DOCSLIB.ORG

Bridge Anatomy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bridge Anatomy Bridge Maintenance Course Series Reference Manual Chapter 3 – Table of Contents Chapter 3 - Bridge Anatomy ...................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Bridge Components and Elements ........................................................................................ 3-1 3.1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.2 Bridge Deck and Related Elements.............................................................................. 3-1 3.1.2.1 Structural Deck/Slab .......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2.2 Wearing Surface ................................................................................................................. 3-2 3.1.2.3 Approach Slabs ................................................................................................................... 3-3 3.1.2.4 Joints .................................................................................................................................. 3-4 3.1.2.5 Curbs and Sidewalks .......................................................................................................... 3-5 3.1.2.6 Railing and Safety Features ................................................................................................ 3-6 3.1.2.7 Drainage ............................................................................................................................. 3-7 3.1.3 Superstructure ............................................................................................................. 3-8 3.1.3.1 Beams/Girders ................................................................................................................... 3-9 3.1.3.2 Timber Longitudinal Deck Superstructures ..................................................................... 3-16 3.1.3.3 Trusses ............................................................................................................................. 3-17 3.1.4 Substructure .............................................................................................................. 3-21 3.1.4.1 Abutments ...................................................................................................................... 3-21 3.1.4.2 Wingwalls ......................................................................................................................... 3-24 3.1.4.3 Piers .................................................................................................................................. 3-25 3.1.4.4 Caps .................................................................................................................................. 3-27 3.1.4.5 Piles .................................................................................................................................. 3-28 3.1.4.6 Columns ........................................................................................................................... 3-29 3.1.4.7 Footings ............................................................................................................................ 3-29 3.1.5 Structures Located in the Channel ............................................................................ 3-29 3.1.5.1 Fender Systems............................................................................................................... 3-29 3.1.5.2 Dolphins .......................................................................................................................... 3-30 3.1.5.3 Slope Protection ............................................................................................................. 3-30 3.1.5.4 Spurs and Dikes .............................................................................................................. 3-31 3.2 Bridge Types and Design Details .......................................................................................... 3-32 3.2.1 Multi-Girder System Bridge ....................................................................................... 3-32 i Bridge Maintenance Course Series Reference Manual 3.2.2 Girder and Floorbeam Bridge .................................................................................... 3-32 3.2.3 Thru-girder (Concrete and Steel) ............................................................................... 3-33 3.2.4 Slabs ........................................................................................................................... 3-33 3.2.5 FRP Decks and Superstructures ................................................................................. 3-34 3.2.6 Rigid Frames .............................................................................................................. 3-34 3.2.7 Trusses ....................................................................................................................... 3-34 3.2.8 Arches ........................................................................................................................ 3-35 3.2.9 Culverts and Pipes (Concrete and Metal) .................................................................. 3-37 3.2.9.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3-37 3.2.9.2 Headwalls ....................................................................................................................... 3-37 3.2.9.3 Wingwalls ......................................................................................................................... 3-39 3.2.9.3 Box Culvert ....................................................................................................................... 3-40 3.2.9.4 Barrel/Pipe ....................................................................................................................... 3-41 3.2.10 Cable Supported Bridges ......................................................................................... 3-42 3.2.12 Ancillary Structures.................................................................................................. 3-44 3.3 Chapter 3 Reference List ...................................................................................................... 3-45 ii Bridge Maintenance Course Series Reference Manual Chapter 3 – List of Figures Figure 3.1 Major Bridge Components .......................................................................................... 3-1 Figure 3.2 Steel Grid Deck ............................................................................................................ 3-2 Figure 3.3 Timber Plank Deck ...................................................................................................... 3-2 Figure 3.4 Composite Deck and Steel Superstructure Showing Wearing Surface....................... 3-3 Figure 3.5 Approach Slab to Roadway Approach ........................................................................ 3-4 Figure 3.6 Top View of an Armored Compression Seal ............................................................... 3-4 Figure 3.7 Top View of a Finger Plate Joint.................................................................................. 3-5 Figure 3.8 Leaky Joints Lead to Problems at Bearings and Pier Caps .......................................... 3-5 Figure 3.9 Bridge Sidewalk Using Stamped Concrete for Aesthetics and Concrete Curb ........... 3-6 Figure 3.10 End Termination of Metal Beam Guide Rail at Approach Transition ....................... 3-6 Figure 3.11 Approach Guardrail Transition ................................................................................. 3-7 Figure 3.12 Example of an Approach Guardrail End Treatment .................................................. 3-7 Figure 3.13 Schematics of Several Superstructure Types ............................................................ 3-9 Figure 3.14 Riveted I-girder (left) and Welded Plate Girder (right) ............................................. 3-9 Figure 3.15 Bearing Stiffener ..................................................................................................... 3-10 Figure 3.16 Intermediate Stiffeners ........................................................................................... 3-10 Figure 3.17 Shear Studs Being Welded On ................................................................................ 3-11 Figure 3.18 Typical Concrete Beam / Girder Shapes ................................................................. 3-11 Figure 3.19 Non-Prestressed Reinforced Concrete vs. Precast Prestressed Concrete .............. 3-12 Figure 3.20 Typical Prestressed Concrete Girder Sections ........................................................ 3-13 Figure 3.21 Segmental Precast Concrete Box Girder Bridge Examples ..................................... 3-15 Figure 3.22 Nail-Laminated Decks. Pre-Fabricated (left) and Site-Constructed (right) ............. 3-17 Figure 3.23 Schematic of Steel Truss ......................................................................................... 3-17 Figure 3.24 Truss Components (Courtesy of ODOT) .................................................................. 3-18 Figure 3.25 Typical Types of Timber Trusses ............................................................................. 3-19 Figure 3.26 Typical Types of Through Trusses ..........................................................................
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]
  • 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]
  • Bridges and Applications Bridges and Applications Bridges and Applications Arch Bridges
    10/23/2014 Bridges and Applications Bridges and Applications • Bridges are used to span across distances that are difficult to otherwise pass through. • Rivers • Deep gorges • Other roadways Bridges and Applications Arch Bridges • There are four basic types of bridges – Arch – Beam – Suspension – Cable‐stayed • Each type has different design and is therefore better suited to different applications 1 10/23/2014 Arch Bridges Arch Bridges • Instead of pushing straight down, the weight of an arch bridge is carried outward along the curve of the arch to the supports at each end. Abutments, carry • These supports, called the abutments, carry the load the load and keep the ends of the bridge from spreading outward. and keep the ends of the bridge from spreading outward Arch Bridges Arch Bridges • When supporting its own weight and the • Today, materials like steel and pre‐stressed weight of crossing traffic, every part of the concrete have made it possible to build longer arch is under compression. and more elegant arches. • For this reason, arch bridges must be made of materials that are strong under compression. New River Gorge, – Rock West Virginia. – Concrete 2 10/23/2014 Arch Bridges Arch Bridges • Usually arch bridges employ vertical supports • Typically, arch bridges span between 200 and called spandrels to distribute the weight of 800 feet. the roadway to the arch below. Arch Bridges One of the most revolutionary arch bridges in recent years is the Natchez Trace Parkway Bridge in Franklin, Tennessee, which was opened to traffic in 1994. It's the first American arch bridge to be constructed from segments of precast concrete, a highly economical material.
    [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]
  • 2005 • Modern Steel Construction November 2005 • Modern Steel Construction • 36 Diation of the Existing Steel Stringers Was Minimal
    NATIONAL STEEL BRIDGE ALLIANCE PRIZE BRIDGE COMPETITION NATIONAL AWARD RECONSTRUCTED Red Cliff Arch Rehabilitation Project Red Cliff, CO Gregg Gargan ocated near Red Cliff, CO, southwest of Vail railroad. Any falling material would have been haz- existing connections. A bare concrete deck was used on U.S. Highway 24, the Red Cliff Arch Bridge ardous not only to the public, but also to the envi- to minimize the dead loads. Because of the widening, Lwas originally completed in 1941. Sixty-three ronment. A hard platform scaffolding system was the overhang became larger. To minimize the effects years later, the bridge was in dire need of help. Due required and provided several safety and schedule of the large overhang, a mandatory construction to age, as well as loads and traffic that were not envi- benefits. joint was placed beyond the exterior stringer. The sioned in the 1940s, the bridge needed an extensive Since Highway 24 is the main access to this core of the deck was placed first and allowed to gain rehabilitation. popular ski destination, closure of the highway was strength. The curb and remaining deck was then The newly rehabilitated Red Cliff Arch Bridge a concern. In order to achieve a superior concrete placed with their loads distributed to the newly com- was dedicated in November 2004. Preserving the product for the deck, a complete closure for the posite bridge core. To increase strength of the reha- structure’s historical integrity, while updating it to bridge was deemed necessary. To minimize the bilitated bridge, shear studs were added to stringers current safety standards and strength requirements, impact on the town, the contract required the bridge to create a composite deck.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Suspension Bridge.Pdf
    Grades 60 minutes 3–5, 6–8 Human Suspension Bridge Create a bridge with your body. Instructions Materials Students create a suspension bridge with their bodies and PER CLASS: experience the forces that make a suspension bridge work. Two pieces of sturdy, wide rope, each 10–12 feet 1 Introduce the activity by showing different examples of Photographs of various suspension bridges suspension bridges, if available. (optional) 2 Next, demonstrate the force of tension. Let students know they will be making contact via their arms and get whatever consent is needed. Ask students to pair up and stand facing their partner. Have each team member grasp the other’s forearms. Both students lean back. Their arms should stretch out between them. Go around to several pairs and lean gently on top of their arms to test their structure. Explain that when you lean on them you are pushing down and causing their arms to stretch, or be put into tension. Find more activities at: www.DiscoverE.org 3 Now demonstrate the force of compression: Have partners press the palms of their hands together and lean toward one another, making an arch with their bodies. Go around to each pair and push on top of the arch. Explain that when you push down you cause them to push together, or to be put into compression. 4 To build the human bridge, select 16 students. Arrange students like so: • Two pairs of taller students—the “towers”—stand across from each other and hold the ropes (the cable) on their shoulders. • Four students act as anchors.
    [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]
  • An Overview of Precast Prestressed Segmental Bridges
    An Overview of Precast Prestressed ♦ Segmental Bridges Walter Podolny, Jr. Bridge Division Office of Engineering Federal Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. he seventies will be recorded by Construction in this manner may T engineering historians as the de- also have a serious impact upon envi- cade in which prestressed concrete ronment and ecology. Prestressed segmental bridge construction came of segmental construction has extended age in North America. Segmental box the practical span of concrete bridges girder bridges have attracted the at- to approximately 800 ft (244 m). tention and captured the imagination Where segmental construction is used of bridge engineers and designers in conjunction with the cable-stay across the continent. bridge concept, the span range can be Because of practical limitations of extended to 1300 ft (400 m) and handling and shipping, the precast perhaps longer.' prestressed I-girder type of bridge Because construction of the super- construction is limited to an approxi- structure is executed from above, i.e., mate range of 120 to 150-ft (37 to 46 at deck level, the use of extensive m) spans. Beyond this range of span, falsework is avoided. Thus, there is no post-tensioned cast-in-place box gir- effect upon navigation clearance from ders on falsework are more attractive. falsework during construction and the However, in certain instances the ex- cost of extensive formwork is elimi- tensive use of falsework can prove to nated. Segmental viaduct type bridges be an economic disadvantage. Where provide a method whereby the impact deep ravines or navigable waterways of highway construction through en- must be crossed, extensive formwork vironmentally sensitive areas can be may be impractical.
    [Show full text]
  • Simple Innovative Comparison of Costs Between Tied-Arch Bridge and Cable-Stayed Bridge
    MATEC Web of Conferences 258, 02015 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20192 5802015 SCESCM 20 18 Simple innovative comparison of costs between tied-arch bridge and cable-stayed bridge Järvenpää Esko1,*, Quach Thanh Tung2 1WSP Finland, Oulu, Finland 2WSP Finland, Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam Abstract. The proposed paper compares tied-arch bridge alternatives and cable-stayed bridge alternatives based on needed load-bearing construction material amounts in the superstructure. The comparisons are prepared between four tied arch bridge solutions and four cable-stayed bridge solutions of the same span lengths. The sum of the span lengths is 300 m. The rise of arch as well as the height of pylon and cable arrangements follow optimal dimensions. The theoretic optimum rise of tied-arch for minimum material amount is higher than traditionally used for aesthetic reason. The optimum rise for minimum material amount parabolic arch is shown in the paper. The mathematical solution uses axial force index method presented in the paper. For the tied-arches the span-rise-ration of 3 is used. The hangers of the tied-arches are vertical-The tied-arches are calculated by numeric iteration method in order to get moment-less arch. The arches are designed as constant stress arch. The area and the weight of the cross section follow the compression force in the arch. In addition the self-weight of the suspender cables are included in the calculation. The influence of traffic loads are calculated by using a separate FEM program. It is concluded that tied-arch is a competitive alternative to cable-stayed bridge especially when asymmetric bridge spans are considered.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Trail Bridge Design
    U.S. Department of Transportation United States Department of Agriculture Federal Highway Administration Sustainable Trail Bridge Design Forest National Technology & 2023–2805P–NTDP March 2020 Service Development Program 2300–Recreation Sustainable Trail Bridge Design Notice Ordering Information This document was produced in cooperation with You can order a copy of this document using the the Recreational Trails Program of the U.S. Depart- order form on FHWA’s Recreational Trails Program ment of Transportation’s Federal Highway Adminis- website <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/rec- tration in the interest of information exchange. The reational_trails/publications/trailpub.cfm> U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of Fill out the order form and submit it electronically. information contained in this document. Or you may email your request to: [email protected] The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names Or you may mail your request to: appear in this report only because they are consid- Szanca Solutions/FHWA PDC ered essential to the objective of this document. 700 North 3rd Avenue The contents of this report reflect the views of the Altoona, PA 16601 authors, who are responsible for the facts and Fax: 814–239–2156 accuracy of the data presented herein. The con- tents do not necessarily reflect the official policy of Produced by the U.S. Department of Transportation. This report USDA Forest Service does not constitute a standard, specification, or National Technology and Development Program regulation. 5785 Hwy. 10 West Missoula, MT 59808–9361 Phone: 406–329–3978 Fax: 406–329–3719 Email: [email protected] U.S.
    [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]