DOCSLIB.ORG

Strengthening of a Long Span Prestressed Segmental Box Girder Bridge

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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. place, post-tensioned segmental structure built in 1977 (Fig. 1), consists of a single-cell box girder. It is Senior Bridge Engineer T Bridge Department located 200 km (125 miles) northeast of Montreal on High­ Quebec Ministry of Transportation way 55, where it crosses the St. Maurice River near the Quebec City, Quebec, Canada town of Grand-Mere. 52 PCI JOURNAL An article on the design and con­ struction of the Grand-Mere Bridge appeared in the January-February 1979 PCI JOURNAV and the project won a Special Jury Award in the 1978 PCI Awards Program. This long and slender bridge is an elegant structure which blends in well with the sur­ rounding landscape. Unfortunately, this bridge experi­ enced various problems and distress during and after its construction, result­ ing in localized cracking and increasing deflection in the 181.4 m (595 ft) cen­ tral span. These problems were due mainly to insufficient prestressing as a result of construction problems, opti­ mistic design assumptions, and a lim­ ited state of knowledge at that time, es­ pecially regarding thermal stresses. Fig. 1. The Grand-Mere Bridge. Numerous studies showed that the short-term bridge safety was adequate. However, because of the potential risk SCOPE OF THE PAPER tant monitoring program carried out of cracking in the deck, the studies on the bridge during the strengthening also indicated that the long-term in­ This paper is the first of two com­ process. This program studied the var­ tegrity could be affected if corrective panion papers describing the correc­ ious aspects of the bridge's behavior measures were not taken immediately. tive measures applied to the Grand­ before, during and after the strength­ Based on these technical evaluations Mere Bridge. The scope of this first ening operation. and considering the structure's impor­ paper is to present the history of the tance, the owner, the Quebec Ministry bridge, describe the various problems of Transportation (QMT), decided to met during construction, and discuss BRIDGE DESCRIPTION strengthen the bridge. Additional lon­ the subsequent distresses, their causes The Grand-Mere Bridge, a 285 m gitudinal prestressing corresponding to and their remedies. It presents the as­ (935 ft) long structure, consists of 30 percent of the remaining amount sumptions used in the analyses to es­ three continuous spans of 39.6, 181.4 corrected the lack of sufficient pre­ tablish the bridge state and later to de­ and 39.6 m (130, 595 and 130ft), stressing. The strengthening design, in sign the strengthening program. The completed with a wedge-shaped, solid which the authors of this paper played use of individually lubricated strands cantilever of 12.2 m (40ft) at each end an active role, was done by the QMT and details of the cable anchorage sys­ acting as counterweights (Fig. 2). The Bridge Department. tem to the existing structure are de­ length of the central span was a re­ Construction began in May 1991 scribed. The construction aspects and markable achievement in 1977, and is and the additional prestressing was fi­ problems faced during the strengthen­ still among the longest for this kind of nally applied to the bridge in Novem­ ing process are also discussed. The bridge in North America. T~e bridge ber of the same year. The technology paper deals with practical considera­ is an elegant, slender structure span­ used in the strengthening of the bridge tions and is addressed to bridge engi­ ning the St. Maurice River. can be applied to all prestressed con­ neers who may face similar problems. In the central span, the depth of the crete structures, whether pretensioned The companion paper/ on the other box girder varies parabolically from or post-tensioned. hand, presents the details of an impor- 9.75 m (32 ft) at the piers to 2.90 m Exterior pier [m] 1 m = 3.28 ft Fig. 2. Longitudinal elevation of the Grand-Mere Bridge. May-June 1994 53 cantilever construction proceeded. The box girder was prestressed 4 ----12 800--------+1:1 142060 using 32 mrn (1.25 in.) diameter pre­ r stressing bars with 1030 MPa (150 ··~ ...,,l, .., .., .., ., .., .,..,. , .. , .., '\~/", ........... ~ ksi) ultimate stress. The bridge was prestressed longitudinally during the cantilever construction with 284 straight bars located in the upper deck. The continuity prestressing comprises 80 slightly curved bars in the bottom 0 LO flange and 48 draped bars in the webs {61 0 end spans ....... :~~ :i:~ 0) ::::::: 356 central span ::::::: (Fig. 4). Shear reinforcement consists of [mm) straight prestressing bars, either verti­ ~~~~~ ~ ~~.i cal or inclined, and of conventional 152 --~ 1000 mm =1m mild reinforcing steel. The deck is pre­ 1 m = 39.37 ln. stressed transversely with straight ; = 3.28 ft bars. Moreover, passive reinforcement ~ fFJ!!:{~/'t/Ji of each segment was extended through adjacent segment joints. The specified concrete strength was 34 MPa (5000 psi), except in the middle portion of 11) Cross section Ill the interior piers the central span, where 38 MPa (5500 psi) concrete was specified. INITIAL PROBLEMS AND SUBSEQUENT DISTRESS The bridge had experienced several [mm] problems originating from three sources: construction problems, design assumptions, and the limited state of knowledge at that time. The bridge de­ b) Cross section at midspan sign included two distinguishing fea­ tures: the slenderness of the 181.4 m Fig. 3. Cross sections of the Grand-Mere Bridge at interior piers and midspan. (595 ft) central span and the exclusive use of straight and curved prestressing bars for the longitudinal and trans­ (9.5 ft) at midspan (Fig. 3), giving piers as a consequence of the unusual verse prestressing. span-to-depth ratios of 18.6 and 62.6, center-to-end span ratio of 4.58. respectively. The depth of the box girder in the end spans varies slightly, Construction Problems Construction and Materials from 9.75 m (32ft) at the interior piers Construction problems originated to 8.53 m (28 ft) at the exterior piers. The bridge construction lasted two from three sources: coupling of nu­ The total width of the deck is 12.8 m years, from 1976 to 1977, interrupted merous bars, concreting, and grouting (42 ft), including a 6.7 m (22 ft) wide during the winter season to avoid cold the prestressing bars. top flange of the single-cell box girder weather concreting. The end spans First, to join 10 to 15 m (33 to 50ft) and two 3.05 m (10 ft) cantilevers. were erected the first year and were long bars over a length of up to 100 m This torsionally stiff box girder bridge cast on scaffolding. The central span (330 ft), the couplers used were some­ has only 1.83 m (6 ft) thick di­ was built in 1977, using the progres­ times unevenly screwed on two adja­ aphragms over the main piers. sive cantilever method with traveling cent bars, causing some to fail. Dam­ The designer planned to place 930 m3 forms for the cast-in-place segments. aged ducts, due to insufficient care (1216 cu yd) of gravel ballast in the After construction of the two segmen­ during concreting, restricted the free chambers of both end spans. The bal­ tal cantilevers of the central span, a sliding of bars and couplers during lasted chambers and the wedge-shaped, keystone segment was cast and the stressing. To overcome these two solid cantilevers would counterbalance continuity prestressing in the bottom problems, holes had to be made in the the weight of the main span during the flange and webs was added. Gravel top flange to replace or free some cou­ cantilever construction and avoid any ball ast in the end spans was applied plers and allow adequate prestressing. uplift of the box girder at the exterior progressively, in three stages, as the These necessary corrective measures 54 PCI JOURNAL 300r-------------------------------------------------~ Cantilever construction 250 prestressing bars 200 0 150 z0 100 284 top flange bars 50 ~ 100r---------------------------------------------------, jg Continuity prestressing bars 0 50 48 draped web bars ~ ~ ~~(~~---~ ~'-rr--........----- .-::::::::::::=__ -~ 0 ~ ) Longitudinal ct Transverse p bars 1 bars (web lti..bars) : / -r j: (Long: bars) ! t \: p I Not to scale (bottom flange bars) Cross section at interior pier Bottom flange Web bars bars" I(! r Cross section at midspan Fig.
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 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]
  • 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]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]