Segmental Bridges External PT

Prof. Dr.-Ing. G.
Rombach Segmental Bridges Page: 1

Technical University of Hamburg-Harburg INSA Rennes, Feb. 2002
Precast segmental box girder bridges with external prestressing

- design and construction -
Prof. Dr.-Ing. G. Rombach
Technical University, Hamburg-Harburg, Germany
Summary
Segmental box girder bridges externally post-tensioned are one of the major new developments in bridge
engineering in the last years. In contrast to ‘classical’ monolithic constructions a segmental bridge consists of
„small“ precast elements stressed together by external tendons (fig. 1). The many advantages of this type of
structure like fast and versatile construction, no disruption at ground level, high controlled quality and cost
savings have made them the preferred solution for many long elevated highways, especially in South East
Asia (see [1], [2]), and bridges. Design and construction of precast segmental hollow box girder bridges will
be mentioned in this paper.
1 Introduction
The greatest segmental bridges had been build in South East Asia resp. Bangkok. This region of the world
suffers under a big lack of sufficient infrastructure e.g. roads. In the big cities like e.g. Bangkok the traffic
nearly collapsed. There is a great need to change this bad situation rapidly. A Master Plan had been
developed for the Bangkok region which lead to many big train and highway projects (table 1).
Table 1 Projects in Bangkok

Name of System Total length Constr. Cost
Project Bill. EUR
Hopewell 7 train tracks + 4-lane
(SRT-CT, elevated highway 60 km 2,4
BERTS Segmental Constr.
SST 4-lane elevated 13 km 0,08
highway
Ramindra 6-lane elevated
Atrnarong highway 18,7 km 0,32
Expressway I-beams
Second
6-lane elevated
Stage
highway 39 km 0,85
Expressway
System Segmental Constr.
6-lane elevated
Bang Na
highway 54 km + 0,7
Expressway
Segmental Constr.
4-lane elevated
Fig. 1 Segmental bridge under Sector C+ highway appr. 30 km 0,4
construction Segmental Constr.
Table 2 Restraints
Conditions Solution
no space at grade
traffic jams
==> elevated highway
flooding
bad soil condition
short construction time ==> precast system
transportation problems
cost ==> segmental hollow box girder
flexible system
Table 3 Second Stage Expressway System Part I, Sector B
INSA-segmart 19.02.2002
Prof. Dr.-Ing. G. Rombach Segmental Bridges Page: 2
total length of bridge: 2 x 10 km

total area of bridge deck: 370 000 m
2
number of spans: 806 (716 segmental ; 90 I beams)

number of segments: appr. 9000
number of bored piles: 2360
number of driven piles: 10400
number of ramps: 41
at grade roads: 6000 m
2
office buildings: 8
length of electric cables: appr. 54 km
construction time: 29 months

total cost: appr. 325 Mio EUR
2 Structural elements of segmental bridges

Segmental bridges are mainly built as single span structures to avoid coupling of post tensioning cables.
Furthermore in single spans the greatest shear force is not located in the same section as the greatest
bending moment. Though the joint between the segment is always closed. A typical span is shown in fig. 2.
45,25m
7,0-15,60m 3,40m
2,40m
Figure 2 Standard span
A standard span has a length of appr. 45m. It consists of 14 segments. Dry joints are used in this project (no
epoxy glue). No continuous reinforcement is provided across the match cast joints between the segments.
Due to the external post tensioning (fig. 3) 3 different segments are needed (fig. 4):
· Pier segment: heavy end diaphgram required to stiffen the box

section and for anchorage of p.t. cables
· Deviator segment: required to deviate tendons
· Standard segment: thin webs (35cm)
172.5
50 1022.5 1020 1360 1022.5
No. 3 No. 8
No. 1,2 No. 7
No. 4
No. 5
No. 6
4525cm
(12 segments à 340cm + 2 segments à 172.5cm )
top view
No.3
No. 4 No. 7 No. 8 symmetry line
No. 5
No. 2
No. 1
No. 6
Figure 3 Tendon layout
D3 : 1090 - 1560cm
D2 : 700-1190cm
Pier Segment
Nr. 1 Nr. 2
Nr. 3
240
Nr. 4
Nr. 5
Nr. 6
180
130
80
30
Deviator Segment
Nr. 1
Nr. 5
Nr. 4
Nr. 6
Nr. 2 Nr. 2
100
72.5
Nr. 3
40
34
Nr. 8
28.5
28.5
35
52
Nr. 7 Nr. 7
Nr. 3 Nr. 8
Standard Segment
20
40
20
Detail B
35
D2 : 18
Detail A D3 : 20
<150 variable 75 D2 : 370cm

D3 : 550cm
Shear Keys
Figure 4 Type of segments
Figure 5 Substructure
3 Construction
3.1 Making of precast segments:
No free space between the segments is allowed. Therefore the segments are poured in line.
Two different methods are used to make the segments:
- Long line match casting method
- Short line match casting method
The short line match method is more flexible and needs less construction space.
Figure 6: Short line match casting

3.2 Assembling of Segments
standard scafforlding
free cantilever
overslung truss
underslung truss
Figure 7: Assembling of segments
88,10
10,0 49,45 28,65
Laufkatze
Hinterer Hilfsgleitstuhl
Hauptgleitstuhl
Stützrahmen
Hintere Hilfsstütze
Horizontalabstützung 48,65
Hintere Abstützung
Figure 8: Overslung Truss
4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Segmental Bridges
Table 4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Segmental Bridges

Disadvantages · safety (e.g. in case of fire)
· extra cost (more prestressing required, single spans, truss)
· high construction loading (overslung truss)
· new construction method – technology
(e.g. geometry control of segments, design)
Advantages · short construction time
(segments are prefabricated while the substructure is being built)
· no interruption of traffic
· precast ‘mass’ production
- cost efficient
- good, controlled quality
- shapes
· weather independent construction (dry joints)
· small light segments
· hollow box section
· reduced dead load
· cost (reduced reinforcement)
· recycling
Table 5: Advantages and disadvantages of external prestressing

Disadvantages · additional mild reinforcement required (Dsp)
· additional Cost for ducts, anchorage, etc.
· only straight tendon layout
· diffusion of post-tensioning forces
Advantages · replacement of tendons possible
· inspection of tendons possible
· easier Installation of longitudinal tendons
· good corrosion protection of p.t. cables
· less dead load (thin webs)
· pouring is facilitated (no p.t. ducts)
· less friction (no wobble losses)
· prestress forces can be modified after construction (spare ducts)
· greater permissible p.t. stresses
5 Design
5.1 Longitudinal Design
General Requirements
The design of a segmental bridge has to be done for the serviceability and the ultimate limit state with the
following distinctions to monolithic structures:
Serviceability Limit State
- Full prestressing – min. compressive stress 1 MPa
- Shear transfer in the joints
Ultimate Limit State

- Opening of the joints has to be considered
- Load transfer in the joints
Under service condition the concrete compression in the dry joints has to be greater than 1,0 – 1,4 MPa.
Therefore the whole structure is under compression during normal loading. As there is no tension within the
concrete, forces and moments can be calculated based on a linear elastic behaviour of the structure. In
addition to monolithic bridges, all joints have to be designed for shear loads (ULS). The shear force is carried
by shear keys and by friction between the joint surfaces.
Under ultimate loads the joints between the segments will open. The resulting decrease of the structural
stiffness has to be considered in the design. This can be done by analytical (moment-curvature relationship)
or numerical methods (finite element methods).
Critical sections
· midth of span greatest bending moment
· first joint after support greatest shear force but prestress force not uniformly distributed in
cross-section
· diaphragms high concentrated loads due to anchorage of tendons
· deviators high concentrated loads due to tendons.
Numerical investigations
The load – deformation characteristic of a segmental construction is different from a monolithic one due to
the dry unreinforced joints between the precast elements. Examinations of the behaviour of a segmental
bridge and the forces in the joints finite element calculations had been conducted taking into account the non-
linear behaviour due to the opening of the dry joints under tension. In contrast to known numerical
investigations, the fine indentation of the joints had been modelled which is of great importance regarding
torsion effects (fig. 9).
Figure 9 Finite element mesh of a segment
A real existing single span segmental bridge with external post-tensioning, a standard span of the elevated
highway ‘Second Stage Expressway System’ in Bangkok [2] had been modelled (fig 2, 3, 9). This structure is
used as data from a full-scale test [5] is available to verify the results of the complex numerical simulations.
The opening of the dry joints is modelled by interface elements.
tendons
Figure 10: Finite element model of standard span
Figure 11: Finite element model – stresses and open joints
Fig. 12 shows the calculated moment-deflection curve which is typical for a single span segmental bridge with
dry joints. At the beginning of loading the whole structure is under compression due to the high post-tension
normal forces. Thus the structure behave like a monolithic one. The deflection increases linear with the load.
At a midspan moment of M » 37 MNm due to live load the first joint near midspan starts to open rapidly
resulting in a great decrease of stiffness. The lever arm of the inner forces keeps nearly constant. Thus the
moment deflection curve is again nearly linear. The structure fails due to crushing of the concrete in the top
slab. Nevertheless a ductile behaviour of the segmental bridge can be seen.
0,40
q
deflection in midspan due to live loads [m]
h
0,30
point
0,20
Finite Element
experiment
opening of the joint

0,10
up to 1/
3h
2/ h
3
Stresses in mid-span before failure
0 20 38 40 46,9 60
bending moment in midspan due to live load [MNm]
Figure 12 Comparison between full-scale test and numerical results
Only 3 of 13 joints are open under failure load. Thus a great part of the bridge keeps under full compression.
Further shown in figure 12 are the results from a full-scale test carried out in Bangkok. A good agreement
between the numerical results and the test data can be seen. This demonstrates that the finite element model
is capable to model the real behaviour of a segmental bridge.
Several load combinations corresponding to bending, shear and torsion are examined to determine the
stresses resp. the forces in the joint [6]. In a single span bridge the joints near the support are always closed
due to the small bending moment. As the behaviour of an open joint is of main interest also a single span
bridge restraint on one side with a modified tendon profile has been modelled.
Fig 13 shows the resulting shear forces in the first joint close to the support in the webs and the slabs due to
torsion with increasing load. The results from three different numerical models are presented. The first one is
a monolithic girder which behaves always linear. Further the shear forces for a segmental bridge with smooth
and keyed joints are shown.
There are no differences between the models as long as all joints are closed. When the joint starts to open,
the force in the top slab (tensile region) degreases. A great difference in the behaviour of a bridge with plain
and keyed joints can be noticed. Smooth joints can only transfer forces when they are under compression
whereas keyed joints can still transfer forces until a certain gap is reached. Even bigger differences can be
seen in the webs. The plain joint reach the limit condition lim Fz = 0,7sn just after the joint opens whereas the
force in the keyed joint still increases.
The results emphazise that the shear keys have a significant influence on the behavior of a segmental bridge
under torsion loads. Calculations with plain joints are insufficient when torsion effects become significant.
3,0
q DA
2,0
Horizontal force Fy [MN]
g+q
top slab
1,0
x joint no. 1 bottom slab
0
-1,0
q Segmental bridge
g with shear keys
y -2,0 monolithic girder
y Segmental bridge with plain joint
z
-3,0
0 5 10 15 20 26 30 35 39
z
joint opening joint opening
up to 1/3 h up to 2/3 h
0 5 10 15 20 26 30 35 39
0 -1,0
right web left web
Horizontal force Fz [MN]
Horizontal force Fz [MN]
-1,0 -2,0
-3,0
-2,0 lim F
z = 0,7s
n
-4,0
-3,0 lim F =
z 0,7s -5,0 Segmental bridge
n
with shear keys
-4,0 -6,0 monolithic girder
Segmental bridge with plain joint
-5,0 -7,0
0 5 10 15 20 26 30 35 39
Figure 13 Forces in the webs an the slabs due to torsion
Figure 14 Joint opening due to positive resp. negative bending moments
a a
f
x
a a
2.f. a
( )
a
Dl= 4.f . zp-x- 2 2
x
f
zp -
l/ 2 a
a
l l -4f
a
Figure 15 Analytical model
5.2 Design of segmental joints

There is a great uncertainty regarding the design of the joints between the segments (see fig. 18). This is
surprising as the behaviour of the joint is of critical importance for the safety of a segmental structure.
The shear capacity of a keyed joint is a combination of the friction between the plain surfaces and the shear
capacity of the keys. The latter one is neglected in the German regulations.
5.2.1 Existing design models

The joints of many segmental bridges had been designed according to the AASHTO Recommendations [4].
Equation 1 is mainly based on tests with small specimens having usually one shear key only [7] similar to that
shown in figure 16 [8].
V j = Akey × 6, 792 ×10-3 fck (12 + 2, 466 × s n ) + 0,6 × Asm × s n (1)

[m, MN, MPa ]
A sm
where: sn average compressive stress across the joint A sm Ak
Ak
Asm area of contact between smooth surfaces in the
failure plane
fck characteristic concrete compressive strength
Akey min. area of the base of all keys in the failure plane
According to the German recommendations for design of segmental bridges [3] only the frictional forces
should be considered in the design. The load bearing of the shear keys is neglected as only epoxy joints can
be used. Please note the difference between eq. (1) and (2) regarding the frictional area Asm resp. AT.
L L
3 L+H
V j = m × s n × AT (2)
b(z) zi
H
where: AT effective shear area AT
L/2
The results of both models will be discussed together with the proposed design concept in section 5.2.3.
5.2.2 Tests and numerical verification

To develop a design concept for the joints tests with specimens, similar to that described in [7] having one or
multiple shear keys (fig. 16) were conducted to calibrate the finite element model. The study includes dry and
glued joints. The dimensions of the shear keys are representative for segmental bridges. The non-linear
material behaviour of the concrete like e.g. crushing and cracking and the interaction between the indented
surfaces (bond, slippage, friction) has been considered in the numerical model.
150
100
80 20 50
115 35 150 [mm]
Figure 16 Test specimen
The test specimens are first stressed normal to the joint and than loaded with a vertical force up to failure.
Fig. 17 shows the experimental and calculated load-deformation curve. The behaviour of the joint and the
ultimate load are well predicted. The highly complex concrete behaviour near the failure load has not been
modelled as this region is not relevant for the load bearing capacity of a joint.
250 250
dry joint glued joint

198,5 kN 205,5 kN
200 200
shear force in kN
shear force in kN
150 150
100 100
50 50
experiment experiment
Finite Element calc. Finite Element calc.
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8
vertical deflections at top of the specimen in mm vertical deflections at top of the specimen in mm
Figure 17 Test results versus numerical results for a dry and epoxy joint
5.2.3 New design model

After the verification of the finite element model, a numerical parametric study had been conducted with
various number and shapes of shear keys, concrete qualities etc. [6]. The results lead to a design model that
differs from the existing concepts. The shear capacity of a keyed dry joint Vd,j is a combination of a frictional
and a shear part. For the first one the total area of the joint Ajoint is used and not only the smooth parts (ASm)
like in AASHTO recommendations. The load bearing capacity of the keys depends on the concrete tensile
resp. compressive strength and the area of the failure plane Akey.
Akey = min S hne.b n
for dry joints: V = 1 ( m × s × A + f × f × A ) (3) right left
min Shne = Sh ne,1-3 < Sh ne,1-4
d, j n jo int ck key
gF b
minimal
hne,1
failure
bn
l
surface
where: m = 0,65 coefficient of friction
h ne,1
bn
gF = 2,0 safety coefficient
r
sn average compressive stress across the joint

A joint = h.b
hne,2
Ajoint area of the compression zone

l
fck characteristic concrete compressive strength h

h ne,2
b width of the web

r
f = 0,14 factor for the indentation of the joint

h ne,3
Akey min. area of the base of all keys in the failure

l
plane
h ne,3
hne height of keys, with hne £ 6bn

r
bn width of the keys

hne,4
l
The failure plane Akey will have the least area of key breakage. A relatively high safety coefficient of gF = 2,0
should be used as the failure of the joint is brittle.
For glued joints only the frictional part can be used (eq. 4). Experiments showed a relatively small increase in
strength of appr. 20% between a glued and a dry joint. Furthermore a sufficient quality of the glue can not be
guaranteed on site.
for glued joints: 1 (4)

Vd , j = × m × s n × Ajo int
gF
To compare the results of both models, the shear stress t = Vd,j / Ajoint is calculated for a standard segment of
the segmental bridge in Bangkok [2]. The relevant joints are fully closed. The concrete compressive strength
is fck = 40 MPa.
Fig. 18 shows the load bearing capacity of a keyed joint according to various design models. The great
differences between AASHTO and the German regulations can be seen. The first model can not be used for
high compressive stresses, which may occur near the ultimate design load of a multispan segmental bridge.
Furthermore it seems to overestimate the load bearing capacity of a joint.
510cm
20 22.5
Detail A
240 cm
t 35
TO
15 cep
Shear Stress [MPa]
n
SH
co
gn
AA
s i
de
w 50 200 75 185cm
10 Ne on
icati
ci f
Shear Keys
spe
5 an
G erm
fck = 40 MPa
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Compressive Stress [MPa]
AASHTO [4]: t = 4,17 + 1, 06 × s n [MPa]

DBV [3]: t = 0,7 × s n
Figure 18 Comparison between different design models (standard segment [2])
5.3 Types of joints

Reinforcement Beton Reinforcement Mortar
Tendon Spannkanal
s = 20-60cm s = 7-12cm
Epoxy or
Reinforcement Cement Mortar Reinforcement
Cement Mortar
Tendon tendon
s = 2-5cm s <3mm
Reinforcement dry joint
Tendon
s=0
Figure 19 Types of Joints
2720 cm
20
45
20
25/35
260
20
729cm 520.5cm 475cm
Figure 18 Bang Na – Bang Pli Bang Pakong Expressway
REFERENCES
[1] Brockmann, Ch., Shafer, G.: Design and Construction of the Bang Na-Bang Pli-Bang Pakong
Expressway. in: Stoelhorst, D. et al: Challenges for Concrete in the Next Millenium, Vol. 1,
pp. 275-280, Rotterdam 1998
[2] Rombach, G.: Bangkok Expressway - Segmentbrückenbau contra Verkehrschaos, aus: Aus
dem Massivbau und seinem Umfeld (Hilsdorf, Kobler ed.), Schriftenreihe des Institutes für
Massivbau und Baustofftechnologie, University of Karlsruhe 1995, pp. 645-656
[3] Deutscher Beton-Verein: Empfehlungen für Segmentfertigteilbrücken mit externen Spanngliedern,
1999
[4] AASHTO 89 (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials): Guide
Specifications for Design and Construction of Segmental Concrete Bridges, 1989, Interim
Specifications 1990 –1999
[5] Takebayashi, T., Deeprasertwong, K., Leung, Y.: A Full-Scale Destructive Test of a Precast
Segmental Box Girder Bridge with Dry Joints and External Tendons, Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers, August 1994, pp. 297-315
[6] Specker, A.: Der Einfluss der Fugen auf die Querkraft- und Torsionstragfähigkeit extern
vorgespannter Segmentbrücken. Thesis, Technical University of Hamburg-Harburg, 2001
[7] Buyukozturk, O., Bakhoum, M., Beattie, S.: Shear Behaviour of Joints in Precast Concrete Segmental
Bridges, Journal of Structural Engineering, No. 12, December 1990, pp. 3380-3401
[8] Roberts, C.L., Breen, J.E., Kreger, M.E.: Measurements Based Revisions for Segmental Bridge
Design and Construction Criteria. Research Report 1234-3F, The University of Texas at Austin,
Austin 1993

Segmental Bridges External PT

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Segmental Bridges External PT

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Prof. Dr.-Ing. G.

Rombach Segmental Bridges Page: 1

Precast segmental box girder bridges with external prestressing

Table 1 Projects in Bangkok

Table 3 Second Stage Expressway System Part I, Sector B

total length of bridge: 2 x 10 km

number of spans: 806 (716 segmental ; 90 I beams)

construction time: 29 months

2 Structural elements of segmental bridges

Figure 2 Standard span

· Pier segment: heavy end diaphgram required to stiffen the box

Figure 3 Tendon layout

<150 variable 75 D2 : 370cm

Figure 4 Type of segments

Figure 6: Short line match casting

Figure 7: Assembling of segments

Figure 8: Overslung Truss

4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Segmental Bridges

Table 4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Segmental Bridges

Table 5: Advantages and disadvantages of external prestressing

Ultimate Limit State

Figure 9 Finite element mesh of a segment

Figure 10: Finite element model of standard span

Figure 11: Finite element model – stresses and open joints

opening of the joint

Figure 12 Comparison between full-scale test and numerical results

Figure 13 Forces in the webs an the slabs due to torsion

Figure 14 Joint opening due to positive resp. negative bending moments

Figure 15 Analytical model

5.2 Design of segmental joints

5.2.1 Existing design models

V j = Akey × 6, 792 ×10-3 fck (12 + 2, 466 × s n ) + 0,6 × Asm × s n (1)

5.2.2 Tests and numerical verification

Figure 16 Test specimen

dry joint glued joint

5.2.3 New design model

sn average compressive stress across the joint

Ajoint area of the compression zone

fck characteristic concrete compressive strength h

b width of the web

f = 0,14 factor for the indentation of the joint

Akey min. area of the base of all keys in the failure

hne height of keys, with hne £ 6bn

bn width of the keys

for glued joints: 1 (4)

AASHTO [4]: t = 4,17 + 1, 06 × s n [MPa]

Figure 18 Comparison between different design models (standard segment [2])

5.3 Types of joints

Reinforcement dry joint

Figure 19 Types of Joints

729cm 520.5cm 475cm

Figure 18 Bang Na – Bang Pli Bang Pakong Expressway

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi