRFD Specification Table or Equation Number [C2.2.2] AASHTO LRFD Specification Commentary [A2.2.2] AASHTO LRFD Specification Appendix [BDG] ADOT LRFD Bridge Design Guidelines Bridge Geometry Bridge length 160.00 ft Bridge width 44.83 ft Roadway width 42.00 ft Superstructure depth 7.50 ft Web spacing 9.25 ft Web thickness 12.00 in Top slab thickness 8.50 in Bottom slab thickness 6.00 in Deck overhang 3.33 ft Minimum Requirements The minimum span to depth ratio for a single span bridge should be taken as 0.045 resulting in a minimum depth of 7.20 feet. Use 7’-6” [Table 2.5.2.6.3-1] The minimum top slab thickness shall be as shown in the LRFD Bridge Design Guidelines. For a centerline spacing of 9.25 feet, the effective length is 8.25 feet resulting in a minimum thickness of 8.50 inches.
    [Show full text]