DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluation of a High Performance Concrete Box Girder Bridge

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Evaluation of a High Performance Concrete Box Girder Bridge

Andreas Greuel

Graduate Research Assistant University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, Ohio

T. Michael Baseheart, Ph. D.

Associate Professor of Civil Engineering University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, Ohio

Bradley T. Rogers

Engineer LJB, Inc.

As part of the FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) High Performance Concrete Bridge Program, two full-scale truckload tests of Bridge GUE-22-6.57 were carried out. The main objectives of these tests were to investigate the static and dynamic response of the high performance concrete (HPC) structure. A secondary objective was to investigate the load transfer between the box girders through experimental middepth shear keys. The structure was loaded using standard Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) dump trucks. A model test of the bridge was conducted as well. It was found that the bridge behavior is well predicted using simple models. The bridge behaves as a single unit and all girders share the load almost equally. The dynamic behavior of the bridge is typical for comparable structures.

Dayton, Ohio

Richard A. Miller, Ph. D.

Associate Professor of Civil Engineering University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, Ohio

Bahram M. Shahrooz, Ph. D.

Associate Professor of Civil
Engineering
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, Ohio

  • 60
  • PCI JOURNAL

located on US Route 22, a heavily traveled two-lane highway near Cambridge, Ohio. in that the Ohio box girder has only a 5 in. (127 mm ) thick bottom flange rather than the 5.5 in. (140 mm) flange used in the AASHTO box. As a result, the Ohio box can accommodate only a single, full layer of 23 strands in the bottom flange and a partial layer of four strands and several layers of two strands in the webs. If the bridge were designed using the largest Ohio box (B42-48, see Fig. 3), standard 5500 psi (39 MPa) concrete and 0.5 in. (13 mm) diameter strands, the maximum span of the girder would be 110 ft (33.5 m). If the steel area is increased by using 0.6 in. (15 mm) diameter strand, the girder could easily span the required length. However, the larger strand he use of high performance concrete (HPC) can lead to more economical bridge designs be-

T

The new bridge replaced a 70 ft
(21.4 m) single span, steel stringer bridge with a concrete deck. The hydraulic requirements required the span of the new bridge to be increased to 115.5 ft (35.2 m ). Note that the bridge was originally designed as a threespan, noncomposite, adjacent box girder system using normal strength concrete [5500 psi (35 MPa)] and 0.5 in. (13 mm) diameter strands [see Fig. 1(b)]. cause the designer can often eliminate girder lines, use shallower sections or extend the span of a section and eliminate the need for intermediate supports. While the use of HPC can lead to lower initial costs through elimination of piers or girder lines, the high durability of HPC can also lead to lower long-term costs because of reduced maintenance and a longer bridge life. Despite the above advantages, as designers use longer and shallower spans with fewer girders, the structures become more flexible. This leads one to question whether the structures will deflect or vibrate excessively or if the greater flexibility will affect the load distribution between adjacent box girders.
Normally, a span of 115.5 ft (35.2 m) would not be too long for a box girder. However, the Ohio box girder (see Fig. 3) differs from the AASHTO standard

Fig. 1(a).

In 1998, the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) constructed a HPC, adjacent box girder bridge. In this bridge, a preliminary design for a three-span bridge was converted to a single-span design [see Figs. 1(a) and 1(b)]. Prior to construction, researchers at the University of Cincinnati (UC) formulated the high performance concrete mixes which would be used and conducted several tests on prototype girders.

HPC single-span design.

The prototype test results showed the simple span box girders to be sufficiently strong and ductile. These tests confirmed that girder behavior was predictable using linear elastic theory prior to cracking and a strain compatibility approach for the ultimate behavior. Satisfied with prototype girder performance, ODOT let the contract for the bridge construction, yet, there were still questions as to how the actual bridge would behave.

Fig. 1(b). Original, three-span design.

To try to answer these questions, the UC research team tested the bridge during and after construction. This paper summarizes the result of destructive and nondestructive testing of prototype girders and of nondestructive testing the completed bridge structure.

BRIDGE DESCRIPTION

Bridge GUE-22-6.57 is a 115.5 ft
(35.2 m) long prestressed, noncomposite, adjacent box girder bridge [see Fig. 1(a)]. The cross section of the bridge is shown in Fig. 2. The structure is

Fig. 2. Cross section of HPC bridge.

  • November-December 2000
  • 6ꢀ

This bridge utilizes an experimental shear key at middepth of the cross section. This shear key configuration was found to be less susceptible to cracking.1 After tying adjacent girders together with non-prestressed threaded rods located transversely through diaphragms at the ends and quarter points of the bridge (see Fig. 4), the shear keys are grouted. Note that in this configuration, only the shear key itself was to be grouted. The area above the middepth shear key was filled with sand and a sealant was applied to the top of the joint to further guard against leakage (see Fig. 5).

Fig. 3. Ohio B42-48 section.

MATERIAL PROPERTIES

The first task for the UC research team was developing a mix design which would produce extremely durable concrete that had high release and ultimate strengths. To make the girder span the required 115.5 ft (35.2 m), it was determined that the concrete would need a minimum compressive strength of 10 ksi (70 MPa ). For durability, a rapid chloride permeability of less than 1000 coulombs was desired. The mix was designed using the materials which the precaster had available. Normally, Type I cement is used for HPC, but the precaster usually used Type III and it was not economically desirable to change to Type I. generates a greater prestressing force and, therefore, high strength concrete is required. Another reason for using HPC is that it has a high durability. Adjacent box girders have shear keys cast between the girders to transfer shear between adjacent girders. Shear keys of adjacent box girder bridges tend to crack, and subsequently, allow water from the bridge surface to leak between the sides of adjacent box girders. Leakage can cause serious damage to the tendons and reinforcement when water and deicing chemicals penetrate the concrete. Leakage is a major problem with adjacent box girder bridges, so HPC with its high durability is an ideal choice for this type of structure.

To improve durability and strength, a water to cementitious material ratio (w/c+p) of less than 0.3 was chosen and microsilica was added to the mix. The precaster did not have a silo available to store the microsilica, so it was batched from bags. To avoid having to weigh the microsilica separately, the mix was designed using single bag increments of 25 lb (11.3 kg). This is why there is an unusual percentage (11.8 percent) for the microsilica. Because of the low w/c+p ratio and presence of microsilica, a water reducer was required both to provide enough workability and to defloculate the cement particles so the microsilica would be able to fit in between them and densify the mix. The fine aggregate was natural river sand. A No. 8, partially crushed, river gravel (3/8 in. or 10 mm max.) was used as the coarse aggregate. Because the aggregate was only partially

Fig. 4. Installing tie rods.

  • 62
  • PCI JOURNAL

Fig. 5.
Middepth shear key and tie rods.

strain gauges were placed between the strands at approximately 1 ft (3 m) intervals from each end of the girder prior to casting. After the girder had cured and the strands were cut, the measured strain was used to determine that somewhere between 35 in. and 48 in. (0.89 and 1.2 m) the transfer was complete. This means that the transfer length

was between 60D and 80D (where D

is the strand diameter). The AASHTO Standard Specifications2 use a transfer length of 50D, the AASHTO LRFD Specifications5 use a transfer length of 60D while a transfer length of 80D has been suggested in the literature.6 The prototype girders were subjected to destructive testing. Each girder was supported on neoprene pads such that the test span was 115.5 ft (35.2 m) and loaded with two-point loads placed crushed, the aggregate/paste bond did not appear to be particularly good and this appeared to limit the concrete strength. Making the specified strength required a high cement content. The specified strength could have been obtained with lower cement contents and/or higher w/c+p ratios with the use of a better aggregate (e.g., crushed limestone). the research team could verify the behavior of the girders. An in-depth discussion of the prototype fabrication and destructive testing can be found in a previous work.4 For completeness, a summary is presented here. One area explored was the transfer length for 0.6 in. (15 mm) diameter strand when used with HPC. To measure transfer length, vibrating wire
Thirteen trial mixes were investigated.2 The final mix proportions are shown in Table 1. During fabrication of the prototype and final bridge girders, test cylinders and modulus of rupture beams were cast and later tested to determine the concrete properties. Table 2 provides a list of the measured concrete properties.

Table 1. Concrete mix proportions.

  • Material
  • Lb per cu yd
  • kg/m3

  • 497
  • Cement

Microsilica Water
846

  • 100
  • 58.7

  • 262
  • 145

Fine aggregate Coarse aggregate
Air

  • 927
  • 544

GIRDER PROPERTIES

The girders are standard ODOT B42-48 box girders (see Fig. 3) and were designed using the provisions of the AASHTO Standard Specifications.3 The ODOT require bridges to be designed for an HS-20 loading, but this bridge was designed using the HS-25 loading to allow for future increases in traffic loads. Because of the experimental aspect of the bridge, the engineer added a few extra strands for additional safety. Thirty 0.6 in. (15 mm) diameter strands were used in the bottom flange with two additional strands placed in the top flange to control tension at release.

1774
6 percent
1042
6 percent

Admixtures

Air entrainer

  • Ounces per cu yd
  • l/m3

0.81 1.08 7.84
21

  • 28
  • Retarder

  • High range water reducer
  • 203

Table 2. Average concrete properties.

Compressive strength at release* Compressive strength at 56 days‡ Modulus of elasticity at 56 days‡ Modulus of rupture at 56 days§
Split strength at 56 days†
8 ksi (56 MPa)
11.8 ksi (80 MPa)
5800 ksi (40000 MPa)
1250 psi (8.6 MPa) 620 psi (4.3 MPa)
0.1 percent

DESTRUCTIVE TESTING OF
PROTOTYPE GIRDERS

Prior to the fabrication of the actual bridge girders, two prototype box girders were cast and tested. This was done so that the precaster could gain more experience in placing HPC and so that

Shrinkage after one year§
Creep coefficient after one year** Rapid chloride permeability at 56 days
2.1
360 coulumbs

* 6 x 12 in. cylinders - bed cured. † 6 x 12 in. cylinders - moist cured. ‡ 6 x 6 x 14 in. beams - moist cured. § 3 x 3 x 11.25 in. prisms - 28 days moist cure
** 6 x 12 in. cylinders - test started at 1 day (i.e., at release of prestressing force)

  • November-December 2000
  • 63

Fig. 6. Testing the prototype girder.

47.25 ft (14.4 m) from each support (see Fig. 6). Loads were applied such that the deflection of the girder under the load points increased in 0.05 in. (1.3 mm) increments. The first cracks in both girders appeared when the applied load at each point was approximately 42 kips (187 kN). Counting self weight, the total cracking moment was 3570 kip-ft (4840 kN-m). This value was larger than the 3155 kip-ft (4280 kN-m) cracking moment predicted using the provisions of the AASHTO Standard Specifications. Note that in calculating the cracking moment, a loss of prestressing force of 20 percent was assumed. This loss value was calculated from the provisions of the AASHTO Standard Specifications. One reason for the difference between the calculated and measured values of the cracking moment is that the modulus of rupture was taken as higher modulus of rupture. If the measured modulus of rupture of 1250 psi (8.6 MPa) is used, the calculated cracking moment becomes 3525 kip-ft (4780 kN-m), which is very close to the measured value. The use of the higher modulus of rupture is important since the provisions of the AASHTO Standard Specifications require that φ Mn > 1.2 Mcr, where Mn is the nominal moment, Mcr is the cracking moment and φ is the capacity reduction factor. If Mcr is underestimated, the design may not be conservative. The girders were loaded to approximately 80 kips (356 kN) at each load point. Again, accounting for self weight, the applied moment was 5320 kip-ft (7220 kN-m). This exceeded the ultimate moment of 5130 kip-ft (6960 kN- m), calculated using the provisions of the AASHTO Standard Specifications. Under this load, the girder had a very large deflection of 24 in. (61 m) at the midspan. This corresponds to a deflection of L/58, where L is the span.
The test was stopped at this point for safety reasons. Fig. 7 shows a load versus midspan deflection graph for one of the prototype girders. Also plotted is the behavior predicted using a computer program called RESPONSE.7 For a given moment, RESPONSE generates curvature and strain values for the cross section by strain compatibility. Deflections are found by first choosing an applied load level, plotting the moment diagram for the total moment (dead load plus applied load), and then using the result of this analysis to plot a curvature diagram. The curvature can then be double integrated to find the deflection. Load versus strain behavior is available directly from the RESPONSE results. Clearly, the girder deflection behavior is well predicted. A graph of load versus extreme fiber compressive strain (see Fig. 8) also shows good agreement between the analysis and experiments up to a strain of 0.002 (where the test was stopped).

  • 7.5
  • (in psi units), or 750 psi (5.3

MPa). However, HPC has a

  • Fig. 7. Load versus deflection for prototype girder.
  • Fig. 8. Load versus top compressive strain for prototype girder.

  • 64
  • PCI JOURNAL

Table 3. Loss of prestressing force – prototype girder.

Measured losses of prestressing force were determined experimentally on the prototype girders. The girders were loaded to cracking and then unloaded. When unloaded, the prestressing force causes the cracks to close. Clip gauges were placed across the closed cracks so that the crack opening could be measured when the girder was reloaded. When the girder is reloaded, the tensile stress from the applied moment relieves the compressive stress caused by the prestressing force and eventually overcomes it, causing the crack to open. Theoretically, the load at which the crack just begins to open (as measured by the clip gauges) corresponds to a zero stress state. Knowing the applied moment which causes a state of zero stress at a known point on the girder, it is possible to back-calculate the effective prestressing force. The measured values are shown in Table 3. Calculated values of the loss of prestressing force, from two different methods, are also presented. One method of calculating the loss of prestress is that given in the PCI Design Handbook8 and the other is the method given in the AASHTO Standard Specifications.2 The calculated values of loss of prestressing force are final values, which assume a large amount of time has passed and all of the creep, shrinkage and relaxation of the strands has occurred. The prototype girders were only 6 to 9 months old at the time of testing, so an exact comparison cannot be made. However, at 6 to 9 months, approximately 80 percent of the time-dependent deformations have occurred. With this in mind, the data in Table 3 suggest that the calculated values of loss of prestressing force are reasonable.

  • Girder 1
  • Girder 2

Crack 1

  • PCI
  • AASHTO

  • Crack 1
  • Crack 2

  • 17 percent
  • 18 percent
  • 17.5 percent
  • 18 percent
  • 20 percent

lems occurred during the fabrication of the girders and only minor adjustments to the usual fabrication process were needed to accommodate the use of HPC. Most of these accommodations centered around the fact that HPC tends to be sticky, does not move well under vibration and has a high rate of slump loss. The workers simply needed to use greater care in the method and rate of placement to prevent cold joints or voids. Girder camber was measured at release and at various times while the girders were in storage. At release, the girders showed a camber of about 1/8 in. (3 mm), but growth in storage began immediately. Before the girders were shipped to the construction site, they had cambered up an average of 1.5 in. (38 mm). This behavior is in reasonable agreement with a predicted value of 1.66 in. (42 mm), which was calculated using elastic theory and accounting for time-dependent effects by using the multipliers given in the PCI Design Handbook. initial prestressing force. The calculated loss due to elastic shortening was approximately 6 percent.

INSTRUMENTATION OF THE GIRDERS

During the fabrication of the actual box girders for the bridge, a total of 69 internal sensors were embedded. A total of 57 vibrating wire strain gauges and 12 bonded foil strain gauges were embedded inside the girders. All the internal sensors were installed at midspan. Vibrating wire strain gauges were used to measure static truckload strains but are not capable of measuring dynamic events. In addition, temperature changes during curing and afterwards could be measured by thermistors in the vibrating wire gauges. The foil strain gauges measure instantaneous strains under traffic loading and can capture dynamic responses from moving trucks. Depending on the girder location, the number and layout of the embedded strain gauges were varied. This scheme allowed a reasonable and adequate number of sensors. All the girders had a single foil strain gauge near the middle of the bottom flange. As a minimum, two vibrating wire strain gauges were used in each girder – one in the top flange and one in the bottom flange.
Embedded strain gauges (see next section on Instrumentation) were read before and after detensioning and several times during girder storage. Using these readings, the strain change in concrete at strand level was calculated to be 580 microstrain at transfer. Thus, the loss at detensioning due to elastic shortening becomes 8.8 percent of the

The results of the prototype testing clearly showed that the girders were sufficiently strong and predictable. With the prototype girder testing complete, the girders for the actual bridge were fabricated.

FABRICATION OF THE BRIDGE
GIRDERS

The actual bridge girders were fabricated at Prestress Services, Melbourne, Kentucky. No major prob-

Fig. 9. Girder numbering for Phase I and Phase II.

  • November-December 2000
  • 65

Additional sensors were installed in some of the girders to measure the distribution of strains and temperature gradient through the depth and across the width of the girders. Considering that Girders 4 through 9 (see Fig. 9) will resist most of the traffic loads, these girders were instrumented more heavily than the other girders. The vibrating wire strain gauges in the bottom flange were placed between the strands and gauges in the web were placed between the stirrups. To ensure adequate protection and long-term durability, the foil strain gauges were mounted onto auxiliary No. 4 mild steel reinforcement with adequate development length. These auxiliary bars were gauged in the laboratory. Durable adhesives, requiring oven curing, were used. Following the strain gauge manufacturer's recommended procedures, each gauge was protected from moisture. The strain-gauged bars were tied onto the bottom transverse reinforcement. The electrical wires to the internal sensors were numbered and routed to what would be the east end of the girder when the bridge was completed. At this location, a sufficient length of the electrical wire to connect the gauges to a data acquisition system at the bridge site was coiled and placed inside electrical boxes, which had been secured to the reinforcing cage. The end of each electrical wire was then taken out of the formwork. These electrical wire ends were then connected to a data acquisition system. The instruments were checked during fabrication to ensure no damage had occurred. Later, instruments were used to measure the heat of hydration during curing and monitor the response of the girders during detensioning. Prior to shipping the girders, the extra electrical cable was cut and the area around the electrical cable on the top flange was sealed. After the girders were placed, the instruments could be attached to the data acquisition system by accessing the wires through electrical boxes embedded in the bottom of the girders. removed and the channel in this area was widened. One-half of each new abutment, consisting of concrete filled tube piles, a pile cap and a beam seat, was constructed at each end. The first seven girders (see Figs.
2 and 9) were delivered and set on neoprene bearing pads. After the threaded rods were installed, the shear keys were grouted and the longitudinal joints were sealed. The top surface of the Phase I girders was covered with a waterproofing membrane and then a layer of asphalt. Traffic was then routed to the completed half of the new bridge. In Phase II, the other half of the old bridge was removed and the channel was widened. After constructing the remaining halves of the two abutments, Girders 8 to 12 (see Figs. 2 and 9) were sequentially put in place, installing and tightening the threaded rods along the way. However, only the shear keys between Girders 8 to 12 were grouted. The shear key at the construction joint between Girder 7 in Phase I and Girder 8 in Phase II was not grouted because of the constant movement of Girder 7 due to the traffic on Phase I half of the bridge. Without the shear key in place, the vertical displacements of Girder 7 due to the traffic load caused spalling on the bottom edge of Girder 8 where it contacted Girder 7. This occurred because there is a small amount of tension in the transverse rods which is used to pull the girders together during erection (but is not intended as a transverse post-tensioning).

Recommended publications
  • Review on Applicability of Box Girder for Balanced Cantilever Bridge Sneha Redkar1, Prof

    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.
  • Bridges for Planes, Trains, but Not Automobiles by David A

    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.
  • Single-Span Cast-In-Place Post-Tensioned Concrete

    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.
  • Recent Technology of Prestressed Concrete Bridges in Japan

    Recent Technology of Prestressed Concrete Bridges in Japan

    IABSE-JSCE Joint Conference on Advances in Bridge Engineering-II, August 8-10, 2010, Dhaka, Bangladesh. ISBN: 978-984-33-1893-0 Amin, Okui, Bhuiyan (eds.) www.iabse-bd.org Recent technology of prestressed concrete bridges in Japan Hiroshi Mutsuyoshi & Nguyen Duc Hai Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Saitama University, Saitama 338-8570, Japan Akio Kasuga Sumitomo Mitsui Construction Co., Ltd., Tokyo 104-0051, Japan ABSTRACT: Prestressed concrete (PC) technology is being used all over the world in the construction of a wide range of bridge structures. However, many PC bridges have been deteriorating even before the end of their design service-life due to corrosion and other environmental effects. In view of this, a number of innova- tive technologies have been developed in Japan to increase not only the structural performance of PC bridges, but also their long-term durability. These include the development of novel structural systems and the ad- vancement in construction materials. This paper presents an overview of such innovative technologies on PC bridges on their development and applications in actual construction projects. Some noteworthy structures, which represent the state-of-the-art technologies in the construction of PC bridges in Japan, are also pre- sented. 1 INTRODUCTION Prestressed concrete (PC) technology is widely being used all over the world in construction of wide range of structures, particularly bridge structures. In Japan, the application of prestressed concrete was first introduced in the 1950s, and since then, the construction of PC bridges has grown dramatically. The increased interest in the construction of PC bridges can be attributed to the fact that the initial and life-cycle cost of PC bridges, including repair and maintenance, are much lower than those of steel bridges.
  • Framework for Improving Resilience of Bridge Design

    Framework for Improving Resilience of Bridge Design

    U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Framework for Improving Resilience of Bridge Design Publication No. FHWA-IF-11-016 January 2011 Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for use of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Quality Assurance Statement The Federal Highway Administration provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement. Framework for Improving Resilience of Bridge Design Report No. FHWA-IF-11-016 January 2011 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-IF-11-016 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Framework for Improving Resilience of Bridge Design January 2011 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Brandon W. Chavel and John M. Yadlosky 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. HDR Engineering, Inc. 11 Stanwix Street, Suite 800 11. Contract or Grant No. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Office of Bridge Technology Technical Report Federal Highway Administration September 2007 – January 2011 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, D.C. 20590 14.
  • Strengthening of a Long Span Prestressed Segmental Box Girder Bridge

    Strengthening of a Long Span Prestressed Segmental Box Girder Bridge

    Strengthening of a Long Span Prestressed Segmental Box Girder Bridge Bruno Massicotte The Grand-Mere Bridge in the province of Ph.D., P.Eng. Quebec, Canada, is a 285 m (935 ft) long, Associate Professor cast-in-place, segmental box girder bridge that Department of Civil Engineering Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal experienced several problems which resulted Montreal , Quebec, Canada in distress characterized by an increasing de­ Formerly, Bridge Design Engineer at the Quebec Ministry of Transportation flection combined with localized cracking. These defects were due mainly to insufficient prestressing causing high tensile stresses in the deck and possible corrosion of the pre­ stressing steel. To remedy this situation, the Quebec Ministry of Transportation strength­ ened the bridge by adding external prestress­ Andre Picard ing equivalent to 30 percent of the remaining Ph.D., P.Eng. internal prestressing. The paper describes the Professor Department of Civil Engineering causes of the distress and focuses on the as­ Universite Laval sumptions adopted in the analyses to deter­ Quebec City, Quebec, Canada mine the current state of the bridge. The tech­ Yvon Gaumond, P.Eng. nique and design criteria used in strengthening Bridge Design Chief Engineer the Grand-Mere Bridge are described. Also, Bridge Department the construction aspects and the various prob­ Quebec Ministry of Transportation lems met during the external prestressing op­ Quebec City, Quebec, Canada eration are discussed. The new technology and experience gained in strengthening this structure can be applied to both pretensioned and post-tensioned concrete bridges. he Grand-Mere Bridge, a 285 m (935 ft) long, cast-in­ Claude Ouellet, P.Eng.
  • Bridge Engineering Handbook

    Bridge Engineering Handbook

    Sauvageot, G. “Segmental Concrete Bridges.” Bridge Engineering Handbook. Ed. Wai-Fah Chen and Lian Duan Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2000 11 Segmental Concrete Bridges 11.1 Introduction 11.2 Balanced Cantilever Girder Bridges Overview • Span Arrangement and Typical Cross Sections • Cast-in-Place Balanced Cantilever Bridges • Precast Balanced Cantilever Bridges • Loads on Substructure • Typical Post-Tensioning Layout • Articulation and Hinges 11.3 Progressive and Span-by-Span Constructed Bridges Overview • Progressive Construction • Span-by-Span Construction 11.4 Incrementally Launched Bridges Overview • Special Requirements • Typical Post-Tensioning Layout • Techniques for Reducing Launching Moments • Casting Bed and Launching Methods 11.5 Arches, Rigid Frames, and Truss Bridges Arch Bridges • Rigid Frames • Segmental Trusses 11.6 Segmental Cable-Stayed Bridges Overview • Cantilever Construction • In-Stage Construction • Push-Out Construction 11.7 Design Considerations Overview • Span Arrangement • Cross-Section Dimensions • Temperature Gradients • Deflection • Post-Tensioning Layout 11.8 Seismic Considerations Design Aspects and Design Codes • Deck/Superstructure Connection 11.9 Casting and Erection Casting • Erection 11.10 Future of Segmental Bridges The Challenge • Concepts • New Developments • Environmental Impact • Industrial Production of Gerard Sauvageot Structures • The Assembly of Structures • J. Muller International Prospective © 2000 by CRC Press LLC 11.1 Introduction Before the advent of segmental construction, concrete bridges would often be made of several precast girders placed side by side, with joints between girders being parallel to the longitudinal axis of the bridge. With the modern segmental concept, the segments are slices of a structural element between joints which are perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the structure. When segmental construction first appeared in the early 1950s, it was either cast in place as used in Germany by Finsterwalder et al., or precast as used in France by Eugène Freyssinet and Jean Muller.
  • G 13.1 Guidelines for Steel Girder Bridge Analysis.Pdf

    G 13.1 Guidelines for Steel Girder Bridge Analysis.Pdf

    G13.1 Guidelines for Steel Girder Bridge Analysis 2nd Edition American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials National Steel Bridge Alliance AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration Copyright © 2014 by the AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration All rights reserved. ii G13.1 Guidelines for Steel Girder Bridge Analysis PREFACE This document is a standard developed by the AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration. The primary goal of the Collaboration is to achieve steel bridge design and construction of the highest quality and value through standardization of the design, fabrication, and erection processes. Each standard represents the consensus of a diverse group of professionals. It is intended that Owners adopt and implement Collaboration standards in their entirety to facilitate the achievement of standardization. It is understood, however, that local statutes or preferences may prevent full adoption of the document. In such cases Owners should adopt these documents with the exceptions they feel are necessary. Cover graphics courtesy of HDR Engineering. DISCLAIMER The information presented in this publication has been prepared in accordance with recognized engineering principles and is for general information only. While it is believed to be accurate, this information should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent professional examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability, and applicability by a licensed professional engineer, designer, or architect. The publication of the material contained herein is not intended as a representation or warranty of the part of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) or the National Steel Bridge Alliance (NSBA) or of any other person named herein, that this information is suitable for any general or particular use or of freedom from infringement of any patent or patents.
  • Bridge Engineering

    Bridge Engineering

    PND Engineers, Inc., founded in 1979, is a full-service consulting engineering firm that provides civil, marine, geotechnical, structural, surveying, and construction inspection services for a wide range of projects. Tanana River Bridge Work Trestle | Tok, Alaska Koloa Bridge | Tyonek, Alaska HHIGHWAYIGHWAY PEDESTRIAN RECRECRR RRAILROADAILROAD PIPELINE FLOATFLOATII TTEMPORARYEMPORARY PRE-STRESSED C SSTEELTEEL TRUSSBRIDGE CONCRETE SLA Chief Joseph Dam Bridge | Bridgeport, Washington BOX-GIRDERENGINEERING SSTEELT EEL I-GIRDEI-GIRDERR GLULAMPLANNING, TIMBER DESIGN & PERMITTING TRUSS COCOVV Bridge Engineering Capabilities Design Expertise: Highway Bridges Site Selection TTIMBERIMBER WORK ACCESS TRESTRESTT High-Capacity Bridges Geotechnical Analysis Railroad Bridges Hydrology & Hydraulics HHIGHWAYIGHWAY PEDESTRIAN RECRECRR Pipeline Bridges Structural Design & Modeling Pedestrian & Multi-Use Bridges Permitting & Environmental Floating Bridges Seismic Conditions RRAILROADAILROAD PIPELINE FLOATFLOATII Construction/Temporary Bridges Construction Inspection Existing Bridge Evaluations TTEMPORARYEMPORARY PRE-STRESSED C SSTEELTEEL TRUSS CONCRETE SLA P Headquarters: N D Anchorage Office Juneau Office Seattle Office BOX-GIRDER SSTEELT EEL I-GIRDEI-GIRDERR E NGINEERS, I NC. 1506 West 36th Avenue 9360 Glacier Highway, Suite 100 811 First Avenue, Suite 570 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Seattle, Washington 98104 GLULAM TIMBER TRUSS COCOVV Phone: 907.561.1011 Phone: 907.586.2093 Phone: 206.624.1387 Fax: 907.563.4220 Fax: 907.586.2099 Fax: 206.624.1388 TTIMBERIMBER HIGHWAY PEDESTRPEDESTRII For additional information please visit our website. www.pndengineers.com RRECREATIONALECREATIONAL RAILROAD P FFLOATINGLOATING TEMPORARYPND PREPRE-- c Copyright 2012, PND Engineers, Inc. CONCRECONCRETET E STEELST EEL TRUSSTE NGINEERS,RUSS I NC. CO P N D HIGHWAY BRIDGES Bridge engineering requires an understanding of not only structural design and analysis but also of the environmental conditions ENGINEERS, INC.
  • Guidance Note 1.08, Box Girder Bridges

    Guidance Note 1.08, Box Girder Bridges

    Guidance Note Box girder bridges No. 1.08 Scope Why choose steel box girders? This Guidance Note gives an overview of the The selection, or otherwise, of a steel box main design issues for steel box girders in girder always needs a consideration of the short and medium span bridge schemes. SCI- relative advantages and disadvantages of box publication P140 (Ref 1) gives a more exten- girder elements compared to the more tradi- sive treatment of steel box girder design. tional I girder elements. Comments relate principally to the use of box Advantages, compared to I girders girders as the main girders, acting compositely High torsional stiffness and strength, giving with a deck slab, but many of the considera- greater suitability for horizontally curved tions are also applicable where box sections bridges, greater aerodynamic stability and are used as arch members. reduced susceptibility to lateral buckling of flanges (in lateral-torsional or distortional Advice on the use of steel box girders in long buckling modes). span road bridge schemes, particularly those with orthotropic steel decks, is not covered by Reduced need for support points. this Guidance Note. Improved durability and reduced mainte- nance of protective coatings (less exposed Current use of steel box girders surface, fewer edges, avoidance of ex- Road bridges posed horizontal surfaces, no exposed Nowadays, in short and medium span road bracing and stiffeners). bridge construction, steel box girders acting The clean lines of a closed box girder are compositely with a deck slab are usually only also often considered give a better appear- found in schemes where a high emphasis on ance, particularly for footbridges where the aesthetics justifies their increased fabrication visual impact is considered to be important.
  • AASHTO LRFD—Shear Resistance, Part 1 48 Photo: Horrock Engineers

    AASHTO LRFD—Shear Resistance, Part 1 48 Photo: Horrock Engineers

    THE CONCRETE BRIDGE MAGAZINE WINTER 2013 96th Street Bridge over U.S. 169 Kansas City, Missouri NEW JERSEY ROUTE 52 CAUSEWAY Ocean City and Somers Point, New Jersey I-25 TRINIDAD VIADUCT Trinidad, Colorado THE TWO MEDICINE RIVER BRIDGE www.aspirebridge.org East Glacier Park, Montana SOUTH NORFOLK JORDAN BRIDGE Chesapeake and Portsmouth, Virginia OHIO & ERIE CANAL AQUEDUCT OVER TINKERS CREEK Cuyahoga Valley National Park, Ohio Permit No. 567 No. Permit U.S. Postage Paid Postage U.S. Presorted Standard Presorted Lebanon Junction, KY Lebanon Junction, CONTENTS 12 Features Burns & McDonnell 6 Diversification brings growth, innovation. New Jersey Route 52 Causeway 12 Ribbon-in-space design solves horizontal and vertical alignment challenges. I-25 Trinidad Viaduct 16 Tight curves and variable depths challenge bridge designers. The Two Medicine River Bridge 24 Segmental box-girder bridge complements surroundings, improves access to Glacier National Park. Photo: Stokes Creative Group Inc. South Norfolk Jordan Bridge 28 Virginia’s new all-precast concrete bridge restores a vital transportation connection. 24 Ohio & Erie Canal Aqueduct over Tinkers Creek 32 Concrete allows for the successful reconstruction of a national treasure blending functionality with historic preservation. Departments Editorial 2 Concrete Calendar and Corrections 4 Perspective–Evaluation of Common Design Policies for Precast, Prestressed Concrete I-Girder Bridges 10 CCC—Creating a Neighborhood Icon 15 Accelerated Bridge Construction 21 Photo: Jacobs Engineering with permission from the Montana Department of Transportation. Aesthetics Commentary 35 FHWA—MAP-21: Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act 36 28 State—Massachusetts 38 Safety and Serviceability 42 CCC—Klyde Warren Park–Dallas 43 Concrete Bridge Preservation 44 Concrete Connections 47 AASHTO LRFD—Shear Resistance, Part 1 48 Photo: Horrock Engineers.
  • Wisdot Bridge Manual Chapter 24 – Steel Girder Structures

    Wisdot Bridge Manual Chapter 24 – Steel Girder Structures

    WisDOT Bridge Manual Chapter 24 – Steel Girder Structures Table of Contents 24.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 5 24.1.1 Types of Steel Girder Structures ............................................................................... 5 24.1.2 Structural Action of Steel Girder Structures .............................................................. 5 24.1.3 Fundamental Concepts of Steel I-Girders ................................................................. 5 24.2 Materials ........................................................................................................................ 11 24.2.1 Bars and Plates ...................................................................................................... 12 24.2.2 Rolled Sections ....................................................................................................... 12 24.2.3 Threaded Fasteners ............................................................................................... 12 24.2.3.1 Bolted Connections ......................................................................................... 13 24.2.4 Quantity Determination ........................................................................................... 14 24.3 Design Specification and Data ....................................................................................... 15 24.3.1 Specifications ........................................................................................................