Means and Methods Analysis of A Cast in Place Balanced Cantilever Segmental Bridge

Means and Methods Analysis of a Cast-In-Place Balanced Cantilever
Segmental Bridge: The Wilson Creek Bridge Case Study
by
Gunnar Lucko
Thesis submitted to the Faculty of
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
in
Civil Engineering
Advisory Committee:
Dr. Jess M. de la Garza, Chair

Dr. Michael C. Vorster
Dr. Richard M. Barker
Mr. James Lefter
November 30, 1999

Blacksburg, Virginia
Keywords: Segmental Bridges, Cast-In-Place Concrete, Erection Methods, Construction
Loads, Balanced Cantilever Construction
Means and Methods Analysis of a Cast-In-Place Balanced Cantilever

Segmental Bridge: The Wilson Creek Bridge Case Study
Gunnar Lucko
Abstract
Different means and methods exist in the construction industry to erect bridge
superstructures. In planning and execution of the complex construction operations the
effects of the chosen erection method need to be considered to achieve a safe and
economical process. Failures of bridges under construction have underlined the
importance of this issue.
Hence, constructability issues need to be considered from the very beginning of projects.
Structural analysis mathematically models geometry, boundary conditions, and other
structural details, material properties, and so-called actions and incorporates factors of
safety. Aforementioned actions, i.e. loads or restraints of deformations may act only
temporarily during construction, depending on the method and sequence of erection.
However, these construction loads can create considerable stresses in the unfinished
structure prior to completion when it still lacks additional redundancy against failure.
Furthermore, time-dependent material properties such as creep, shrinkage, and relaxation
play a major role, especially in segmental construction.
A case study is provided as an example of how constructability issues are dealt with in
engineering practice. The Wilson Creek Bridge is a five-span cast-in-place concrete
segmental bridge that was erected with Balanced Cantilever Construction. The bridge
superstructure incorporated a camber to account for time-dependent deflections in final
alignment.
Form travelers were used in an alternating manner about the bridge piers to construct
cantilever arms that were finally connected at midspan. These travelers remained in place
until the box girder segments had reached sufficient strength to be post-tensioned to their
predecessors. Casting cycle duration on this project was one week.
There can be little doubt that in many ways the

story of bridgebuilding is the story of civilization.
By it we can readily measure an important part
of a peoples progress.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
October 18, 1931
(taken from Steinman and Watson 1941)

i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere thanks to the many people that I have come in contact with
during my stay at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
I would like to thank my teachers at Virginia Tech for their extraordinary achievements in
teaching courses, providing professional advice, and taking care of their students.
Prof. Jess M. de la Garza, my academic advisor, had the initial idea for this study and gave
continuous guidance throughout my course of studies and work on this thesis. His input as chair
of my committee is greatly appreciated.
Prof. Michael C. Vorster illustrated his courses with delightful storytelling from engineering
practice and served on my committee.
Prof. Julio C. Martinez introduced me to the art of simulating construction processes with
computer models and provided challenging tasks.
Prof. W. Eric Showalter contributed to my skills in construction project estimating and especially
presentation techniques. Mrs. Roxene T. Terrell, then his teaching assistant, was exemplary.
Prof. James Lefter illustrated his courses with many examples from his rich experience in the
construction industry and served on my committee.
Prof. Richard M. Barker enhanced my understanding of design philosophy through his teaching
and served on my committee.
Prof. David R. Widder of the Department of Music, my clarinet teacher, gave me opportunity to
continue my hobby and improve my skills.
Prof. Ernest C. Houck of the Department of Management Science and Information Technology
contributed to my knowledge in managerial issues.
I would like to thank the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation as well as
PCL Civil Constructors, Inc. for making this study possible and their Project Engineer, Sean
Bush, for the time that he dedicated to me and my colleagues and the patience with our many
questions.
ii
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my very dear friends and classmates in the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, student groups, and music ensembles very much. My life in
Blacksburg has been enriched so much through your ideas, advice, and the manifold activities on
and off campus.
My host family has given me help and hospitality in abundance and I truly enjoyed the many
visits and the activities that we undertook.
Finally, and most importantly I am most grateful for the continuous love and support that my
family has always given me, during my stay at Virginia Tech and all the time prior to it. I
dedicate this work to them.
I am proud of having had the unique chance of being a student of Virginia Tech and experiencing
the truly unique spirit and enthusiasm of this university.
Go Hokies!
iii
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................................................ii
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................................xii
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................................xv
LIST OF SYMBOLS ...............................................................................................................................................xvi
CHAPTER 1:ABOUT THIS STUDY ....................................................................................................................... 1

1.1
THESIS STATEMENT......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.3
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................... 3
1.4
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................. 4
1.5
RESEARCH SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS............................................................................................................... 5
1.6
THESIS ORGANIZATION.................................................................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................................. 7

2.1
HISTORY OF BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................................................. 7
2.1.1
Ancient Structures................................................................................................................................. 8
2.1.1.1
Ancient Structural Principles ............................................................................................................................ 8
2.1.1.2
Trial and Error................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.1.1.3
The Earliest Beginnings .................................................................................................................................... 9
2.1.1.4
Timber Bridges ............................................................................................................................................... 11
2.1.1.5
Stone Bridges .................................................................................................................................................. 12
2.1.1.6
Aqueducts and Viaducts.................................................................................................................................. 13
2.1.1.7
Religious Symbolism ...................................................................................................................................... 17
2.1.1.8
Vitruvius De Architectura.............................................................................................................................. 17
2.1.1.9
Contributions of Ancient Bridge Building ...................................................................................................... 18
2.1.2
The Middle Ages ................................................................................................................................. 18
2.1.2.1
Preservation of Roman Knowledge................................................................................................................. 19
2.1.2.2
Bridges in the Middle East and Asia............................................................................................................... 19
2.1.2.3
Revival of European Bridge Building ............................................................................................................. 19
2.1.2.4
Construction and History of Old London Bridge............................................................................................ 20
2.1.2.5
The Pont dAvignon........................................................................................................................................ 22
2.1.2.6
Further Notable Medieval Bridges.................................................................................................................. 23
2.1.2.7
Purpose of Medieval Bridges .......................................................................................................................... 27
2.1.2.8
Contributions of Medieval Bridge Building.................................................................................................... 28
iv
Table of Contents
2.1.3
2.1.3.1
Renaissance Trusses........................................................................................................................................ 29
2.1.3.2
Palladios I Quattro Libri dell'Architettura ..................................................................................................... 30
2.1.3.3
Veranzios Machinae Novae ........................................................................................................................... 31
2.1.3.4
The Rialto Bridge............................................................................................................................................ 31
2.1.3.5
French Renaissance Bridge Building .............................................................................................................. 33
2.1.3.6
English Renaissance Bridge Building ............................................................................................................. 36
2.1.3.7
Contributions of Renaissance Bridge Building ............................................................................................... 37
2.1.4
The Industrial Revolution ................................................................................................................... 38
2.1.4.1
The Ironbridge ................................................................................................................................................ 38
2.1.4.2
Early Iron Structures ....................................................................................................................................... 40
2.1.4.3
Early Suspension Bridges ............................................................................................................................... 42
2.1.4.4
The Menai Strait Bridge.................................................................................................................................. 43
2.1.4.5
The Britannia Bridge....................................................................................................................................... 44
2.1.4.6
Covered Bridges.............................................................................................................................................. 46
2.1.4.7
Railway Bridges .............................................................................................................................................. 47
2.1.4.8
Failure of the Tay Bridge ................................................................................................................................ 49
2.1.4.9
Contributions of Bridge Building during the Industrial Revolution ............................................................... 50
2.1.5
The Great Bridges............................................................................................................................... 52
2.1.5.1
The St. Louis Bridge ....................................................................................................................................... 52
2.1.5.2
The Brooklyn Bridge....................................................................................................................................... 53
2.1.5.3
The Forth Rail Bridge ..................................................................................................................................... 54
2.1.5.4
The George Washington Bridge...................................................................................................................... 56
2.1.5.5
Failure of the Quebec Bridge .......................................................................................................................... 56
2.1.5.6
Failure of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge ........................................................................................................... 58
2.1.5.7
The Severn Bridge .......................................................................................................................................... 59
2.1.5.8
Contributions of Bridge Building between Nineteenth and Twentieth Century.............................................. 61
2.1.6
2.2
The Renaissance ................................................................................................................................. 29
The Era of Concrete Bridges and Beyond .......................................................................................... 61
2.1.6.1
Concrete Characteristics.................................................................................................................................. 62
2.1.6.2
Early Concrete Structures ............................................................................................................................... 63
2.1.6.3
Concrete Arch Bridges.................................................................................................................................... 63
2.1.6.4
Prestressed Concrete Bridges .......................................................................................................................... 64
2.1.6.5
Concrete Bridges after the Second World War ............................................................................................... 65
2.1.6.6
Cable-Stayed Bridges...................................................................................................................................... 66
2.1.6.7
Recent Bridge Projects.................................................................................................................................... 73
2.1.6.8
Contributions of Modern Concrete Bridge Construction ................................................................................ 74
FUTURE CHALLENGES IN BRIDGE ENGINEERING............................................................................................ 75
2.2.1
Improvements in Design, Construction, Maintenance, and Rehabilitation ........................................ 76
2.2.1.1
Improvements in Design ................................................................................................................................. 76
2.2.1.2
Improvements in Construction ........................................................................................................................ 77
Table of Contents
2.2.1.3
Improvements in Maintenance and Rehabilitation.......................................................................................... 78
2.2.1.4
Smart Bridges.................................................................................................................................................. 79
2.2.2
High-Performance Materials.............................................................................................................. 80
2.2.2.1
Strength and Other Mechanical Properties...................................................................................................... 81
2.2.2.2
Workability ..................................................................................................................................................... 81
2.2.2.3
Durability ........................................................................................................................................................ 82
2.2.2.4
Composites...................................................................................................................................................... 82
2.2.3
Innovative Structural Concepts........................................................................................................... 83
2.2.3.1
Enhancing Existing Structural Concepts......................................................................................................... 84
2.2.3.2
Combination of Existing Structural Concepts................................................................................................. 86
2.2.3.3
Development of New Structural Concepts ...................................................................................................... 88
2.2.4
2.2.3.3.1
Kinetic Structures ................................................................................................................................. 88
2.2.3.3.2
Underwater Bridges.............................................................................................................................. 89
2.2.3.3.3
Stress Ribbon Bridges .......................................................................................................................... 89
2.2.3.3.4
Multiuse Bridges .................................................................................................................................. 90
2.2.3.3.5
High-Art Bridges .................................................................................................................................. 90
2.2.3.3.6
Spatial Structures.................................................................................................................................. 91
2.2.3.3.7
Concrete Trusswork.............................................................................................................................. 92
2.2.3.3.8
Bioengineering ..................................................................................................................................... 93
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 94
CHAPTER 3: THE DESIGN PROCESS OF SEGMENTAL BRIDGES ............................................................ 95

3.1
DESIGN PHILOSOPHY ..................................................................................................................................... 95
3.1.1
The Nature of Engineering.................................................................................................................. 96
3.1.2
Current Issues in Engineering Education ........................................................................................... 97
3.1.3
Functional Requirements for Structures and Interdependencies ........................................................ 98
3.1.4
Design against Failure ..................................................................................................................... 101
3.1.5
The Design Process........................................................................................................................... 102
3.2
3.1.5.1
Creativity at Work......................................................................................................................................... 102
3.1.5.2
Conceptual Design ........................................................................................................................................ 103
3.1.5.3
Analysis and Dimensioning .......................................................................................................................... 104
3.1.5.4
Design Process According to Leonhardt ....................................................................................................... 104
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS .............................................................................................. 106
3.2.1
Project Life-Cycle ............................................................................................................................. 107
3.2.2
Resource Utilization.......................................................................................................................... 108
3.2.2.1
Economy ....................................................................................................................................................... 109
3.2.2.2
Ecology ......................................................................................................................................................... 110
vi
Table of Contents
3.2.2.3
3.3
The Linn Cove Viaduct................................................................................................................................. 110
AESTHETICS AND ENGINEERING .................................................................................................................. 111
3.3.1
Aesthetic Values ................................................................................................................................ 111
3.3.2
Character and Function.................................................................................................................... 112
3.3.3
Proportions and Harmony ................................................................................................................ 113
3.3.4
Complexity and Order....................................................................................................................... 115
3.3.5
Color and Texture ............................................................................................................................. 116
3.3.6
Environmental Scale ......................................................................................................................... 119
3.4
FACTORS INFLUENCING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................. 119
3.4.1
Environmental Factors ..................................................................................................................... 120
3.4.1.1
Soil Conditions ............................................................................................................................................. 121
3.4.1.2
Topography ................................................................................................................................................... 121
3.4.1.3
River Crossing .............................................................................................................................................. 121
3.4.1.4
Protection of the Environment ...................................................................................................................... 122
3.4.1.5
Climate.......................................................................................................................................................... 122
3.4.2
Technical Factors ............................................................................................................................. 123
3.4.2.1
Structural Type and Erection Method ........................................................................................................... 123
3.4.2.2
Construction Details...................................................................................................................................... 124
3.4.3
Labor Factors ................................................................................................................................... 124
3.4.4
Owner Needs..................................................................................................................................... 125
3.5
CHARACTERISTICS OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ..................................................................................... 125
3.5.1
Modeling Reality............................................................................................................................... 126
3.5.2
Factor of Safety................................................................................................................................. 128
3.5.3
Structural Analysis............................................................................................................................ 131
3.6
CHARACTERISTICS OF CAST-IN-PLACE SEGMENTAL CANTILEVER CONSTRUCTION ..................................... 133
3.6.1
Segmental Construction .................................................................................................................... 133
3.6.2
Cantilevering Method ....................................................................................................................... 134
3.6.2.1
Cantilevering Defined ................................................................................................................................... 138
3.6.2.2
Low Strength of Young Concrete ................................................................................................................. 139
3.6.2.3
Prestress Losses Through Elastic Shortening................................................................................................ 141
3.6.2.4
Prestress Losses Through Time-Dependent Effects ...................................................................................... 142
3.6.2.5
Redistribution of Internal Forces .................................................................................................................. 143
3.6.2.6
Further Considerations.................................................................................................................................. 144
3.6.2.7
Importance of Accounting for Prestress Losses and Conclusion .................................................................. 145
3.6.3
Cast-In-Place Construction .............................................................................................................. 147
3.6.3.1
Cast-In-Place Construction Applied to Cantilevering................................................................................... 148
3.6.3.2
Quality Control ............................................................................................................................................. 150
3.6.3.3
Durability ...................................................................................................................................................... 150
vii
Table of Contents
3.6.3.4
3.7
Camber.......................................................................................................................................................... 150
CONSTRUCTABILITY OF BOX GIRDERS ........................................................................................................ 151
3.7.1
Characteristics of Box Girders ......................................................................................................... 151
3.7.1.1
Webs ............................................................................................................................................................. 152
3.7.1.2
Diaphragms ................................................................................................................................................... 153
3.7.1.3
Structural Behavior ....................................................................................................................................... 153
3.7.2
Implementation of Box Girders......................................................................................................... 154
3.7.2.1
Width ............................................................................................................................................................ 154
3.7.2.2
Depth............................................................................................................................................................. 155
3.7.2.3
Span Length .................................................................................................................................................. 155
3.7.2.4
Durability ...................................................................................................................................................... 155
3.7.2.5
Appearance ................................................................................................................................................... 156
CHAPTER 4: THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS OF SEGMENTAL BRIDGES ......................................... 157

4.1
DEVELOPMENT OF PRESTRESSED SEGMENTAL BRIDGES.......................................................... 157
4.1.1
Degree of Prestressing...................................................................................................................... 158
4.1.2
Pre-Tensioning.................................................................................................................................. 159
4.1.3
Post-Tensioning ................................................................................................................................ 159
4.2
CONCRETE BRIDGE ERECTION TECHNIQUES................................................................................. 160
4.2.1
Cantilevering Method ....................................................................................................................... 161
4.2.1.1
Precast Construction ..................................................................................................................................... 162
4.2.1.2
Cast-In-Place Construction ........................................................................................................................... 165
4.2.1.3
Balanced Cantilever Construction................................................................................................................. 167
4.2.1.4
Progressive Placement Method ..................................................................................................................... 169
4.2.1.5
The Linn Cove Viaduct................................................................................................................................. 170
4.2.1.6
Concluding the Cantilevering Process .......................................................................................................... 171
4.2.2
Cantilever Erection Equipment......................................................................................................... 173
4.2.2.1
Form Travelers .............................................................................................................................................. 173
4.2.2.2
Launching Girders......................................................................................................................................... 175
4.2.2.2.1
Launching Girder Slightly Longer Than One Span ............................................................................ 176
4.2.2.2.2
Launching Girder Slightly Longer Than Two Spans .......................................................................... 178
4.2.3
Incremental Launching ..................................................................................................................... 179
4.2.4
Falsework.......................................................................................................................................... 183
4.2.4.1
Stationary Falsework..................................................................................................................................... 184
4.2.4.2
Traveling Falsework...................................................................................................................................... 185
4.2.4.3
Temporary Towers ........................................................................................................................................ 185
4.2.5
Span-By-Span Erection..................................................................................................................... 186
viii
Table of Contents
4.3
CONSIDERATION OF CONSTRUCTION LOADS AND STRESSES................................................... 187
4.3.1
Types of Construction Loads and Influences .................................................................................... 189
4.3.1.1
The Zilwaukee Bridge................................................................................................................................... 191
4.3.1.2
The West Gate Bridge ................................................................................................................................... 193
4.3.2
Influence of Erection Method and Construction Sequence............................................................... 194
4.3.3
Existing Codes and Regulations ....................................................................................................... 196
4.3.3.1
American Concrete Institute.......................................................................................................................... 197
4.3.3.2
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ......................................................... 197
4.3.3.3
American Society for Testing and Materials ................................................................................................. 201
4.3.3.4
American Welding Society ........................................................................................................................... 201
4.3.3.5
Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute ............................................................................................................. 201
4.3.3.6
Other Institutions .......................................................................................................................................... 202
4.3.3.7
Federal Highway Administration .................................................................................................................. 202
4.3.3.8
Owner Specifications .................................................................................................................................... 203
CHAPTER 5: CASE STUDY THE WILSON CREEK BRIDGE ................................................................... 204

5.1
PROJECT CONCEPTUALIZATION ................................................................................................................... 204
5.1.1
General Project Overview ................................................................................................................ 204
5.1.2
Smart Road Project........................................................................................................................... 205
5.1.3
Objective of Smart Road and Overview ............................................................................................ 206
5.1.4
Regional Traffic Infrastructure......................................................................................................... 207
5.1.5
Bridge Overview ............................................................................................................................... 208
5.1.6
Parties Involved ................................................................................................................................ 209
5.1.7
Contractual Provisions ..................................................................................................................... 210
5.1.8
Financial Provisions......................................................................................................................... 212
5.2
PROJECT DESIGN ......................................................................................................................................... 214
5.2.1
Member Designation......................................................................................................................... 214
5.2.2
Member Geometry ............................................................................................................................ 215
5.2.2.1
Foundations................................................................................................................................................... 215
5.2.2.2
Abutments ..................................................................................................................................................... 216
5.2.2.3
Pier Shafts ..................................................................................................................................................... 216
5.2.2.4
Pier Tables .................................................................................................................................................... 219
5.2.2.5
Superstructure ............................................................................................................................................... 219
5.2.2.6
Surrounding and Incidental Works ............................................................................................................... 222
5.2.3
Change in Design.............................................................................................................................. 222
5.2.4
Quantities of Construction Materials................................................................................................ 224
5.2.5
Reinforcement and Related Details................................................................................................... 226
ix
Table of Contents
5.2.5.1
Concrete Cover ............................................................................................................................................. 226
5.2.5.2
Prestressing Tendons, Tendon Ducts, and Anchorages................................................................................. 226
5.2.5.3
Segment Reinforcing Schedule ..................................................................................................................... 230
5.2.6
5.2.6.1
Bearings ........................................................................................................................................................ 231
5.2.6.2
Expansion Joints ........................................................................................................................................... 231
5.2.6.3
Accessory Details and Finishing ................................................................................................................... 231
5.2.7
Plan Documents, Structural Calculations, and Construction Manuals............................................ 233
5.2.7.1
Plans.............................................................................................................................................................. 233
5.2.7.2
Structural Calculations.................................................................................................................................. 234
5.2.7.3
Geometry Control Manual ............................................................................................................................ 234
5.2.8
5.3
Further Construction Details............................................................................................................ 230
Architectural Considerations............................................................................................................ 235
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 236
5.3.1
Site Layout and Subsurface Conditions ............................................................................................ 237
5.3.2
Site Preparation................................................................................................................................ 238
5.3.3
Foundation Construction, Drainage System, and Earthwork........................................................... 239
5.3.4
Substructure Construction ................................................................................................................ 240
5.3.4.1
Abutments ..................................................................................................................................................... 240
5.3.4.2
Pier Shafts ..................................................................................................................................................... 240
5.3.5
Change in Construction .................................................................................................................... 242
5.3.6
Superstructure Construction ............................................................................................................. 245
5.3.6.1
Pier Tables .................................................................................................................................................... 245
5.3.6.2
Form Travelers .............................................................................................................................................. 246
5.3.6.3
Other Construction Equipment ..................................................................................................................... 250
5.3.7
Segment Casting Cycle ................................................................................................................................. 251
5.3.8
Cantilevering Sequence .................................................................................................................... 255
5.3.9
Surveying and Construction Tolerances ........................................................................................... 256
5.4
DISCUSSION OF CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES ............................................................................................ 258
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................... 260

6.1
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................... 260
6.2
CONTRIBUTIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 268
6.3
RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 269
Table of Contents
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................270
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................................................280
APPENDIX A: LIST OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS ......................................................284
APPENDIX B: CASTING CYCLE FOR WILSON CREEK BRIDGE .............................................................288
VITA ........................................................................................................................................................................292
xi
List of Figures
Figure 2-1: Corbelled Arch and Voussoir Arch ..........................................................................................13

Figure 2-2: The Pont du Gard, Nmes, France .............................................................................................14
Figure 2-3: The Puente de Alcntara, Caceres, Spain ...............................................................................15
Figure 2-4: The Ponte SantAngelo, Rome, Italy ........................................................................................16
Figure 2-5: Old London Bridge, London, Great Britain ...........................................................................21
Figure 2-6: The Pont Valentr, Cahors, France ...........................................................................................24
Figure 2-7: The Ponte Vecchio, Florence, Italy ...........................................................................................25
Figure 2-8: The Kapellbrcke, Lucerne, Switzerland ................................................................................26
Figure 2-9: The Charles Bridge, Prague, Czech Republic ........................................................................27
Figure 2-10: Palladian Truss .............................................................................................................................30
Figure 2-11: The Rialto Bridge, Venice, Italy ..............................................................................................32
Figure 2-12: The Pont de Neuilly, Paris, France .........................................................................................34
Figure 2-13: The Pont de la Concorde, Paris, France ................................................................................35
Figure 2-14: The Pont Neuf, Paris, France ...................................................................................................36
Figure 2-15: The Ironbridge, Coalbrookdale, Great Britain ....................................................................39
Figure 2-16: The Craigellachie Bridge, Great Britain ...............................................................................40
Figure 2-17: New London Bridge, London, Great Britain .......................................................................42
Figure 2-18: The Menai Strait Bridge, Great Britain .................................................................................44
Figure 2-19: The Britannia Bridge, Great Britain .......................................................................................45
Figure 2-20: Different Truss Types .................................................................................................................47
Figure 2-21: Timber Railway Viaduct ...........................................................................................................48
Figure 2-22: The Tay Bridge, Great Britain .................................................................................................50
Figure 2-23: The St. Louis Bridge, St. Louis, U.S. ....................................................................................53
Figure 2-24: The Forth Rail Bridge, Great Britain .....................................................................................55
Figure 2-25: The Quebec Bridge, Canada .....................................................................................................57
Figure 2-26: The Tacoma Narrows Bridge Prior to Failure .....................................................................58
Figure 2-27: The Severn Bridge, Great Britain ...........................................................................................60
Figure 2-28: The Plougastel Bridge under Construction ..........................................................................64
xii
List of Figures
Figure 2-29: Stay Cable Arrangements ..........................................................................................................67
Figure 2-30: The Oberkassel Rhine Bridge, Dsseldorf, Germany .......................................................69
Figure 2-31: The Lake Maracaibo Bridge, Venezuela ...............................................................................70
Figure 2-32: The Pont de Brotonne, France .................................................................................................71
Figure 2-33: The Akashi Kaikyo Bridge, Japan ..........................................................................................74
Figure 2-34: Monocable Suspension Bridge ................................................................................................86
Figure 2-35: Combination of Structural Concepts ......................................................................................87
Figure 2-36: Stress Ribbon Bridge ..................................................................................................................90
Figure 2-37: Concrete Trusswork in Mangfall Bridge, Austria ..............................................................93
Figure 3-1: Relationship of Engineering with Science, Arts, and Technology ..................................97
Figure 3-2: Functional Requirements and Interdependencies for Engineering Structures ..............99
Figure 3-3: Pier and Pier Table Design of the Wilson Creek Bridge ..................................................117
Figure 3-4: Examples of Colored Concrete ................................................................................................118
Figure 3-5: Factors Influencing Design and Construction .....................................................................120
Figure 3-6: Modeling Reality .........................................................................................................................127
Figure 3-7: Uniformly Loaded Cantilever Beam ......................................................................................135
Figure 3-8: Post-Tensioning of Segmental Cantilever ............................................................................136
Figure 3-9: Upper and Lower Boundaries for Long-Term Bending Moments ................................138
Figure 3-10: Effects in Cast-In-Place Segmental Cantilever Construction .......................................140
Figure 3-11: Features of Box Girders ..........................................................................................................152
Figure 4-1: Balanced Cantilever Construction ..........................................................................................168
Figure 4-2: Progressive Placement Method ...............................................................................................169
Figure 4-3: The Linn Cove Viaduct, North Carolina, U.S. ....................................................................171
Figure 4-4: Form Traveler Front View ........................................................................................................174
Figure 4-5: Working Scheme of Short Launching Girder ......................................................................177
Figure 4-6: Working Scheme of Long Launching Girder ......................................................................179
Figure 4-7: Incremental Launching ...............................................................................................................180
Figure 4-8: Traveling Falsework ...................................................................................................................185
Figure 4-9: Span-By-Span Erection ..............................................................................................................187
Figure 4-10: Causes for Cantilever Imbalance ..........................................................................................196
xiii
List of Figures
Figure 5-1: Location of the Wilson Creek Bridge ....................................................................................205
Figure 5-2: The Smart Road Project .............................................................................................................207
Figure 5-3: Overall Elevation of the Wilson Creek Bridge ...................................................................209
Figure 5-4: Contractual Parties ......................................................................................................................210
Figure 5-5: Segment Designation for Cantilever Arms About Pier 2 .................................................215
Figure 5-6: Pier 2 Prior to Construction of Pier Table ............................................................................217
Figure 5-7: Architectural Shaping of Pier Shaft and Pier Table ...........................................................218
Figure 5-8: Typical Superstructure Cross-Section with Variable Depth ...........................................220
Figure 5-9: Originally Planned Segment Dimensions .............................................................................221
Figure 5-10: Changed Segment Dimensions ..............................................................................................223
Figure 5-11: Arrangement of Transverse Tendons in Pier Table Diaphragm ..................................228
Figure 5-12: Arrangement of Longitudinal Cantilever Tendons ..........................................................229
Figure 5-13: Rendering of the Completed Project ...................................................................................236
Figure 5-14: Site Overview from Abutment A ..........................................................................................237
Figure 5-15: Scheme of Pier Erection ..........................................................................................................241
Figure 5-16: Pier 3 During Construction with Climbing Formwork ..................................................242
Figure 5-17: Schematic Superstructure Erection Sequence ...................................................................244
Figure 5-18: Pier 3 with Metal Falsework for Pier Table Erection .....................................................245
Figure 5-19: Pier Table 2 After Stripping from Formwork ...................................................................246
Figure 5-20: Form Traveler Front View ......................................................................................................247
Figure 5-21: Form Traveler Elevation .........................................................................................................248
Figure 5-22: Scheme of the Casting Cycle .................................................................................................251
Figure 5-23: Beginning of Cantilevering Operations about Pier 2 ......................................................252
Figure-5-24: Form Traveler Detail ...............................................................................................................254
Figure 5-25: Pier Table Asymmetry for Reduction of Overturning Moments .................................255
xiv
List of Tables
Table 2-1: Stay Cable Arrangements ..............................................................................................................68

Table 2-2: Recent Major Bridge Projects ......................................................................................................73
Table 4-1: Influences Causing Loss of Prestressing Force ....................................................................159
Table 4-2: Typical Duration of Casting Steps ...........................................................................................166
Table 4-3: Sequence of Casting Steps for Aichtal Bridge ......................................................................183
Table 4-4: Causes for Cantilever Imbalance ..............................................................................................196
Table 4-5: Coefficients and for Load Factor Design, Group IB ....................................................200
Table 5-1: Pier Dimensions of Wilson Creek Bridge ..............................................................................217
Table 5-2: Quantities of Construction Materials for Wilson Creek Bridge ......................................225
xv
List of Symbols
a is the length
b is the length
B is the buoyancy
CF is the centrifugal force
D is the dead load
e is the eccentricity
E is the earth pressure
E is the modulus of elasticity
EQ is the earthquake force
fc is the specified 28-day compressive strength of concrete
fpu is the ultimate strength of the prestressing steel
fy is the specified yield strength of mild reinforcement steel
F is the force
I is the live load impact
I is the moment of inertia
ICE is the ice pressure
L is the length
L is the live load
LF is the longitudinal force from live load
(L + I)n is the live load plus impact for AASHTO Highway H or HS loading
(L + I)p is the live load plus impact consistent with the overload criteria of the operation agency
M is the bending moment
Mi is the incremental compensating moment from post-tensioning
Pi is the incremental post-tensioning force
R is the rib shortening
Rn is the nominal resistance
S is the shrinkage
Si is the load effects based on the specific loads
xvi
List of Symbols
SF is the stream flow pressure
T is the temperature
w is the load per unit length
W is the wind load on a structure
WL is the wind load on live load
i is the load factor
is the coefficient
D is the coefficient for dead load
E is the coefficient for earth pressure
is the load factor
is the deflection
is the strength reduction factor
xvii
CHAPTER 1: ABOUT THIS STUDY

This first chapter shall provide information necessary for the reader to put the topics of the study
into the right context and shall describe the research approach that was undertaken in writing this
study. Afterwards, a brief overview of the contents of each chapter of this thesis is given as a
quick reference for the reader.
1.1
THESIS STATEMENT
The construction of bridge superstructures is a highly complex process due to the

interrelationships between the erection method used and the manifold internal and external
effects related to loads and material behavior, and to environmental influences.
Analyzing these concepts on a particular example helps to develop better understanding of the
construction engineering practice and contributes to the safety and economy of future bridge
structures.
1.2
INTRODUCTION
Why are bridges important, why are they of interest and oftentimes attract special attention? The
answer to these questions lies both in form and function of bridges. Some key issues that show
the outstanding nature of bridges are addressed in the following paragraphs.
Bridges connect. The structures that are the topic of this study and of many other studies not only
fulfill their function in a purely physical way. Apart from simply providing means of crossing
natural and artificial obstacles in the environment, bridges also connect. They connect parts of a
city across the river that is dividing them, they connect regions, and they even, in some cases,
connect and symbolically link countries. But first and foremost, they connect people. It is this
1
Chapter 1: About this Study
why they are so important to us; bridges connect the people with families and friends, with places
of living, work, and enjoyment.
Bridges fascinate. In our built environment, some bridges are amongst the largest structures built.
But apart from sheer size of some of the most famous bridges, e.g. the Golden Gate Bridge, there
is more to these structures. Regardless of scale, they may incorporate aesthetically pleasing
shapes and colors; thus becoming places of sightseeing and landmarks that enhance the natural
beauty of their settings. Bridges are objects of art as well as they are technical structures. Their
unique appearance influences the look of the site. In many places bridges have a symbolic value
as they are shaping the skyline of cities and sometimes representing the city itself, as e.g. the
Tower Bridge in London.
How many novels, poems and movies tell stories that are related to bridges in certain periods of
time? Personal memories might be tied to special bridges and their surroundings, and the stories
of building great bridges are full of novel and adventure. They could only be built with an
exceptional amount of engineering knowledge, management skills, and courage.
It is this fascination that makes it worth studying them, being big or small, their history as well as
their future.
Bridges challenge. In many cases, bridges have brought innovation into Civil Engineering.
Bridges clearly represent the exceptional effort that engineers take to build structures that
accommodate the societys needs within the restrictions set by laws of nature. The difficulties
that lie in the construction of larger and larger spans with less and more sophisticated material
under economical constraints of time and cost have given inspiration to the engineers in charge.
Important advancements, as e.g. the introduction of prestressed concrete, have been developed
especially for bridge construction, but also had revolutionary influence on many other branches
within Civil Engineering.
As the next millennium approaches, a vast array of projections and predictions for the future
faces us. Engineering will contribute its share to the anticipated technological progress.
Advancements in material sciences, computing, management, and other areas will open new
paths to the future achievements of the Civil Engineering profession. The next decades will put
forth a variety of engineering problems, such as upgrading and retrofitting of existing structures
as well as construction of new innovative bridge structures with advanced materials and methods
a challenging era is awaiting the bridge engineers.
1.3
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
This study deals with the constructability of bridges. The Construction Industry Institute, an
organization composed of many key players of the U.S. construction industry, founded to foster
economy of construction projects through research, defines constructability as follows (CII 1982,
p2):
Constructability is the optimum use of construction knowledge and experience in
planning, design, procurement, and field operations to achieve overall project
objectives. Maximum benefits occur when people with construction knowledge
and experience become involved at the very beginning of a project.
When planning to build a bridge, engineers need to come up with a feasible way of erecting the
structure in a safe and economic manner. Finding an optimum solution is based on comparing
alternative techniques of erecting the bridge, along with the different means and methods
employed and their implications on schedule and budget. Analysis of these methods always has
to consider the bridge itself, as well as the characteristics of the site at which it is to be erected.
Currently, the traditional university education in Civil Engineering especially in undergraduate
studies deals with actual construction procedures only to a limited extent. Much weight is put
on conveying the basic body of knowledge with respect to construction materials and their
properties as well as practicing structural analysis of the systems that they form, based on the
current professional codes and standards. The highly dynamic and complex construction
procedures sometimes seem to be lost from recognition. It is one of this studys objectives to
serve for a change of this state by raising awareness to this issue.
In actual field operations, a major issue is consideration of the interrelationships between the
growing, yet unfinished structure and the various kinds of loads that affect it. Several failures of
structures under construction in the past, both bridges and buildings, caused by underestimating
the construction loads and their effects, underline the importance of research on this issue.
The main objective of this study is therefore to compile and review constructability-related
concepts that are used in current bridge engineering. This overview of construction procedures is
not carried out to do research on already existing methods, which actually have proven to work
very well in the past. In fact, it will be performed to use these pieces of information linked with
a profound analysis of a case study to serve as an understandable introduction into the more
broad topic of how to deal with the complex construction process in bridge building. Teaching
these concepts may be beneficial for future construction engineers education.
1.4
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Two major sources of information are used for the two main parts of this study. Literature on the
history of bridge construction is used to outline the development of different types of bridges and
their means and methods of construction. Following sections on design and construction of
segmental bridges are based on information from the professional literature on the state-of-the-art
in segmental bridges. Special attention is given to the Balanced Cantilever Construction and
related issues. Furthermore, a brief overview of future research areas and developments in bridge
design and construction is provided.
Secondly, information specific to the case study bridge structure is used to illustrate how a reallife bridge is built. The bridge project that is used for the case study, the Wilson Creek Bridge, is
located in Ellett Valley in Montgomery County in Virginia. Overall project data is obtained from
reviews of the plan drawings and shop drawings for the bridge and its specialized construction
equipment. The so-called Geometry Control Manual that has been developed for construction of
the Wilson Creek Bridge is used as an additional source of information to give a detailed account
of the planned construction sequence and its anticipated effects on the structure. A number of site
visits, including interviews with the Project Engineer were performed to document the actual
construction process and to keep the information presented close to engineering practice.
1.5
RESEARCH SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS
As mentioned before, this study consists of two main parts. First of all, a comprehensive
literature review reports on historical developments that led to the current state-of-the-art in
bridge engineering and assembles information on future possible developments. It is examined
how bridge engineers deal with design and construction of bridges, from the very first sketch to
the final complete structure. Moreover, technical background information on the different
important erection methods for bridge superstructures is provided and it is analyzed to what
extent the different erection methods are influenced by their respective construction loads. The
focus of attention lies on Balanced Cantilever Construction, which is the method actually chosen
for erection of the Wilson Creek Bridge. However, many of the concepts outlined in this study
can be applied to other erection methods as well.
While Balanced Cantilevering Construction is certainly an important erection method in bridge
construction, other methods exist as well and may in some cases, depending on the
characteristics of an actual bridge project, be even more feasible. This study concentrates on
Balanced Cantilevering while mentioning certain constructability aspects of other erection
methods.
Providing the case study of the Wilson Creek Bridge that is located in Montgomery County in
Virginia as a real-life construction example complements the theoretical parts of this study and
helps gaining better understanding of construction engineering practice. It documents how the
Wilson Creek Bridge was built and gives a detailed insight into how Balanced Cantilever
Construction is implemented in practice. Graphical representations of the erection process such
as schematics and photographs are used to illustrate the case study. Conclusions are drawn in the
final part of this study.
1.6
THESIS ORGANIZATION
Chapter 1 of this thesis contains introductory information on bridge engineering, it covers the
research objectives, scope, and limitations and the methodology used in developing this study. A
brief description of each chapter is given in the following paragraphs.
Chapter 2 covers the historical background of bridge construction, outlining the development of
bridge types and their construction throughout main phases in history and giving some examples.
The most important future challenges in bridge engineering areas of improvement throughout
the life-cycle of a bridge, high-performance materials, and innovative structural concepts are
the topic of the second half of this chapter.
Chapter 3 covers the process for design of segmental bridges that engineers undertake. Thoughts
on the general nature of design will be given and the importance of aesthetics in Civil
Engineering with its various aspects will be discussed. Furthermore, characteristic factors
influencing both design and construction will be mentioned. The modeling approach taken in
structural analysis of bridge structures will be described to contribute to the readers overall
understanding. Finally, constructability considerations of segmental bridges will be given in
preparation for the following sections on actual project execution.
Chapter 4 deals with the construction process of segmental bridges. The important erection
techniques and equipment necessary for construction of segmental bridges are presented in more
detail, including the Balanced Cantilevering Method that is used for the case study bridge. With
this knowledge assembled, a discussion of the consideration of construction loads and stresses is
given.
Chapter 5 introduces the project chosen for the case study, the Wilson Creek Bridge in Virginia,
U.S. It gives a chronological description and discussion of the conceptualization, design,
construction, and anticipated utilization. Particular emphasis is put on the means and methods in
actual construction operations, in this case the Balanced Cantilevering Method. The casting cycle
for the bridge and the equipment used are presented in detail.
Chapter 6 sums up the contributions made in this thesis and points out further related areas of
research that may be worth being explored.
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
The following chapter shall introduce the reader to past, present, and future in bridge
engineering. The history of engineering is as old as mankind itself, and it is without doubt that
technical progress and the rise of human society are deeply interwoven. Bridges have often
played an essential role in technical advancement within Civil Engineering.
The development of important types of bridges and the changing use of materials and techniques
of construction throughout history will be dealt with in the first part of this chapter. Notably,
manifold legends and anecdotes are connected with the bridges of former eras. Studying the
history of a bridge from its construction throughout its life will always also reveal a fascinating
picture of the particular historical and cultural background.
The second part of this chapter introduces the main challenges that the current generation of
bridge engineers and following generations will face. Three important areas of interest are
identified. These are improvements in design, construction, maintenance, and rehabilitation of a
bridge, application of high-performance materials, and creative structural concepts. As
technology advances, many new ways of innovation thus open for the bridge engineer.
2.1
HISTORY OF BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
The bridges described in the following sections are examples of their kind. A vast amount of
literally thousands of bridges built requires choosing a few exemplary ones to show the main
developments in bridge construction throughout the centuries. Any book examining bridges in a
historical context will make its own choice, and studying these works can be of great value for
understanding of the legacy of bridge engineering. The subdivision into certain periods in time
shall provide a framework for the readers orientation in the continuous process of history as it
unfolds.
7
Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1.1
Ancient Structures
It will never be known who built the first actual bridge structure. Our knowledge of past days
fades the further we look back into time. We can but assume that man, in his search for food and
shelter from the elements and with his given curiosity, began exploring his natural environment.
Crossing creeks and crevices with technical means thus was a matter of survival and progress,
and bridges belong to the oldest structures ever built. The earliest bridges will have consisted of
the natural materials available, namely wood and stone, and simple handmade ropes. In fact,
there is only a handful of surviving structures that might even be considered prehistoric, e.g. the
so-called Clapper bridges in the southern part of England, as Brown (1993) notes.
2.1.1.1 Ancient Structural Principles

The earliest cultures already used a variety of structural principles. The simplest form of a bridge,
a beam supported at its two ends, may have been the predecessor of any other kind of bridges;
perhaps turned into reality through use of a tree that was cut down or some flat stone plates used
as lintels. Arches and cantilevers can be constructed of smaller pieces of material, held together
by the compressive force of their own gravity or by ropes. These developments made larger spans
possible as the superstructure would not have to be transported to the site in one complete piece
anymore.
Probably the oldest stone arch bridge can be found crossing the River Meles with a single span at
Smyrna in Turkey and dates back to the ninth century
BC
(Barker and Puckett 1997). Even
suspension bridges are no new inventions of modern times but have already been in use for
hundreds of years. Early examples are mentioned from many different places, such as India and
the Himalaya, China, and from an expedition to Belgian Congo in the early years of this century
(Brown 1993). Native tribes in Mexico, Peru, and other parts of South America, as Troitsky
(1994) reports, also used them. He also mentions that cantilevering bridges were in use in China
and also in ancient Greece as early as 1100
BC.
Podolny and Muller (1982) give information on
cantilevering bridges in Asia and mention that reports on wooden cantilevers from as early as the
fourth century AD have survived.
2.1.1.2 Trial and Error

In some cases, authors of books or book chapters on the history of bridges use terms such as
primitive, probably as opposed to the modern state-of-the-art engineering achievements. It is
spoken of a lack of proper understanding, and of empirical methods. From todays point of view
it is easy to come to such a judgement, but one should be careful not to diminish the outstanding
achievements of the early builders. In our technical age with a well-developed infrastructure,
computer communication, and heavy equipment readily available it is easy to forget about the
real circumstances under which these structures were built. Since mathematics and the natural
sciences had yet even begun being developed it is not astonishing that no engineering
calculations and material testing as adhering to our modern understanding were performed. But a
feeling for structures and materials was present in the minds of these ancient master builders.
With this and much trial and error they built beautiful structures so solid and well engineered that
many have survived the centuries until our days.
2.1.1.3 The Earliest Beginnings

Earliest cultures to use bridges according to our current knowledge were the Sumarians in
Mesopotamia and the Egyptians, who used corbelled stone arches for the vaults of tombs (Brown
1993).
In the fifth century
BC
the Greek historian Herodotus, who lived from about 490 to 425
BC
(Brown 1993), wrote the history of the ancient world. His report on the city of Babylon includes
a description of the achievements of Queen Nitocris, who had embankments and a bridge with
stone masonry piers and a timber deck built at the River Euphrates. This bridge is believed to
have been built in about 780
BC
(Troitsky 1994) and was built as described in the following
(Greene 1987, p118).

and as near as possible to the middle of the city she built a bridge with the
stones she had dug, binding the stones together with iron and lead. On this bridge
she stretched, each morning, square hewn planks on which the people of Babylon
10
could cross. By night the planks were withdrawn, so that the inhabitants might not
keep crossing at night and steal from one another.
Herodotus report does not tell about the construction of this bridge and leaves much room for
imagination on how the bridge might actually have looked like. His second report on a bridge,
however, gives a more detailed view. A floating pontoon bridge was used by Persian King
Xerxes to cross the Hellespont with his large army in the year 480 BC (Brown 1993). Herodotus
describes the bridge in detail (Greene 1987, pp482f):
It is seven stades (a stade was about 660 feet) from Abydos to the land opposite.
[] This is how they built the bridge: they set together both penteconters and
triremes, three hundred and sixty to bear the bridge on the side nearest the Euxine
and three hundred and fourteen for the other bridge, all at an oblique angle to the
Pontus but parallel with the current of the Hellespont. This was done to lighten
the strain on the cables. [] When the strait was bridged, they sawed logs of
wood, making them equal to the width of the floating raft, and set these logs on
the stretched cables, and then, having laid them together alongside, they fastened
them together again at the top. Having done this, they strewed brushwood over it,
and, having laid the brushwood in order, they carried earth on the top of that;
they stamped down the earth and then put up a barrier on either side
If one considers Herodotus account to be accurate the bridge must have been a fairly impressive
structure and without any equivalent at its time. Especially the description of how the pontoons
were anchored indicates a well developed understanding of structural principles. Use of bridges
for military needs was not uncommon in ancient times. Gaius Iulius Caesar (100 - 44
BC)
is
amongst the authors who left us very clear records of early bridges. In his De Bello Gallico,
written in 51 or 50
BC,
he mentions several bridges that he had his troops build during his
conquest, e.g. across the Sane, and in the fourth book he describes the famous timber bridge
built across the Rhine in 55
BC.
This type of bridge was actually rebuilt a second time later
during his conquest. His description of the structure is to such detail that several attempts were
made to reconstruct it, and it shows the level of knowledge to which the engineering profession
had grown by that time (Wiseman and Wiseman 1990, pp78-80):
Two piles a foot and a half thick, slightly pointed at their lower ends and of
lengths dictated by the varying depth of the river, were fastened together two feet
apart. We used tackle to lower these into the river, where they were fixed in the
bed and driven home by pile drivers, not vertically, as piles usually are, but
obliquely, leaning in the direction on the current.
11
Opposite these, 40 feet lower down the river, two more piles were fixed, joined
together in the same way, though this time against the force of the current. These
two pairs were then joined by a beam two feet wide, whose ends fitted exactly into
the spaces between the two piles of each pair. The pairs were kept apart from
each other by means of braces that secured each pile to the end of the beam. So
the piles were kept apart, and held fast in the opposite direction, the structure
being so strong and the laws of physics such that the greater the force of the
current, the more tightly were the timbers held in place.
A series of these piles and beams was put in position and connected by lengths of
timber set across them, with poles and bundles of sticks laid on top. The structure
was strong, but additional piles were driven in obliquely on the downstream side
of the bridge; these were joined with the main structure and acted as buttresses to
take the force of the current. Other piles too were fixed a little way upstream from
the bridge so that if the natives sent down tree trunks or boats to demolish it,
these barriers would lessen their impact and prevent the bridge being damaged.
Ten days after the collection of the timber was begun, the work was completed
and the army led across.
Troitsky (1994) reports on an even older Roman timber bridge, the Pons Sublicius. It is the oldest
Roman bridge whose name is known, named after the Latin word for wooden piles. This bridge
was built in about 620
BC
by King Ancus Marcius and spanned the River Tiber (Adkins and
Adkins 1994).
The brief record of timber bridges given in this section would not be complete without
mentioning Appolodorus bridge across the Danube. It was built in about 104 AD under Emperor
Trajan (OConnor 1993). Its magnitude the length must have been more than a kilometer and
the unique structure of timber arches makes it special among the Roman bridges of which we
have record.
2.1.1.4 Timber Bridges

Timber bridges and timber superstructures on stone piers will probably have been prevailing in
many parts of the Roman Empire at that time. Wood was a cheap construction material and
abundantly available on the European continent. Furthermore it can be readily cut to shape and
transported with much less effort than stone. The Romans already knew nails as means of
12
connecting timber. Even the principle of wooden trusses was already known, as reliefs on both
the Trajans Column in Rome (AD 113) and the Column of Marcus Aurelius (AD 193) clearly
show truss-type railings of military bridges (OConnor 1993). However, there is no historic
evidence that the Romans actually used the truss as a structural element in their bridges. Truss
systems may have actually been used for the wooden falsework that was used for erection of
stone masonry arches.
2.1.1.5 Stone Bridges

Apart from timber bridges, stone masonry arch structures are examples of the outstanding skills
of the ancient Romans. The Roman stone arches where built on wooden falsework or centering
which could be reused for the next arch once one had been completed. The semicircular spans
rested on strong piers on foundations dug deeply into the riverbed. Brown (1993) points out that
due to the width of these piers between the solid abutments the overall cross section of the river
was reduced, thus increasing the speed of the current. To deal with this problem the Romans built
pointed cutwaters at the piers. A very comprehensive study on Roman arches can be found in
OConnor (1993).
The arches used were voussoir arches, which are put together of tapered stones with a keystone
that closes the arch. Compressive forces from the dead load and the weight of traffic on the
bridge hold the stones together even without use of any mortar. Corbelled arches, on the other
hand, consist of stones put on top of each other in a cantilevering manner until they two halves
finally meet in the middle. This principle was already known prior to Roman times and was used
in vaulted tombs throughout the Old World. Both different arch types are shown in Figure 2-1.
13
Keystone
Figure 2-1: Corbelled Arch and Voussoir Arch
2.1.1.6 Aqueducts and Viaducts

The Roman infrastructure system was very well developed. It served both military and civil uses
by providing an extensive network of roads. Aqueducts and viaducts of the Roman era can still
be found scattered over the former Roman Empire, primarily in Italy, France, and Spain. Some
Roman bridges or their remainders are also located in England, Africa and Asia Minor
(OConnor 1993).
Probably the best-known Roman aqueduct is the Pont du Gard near Nmes in Southern France,
which is shown in Figure 2-2. Built by Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa (64 - 12
BC)
in about 19
BC,
this structure was part of an aqueduct carrying water over more than 40 km (Liebenberg 1992).
The crossing of the River Gard has an impressive height of 47.4 m above the river, consisting of
three levels of semicircular arches that support the covered channel on top. The spans of the two
lower levels are up to 22.4 m wide. All of its stone masonry was built without use of mortar
except for the topmost level. A more recent addition to the Pont du Gard built in 1747 provides a
walkway next to the bottom arch level that is an exact copy of the Roman architecture (Leonhardt
1982). Another well-known aqueduct can be found at Segovia in Spain.
14
Figure 2-2: The Pont du Gard, Nmes, France (taken from Brown 1993, p18)
Sextus Iulius Frontius (c. 35 - 104
AD)
wrote De Aquis Urbis Romae on the history and
technology of the Roman aqueducts (OConnor 1993). Aqueducts were used to provide thermae,
baths, and public fountains with water; few residential buildings had an own connection.
However though, the amount of water available for every citizen is estimated to have equaled or
even exceeded todays standards for water supply systems. Adkins and Adkins (1994) speak of
half a million to a million cubic meters of water that were provided through Romes aqueducts
per day.
15
Located in Spain is a bridge that attracts interest because of its scale and the magnificent setting.
The Puente de Alcntara crosses the River Tagus at Caceres close to the border to Portugal with
six elegant masonry arches as shown in Figure 2-3. Again, these arches were built without the
use of mortar. The name of the bridge contains some redundancy, since it is derived from an old
Arabic term for bridge. The two main arches with a gate on the roadway are higher than the
Pont du Gard and remain the longest Roman arches, both spanning 30 m (Brown 1993). The
name of the Roman engineer who built this masterpiece in 98
AD
under Emperor Trajan is
known. Caius Iulius Lacers tomb is found nearby, and the gate with the famous inscription
Pontem perpetui mansuram in saecula mundi (I leave a bridge forever in the centuries of the
world) has survived the centuries (Gies 1963, p16).
Figure 2-3: The Puente de Alcntara, Caceres, Spain (taken from Brown 1993, p25)
Even earlier dates the Pons Augustus or Ponte dAugusto in Rimini, Italy. It was begun under
Emperor Augustus and finished in 20
AD
under Emperor Tiberius (OConnor 1993) and is
considered one of the most beautiful Roman bridges known. Five solid spans of only medium
lengths between 8 and 10.6 m are decorated in an extraordinary way, with niches framed by
pilasters over each pier (Steinman and Watson 1941). Andrea Palladio, architect of the
Renaissance, used this bridge to develop his own bridges, and thus spread the fame of this bridge
across Europe, as Gies (1963) writes.
16
Rome itself still houses ancient bridges built during the Roman era. Brown (1993) gives
information that eight major masonry bridges are known of in Rome, of which six still exist at
the River Tiber. They are the Ponte Rotto or Pons Aemilius, of which only a single span remains,
initially built in the second century
BC,
the Ponte Mollo (or Milvio) or Pons Mulvius, built 110
BC;
and the Ponte dei Quattro Capi or Pons Fabricius, built 62 BC. The Ponte Cestius was built 43
BC
and altered under subsequent emperors. Considered to be the most beautiful of Romes
bridges is the Pons Aelius (now known as Ponte SantAngelo), built
AD
134 under Emperor
Hadrian. Giovanni Lorenzo Bernini (1598 - 1680) modified it in 1668 by adding statues of angels
and a cast iron railing. The Ponte SantAngelo is shown in Figure 2-4. The Ponte Sisto, the
youngest bridge of this ensemble, was built in AD 370.
Figure 2-4: The Ponte SantAngelo, Rome, Italy (taken from Leonhardt 1984, p69)
17
2.1.1.7 Religious Symbolism

An interesting fact in the context of early bridge building is religious symbolism. Higher
positions in Roman hierarchy often involved both spiritual and practical tasks, such as control of
the markets and storage facilities, or the building activities. OConnor (1993, p2) tells that bridge
building supervision was placed in the care of the high priest, who received the title pontifex,
commonly translated as bridge builder, from the Latin pons (bridge) and facere (to make or
build). This title, pontifex maximus, was passed on to later Roman emperors and through early
Christian bishops even to the present Pope. In this context OConnor (1993, p3) offers the
explanation that this important title symbolized the bridge from God to man
2.1.1.8 Vitruvius De Architectura

The famous Roman architect and engineer Marcus Vitruvius Pollio (Morgan 1960) does not
specifically mention bridges in his work De Architectura (The Ten Books on Architecture),
which was written in the first century BC. However, aqueducts are the topic of a whole chapter in
Book Eight, and cofferdams, important for erecting bridge piers in riverbeds, are described in
detail in a section on harbors, breakwaters, and shipyards. According to him, a double enclosing
was constructed of wooden stakes with ties between them, into which clays was placed and
compacted. Afterwards, the water within the cofferdam was removed (several different engines
to pump water, such as water wheels and mills, and the water screw are described by him), and
work on the pier foundations could begin. In case the soil was to soft Vitruvius advised to stake
the soil with piles.
Another fact of particular interest for todays engineers is the description of concrete that
Vitruvius gives. In a comprehensive list of construction materials the origin and use of pozzolana
is described, a volcanic material that performs a cementitious reaction if mixed as a powder with
lime, rubble, and water. This reaction is hydraulic; i.e. the concrete obtained, called opus
caementitium, can harden even under water. Together with use of brick masonry and natural
stone, as well as with timber and sand, the Romans had an enormous range of flexibility in
constructing their buildings and structures. A truly unique example of their skills is the Pantheon
18
in Rome, built under Emperor Hadrian around the year AD 125. It is topped with a majestic 43.2m wide dome made of ring layers of concrete (Harries 1995). Use of lighter aggregates towards
the top, stress-relieving masonry rings, regular voids on the inside and tapering of the dome to
reduce its weight provide the structural stability that has made the Pantheon withstand all
influences until the present day.
2.1.1.9 Contributions of Ancient Bridge Building

In conclusion, the main bridge construction principles were already known and used to some
extent in ancient times. Due to lack of surviving timber structures one can only rely on historical
reports and depictions of these. Prevailing structures in ancient times were the semicircular stone
arch bridges, many of which have survived until the present day. Roman builders left a legacy of
impressive structures in all parts of former Roman Empire. Arch structures were intelligently
used both for heavy traffic and elaborate water supply systems; temporary timber structures also
served military purposes. These systems were developed to the full extent that was technically
possible and were not to be surpassed in mastery until many centuries later.
Engineering knowledge was already documented systematically by authors such as Vitruvius,
whose work influenced the builders of later centuries considerably. Great builders and artists,
such as Bramante, Michelangelo, and Palladio were careful students of his works.
2.1.2
The Middle Ages
For the historical overview given in this study, the term Middle Ages refers to the period of time
between the fifth and the late fifteenth century; other authors may set somewhat different limits,
e.g. the eleventh to the sixteenth century (Troitsky 1994). Thus, spanning a time of about a
thousand years in one section of this study can necessarily not cover all bridges built, but give a
representative selection of the achievements that were made. Their significance and history will
be discussed further in this section.
19
2.1.2.1 Preservation of Roman Knowledge

After more than 1,200 years of existence, the once mighty Roman Empire finally fell apart
around the fifth century AD (Adkins and Adkins 1994), and a period of anarchy and chaos began.
Invasions of the Eternal City destroyed much of the former grandeur. The major achievements of
the Roman civilization began to be forgotten, and their cities were deserted. Bridges as large and
solid as the Roman bridges were to be built again only centuries later. Gies (1963) reports that
the predominant community structures in Europe of the eighth and ninth century were small
feudal agricultural states. The knowledge of Roman culture was kept in monasteries scattered
across the old continent. Ancient authors, such as Vitruvius, were copied by hand many times by
the monks who thus preserved these treasures for future generations.
2.1.2.2 Bridges in the Middle East and Asia

At about the same time another rise of bridge building began. Had the Romans themselves
vanished in Europe, their influence on the Middle East and even Asia began to prosper. Persian
rulers built pointed brick arches, and the coming blossom of bridge building reached as far as
China, as Gies (1963) reports. The Chinese skillfully built elegant segmental stone arches with
roadways that followed the swinging shape of the arch, and they also built cantilevers of timber
on stone piers. According to Gies (1963) examples were reported by the thirteenth century
Venetian explorer Marco Polo (c. 1254 - 1324), who traveled Asia for several decades and
contributed much to the European view of the world. Indian cultures undertook own bridge
building under this influence and further developed the suspension bridges.
2.1.2.3 Revival of European Bridge Building

Finally, the art of bridge building also began to blossom in Europe again. Most authors
particularly mention the importance of the church in the Middle Ages that contributed to this
20
development. Contacts with the Middle East were made during the crusades, when the pilgrims
and knights saw evidence of the skills of Arabian cultures.
Importance of the church in these times cannot be exaggerated, since in many cases the order that
in society existed was enforced primarily by clergymen who held court, regulated merchants
fairs, and kept the monasteries as centers of knowledge and spiritual experience. It has already
been mentioned in Section 2.1.1.7 how the ancient title pontifex maximus of the Roman high
priest became to be used by the Popes.
The church had considerable influence on all major medieval building undertakings. The biggest
of these structures, the awe-inspiring cathedrals and large stone bridges, would not have been
built otherwise. Working on them was considered to be pious work (Gies 1963) and was thus a
very honorable task to be performed. Some religious orders formed to bring progress to hospices
and to build bridges for the travelers sake (Steinman and Watson 1941). Spreading from Italy,
where the Fratres Pontifices originated from, similar brotherhoods also formed in other
countries, e.g. France (Frres Pontiffes) and England (Brothers of the Bridge).
2.1.2.4 Construction and History of Old London Bridge

Probably the most colorful and vivid history, unsurpassed by any other, is related to a bridge
located in a city that gained an enormous growth in the medieval times (Gies 1963, p47). London
had been founded by the Romans, who called it Londinium. Little is known about the centuries
after the Romans had left and about former bridges in London, although there is arguments for an
early timber structure that crossed the Thames in AD 993 (Gies 1963).
Peter of Colechurch, a monk from a nearby district of the city, was the builder of Old London
Bridge, which was built between 1176 and 1209. He was never to see his bridge finished, since
he died in 1205 and was buried in the chapel that he had built on the bridge. As can be seen in
Figure 2-5, Old London Bridge altogether consisted of nineteen pointed masonry arches on crude
piers with large cutwaters, none of them equal in shape. A drawbridge was also included in the
structure. Piles were rammed into the soft bed of the river on which the piers rested. The bridge
21
must have seemed very massive and inelegant to an observer, and its appearance would change
even further with later centuries. Fortifications on the bridge, namely the two towering gates
were added. It became customs to display the heads of executed prisoners on top of this gate, and
after building a new tower for a decayed one, it was thereafter called Traitors Gate (Gies 1963).
As the length of Old London Bridge was only about 300 m the massive piers of Old London
Bridge took away more than half of the width of the river so that the speed of the current
increased tremendously. Boats with passengers were said to be shooting the bridge when they
passed under it, and records of numerous accidents have been reported (Gies 1963, p40).
Figure 2-5: Old London Bridge, London, Great Britain

(taken from Steinman and Watson 1941, p69)
Located in the heart of London, Old London Bridge served the city for more than six hundred
years, and for most of this time, about five and a half centuries, it remained the only solid passing
22
of the Thames. In 1740 finally, Westminster Bridge was built, and in 1831 building a new bridge
at the old location was begun.
Over all this long time Old London Bridge continuously changed its appearance. Apart from the
chapel already mentioned, more buildings were added on top of the superstructure. Except for a
few openings where the river could actually be seen from the roadway, the bridge in its later days
carried literally dozens of houses. These were crammed at both sides of the roadway, leaving
only relatively little space in the middle. Wooden frames held the houses together over the
roadway, and some reportedly even had basements under the arch spans, leaving even less room
for boats to pass. Even wheels were erected under several spans to power watermills.
Merchandising flourished on the bridge and tolls were collected for passing it. The ease of water
supply and wastewater removal at the bridge made it a favorite place for the trades of the
Londoners, Gies (1963) lines out.
Many anecdotes and legends are attached to Old London Bridge. It even once happened that a
complete house fell off the bridge into the Thames. As Steinman and Watson (1941, p64) put it,
the life story of this six-hundred-year-old bridge would fill many a good-sized volume and
would include exciting accounts of fire, tournaments, battles, fairs, royal processions, dramas,
songs, and dances. A highly readable description of these centuries full of history is given in a
chapter by Gies (1963).
2.1.2.5 The Pont dAvignon

As with Old London Bridge the bridge over the Rhne at Avignon has a legendary history. It is
not exactly known who the builder was; some sources mention the name of Brother Bnot as the
builder, who began work on the bridge in 1178. The legend, however, is related to the vision of a
local shepherd named Bnzet, after which the Bishop of Avignon had the bridge built. In
comparison with Old London Bridge, though built almost at the same time, the Pont dAvignon
was much more elegant. It bridged the 900-m long distance with twenty or twenty-one elliptical
arches of which only four remain with spans up to 35 m, longer than any Roman arches. All other
23
spans were destroyed in wars and through ice on the river. The Pont dAvignon was built in
merely ten years (Brown 1993). A new arch shape, the so-called three-centered arch was used for
the spans, which composed of two segments of a circle that are connected with a smaller curved
segment at their top.
In accuracy of the stone masonry and with its majestic elegance the Pont dAvignon was the first
bridge in Europe that could achieve and surpass the Roman level of engineering. The remaining
arches carry a small chapel at which the roadway of the bridge narrows down to only 2 m for
defense purposes. Bnzet died prior to completion in 1184 and was buried in the chapel.
2.1.2.6 Further Notable Medieval Bridges

Several other medieval bridges are worth being mentioned in this overview of medieval bridge
building. The Pont Valentr at Cahors in France, shown in Figure 2-6, is about 150 years younger
than the Pont dAvignon. It resembles its older brother with its pointed slender arches and the
triangular cutwaters, but has been preserved completely. Six regular arches of 16.5 m span length
and three watchtowers at its ends and in its middle (Brown 1993) give the bridge over the Lot a
graceful appearance.
24
Figure 2-6: The Pont Valentr, Cahors, France (taken from Brown 1993, p29)
A multiuse bridge from 1345 that was built by Taddeo Gaddi (c. 1300 - 1366) can be found in
the old merchants city of Florence in Italy. Although it then had a relatively small in population
from todays point of view, Florence was an important center for trades of all kinds. It also was
home to the famous Medici, a family clan that had gained enormous wealth and influence
through banking and commerce since the thirteenth century. Later, they also supported the fine
arts and thus contributed to Florence becoming a major cultural center of Europe of the
Renaissance. Today, unlike any other city, Florence houses buildings from the Renaissance
times. The Ponte Vecchio crosses the River Arno with three shallow arch spans, of which the
25
middle span reaches 30 m length. Figure 2-7 shows this truly unique bridge. In this bridge for the
first time segmental arches were used. The segmental arch consists of an arch with less than a
semicircular curvature, thus having a much smaller rise. Later the bridge was extended and
turned into a covered bridge by building shops at both sides of the roadway and a gallery above
these that connects the Uffizi and Pitti Palaces (Brown 1993). The shops are still in use by
goldsmiths today.
Figure 2-7: The Ponte Vecchio, Florence, Italy (taken from Leonhardt 1984, p75)
Steinman and Watson (1941) report of covered medieval timber bridges that have been preserved
until today, especially a pair of bridges in Lucerne, Switzerland. Both bridges, the Kapellbrcke
and the Spreuerbrcke, are crossing the River Reuss and were part of the medieval citys
26
fortifications. The Kapellbrcke with the so-called Wasserturm (watertower) is said to date from
1333 (Steinman and Watson 1941) and has its name from a nearby chapel of St. Peter. It is
shown in Figure 2-8. Paintings under the roof show scenes from the local history. Similar in
shape, the Spreuerbrcke was completed in 1408. It features a large amount of pictures under its
wooden roof that depict a Dance of Death, painted in the seventeenth century, as Gies (1963)
reports.
Figure 2-8: The Kapellbrcke, Lucerne, Switzerland (taken from Brown 1993, p76)
The last bridge to be mentioned in this account is in itself a link between different historical eras.
The Charles Bridge (Karluv Most) in Prague in the Czech Republic was built after a flood in
1342 had destroyed a previous structure across the River Vltava. Emperor Charles IV had the
new bridge begun in 1357 under the leadership of Peter Parlr. Its total length of almost 520 m
was achieved by building sixteen arches with a maximum span of 23.4 m. The bridge is not
27
exactly straight, but has two slight curves in its longitudinal axis, probably because the builder
thus utilized more favorable ground conditions for the pier foundations. A mixture of styles can
be found in the bridge; the arches are still Roman in their almost semicircular shape, whereas the
solid triangular cutwaters are clearly medieval (Brown 1983). Two decorated towers are found at
the bridge with one of them dating back to the twelfth century, being renovated in 1590 in the
Renaissance style. Especially the thirty Baroque statues of Saints on the parapets, mostly of
stone, have made the bridge famous. Construction was mainly finished by the end of the
fourteenth century, although some reports point out a period of one and a half centuries (Brown
1993). However, the many changes and additions of later times contributed to the unique
appearance of the bridge, which is a symbol of the city of Prague itself.
Figure 2-9: The Charles Bridge, Prague, Czech Republic (taken from Brown 1993, p32)
2.1.2.7 Purpose of Medieval Bridges

A very important characterization of medieval bridge building and their decorations is given by
Steinman and Watson (1941), who lay out that medieval bridges served the following purposes:
28
They served military, spiritual, and even commercial and residential functions. Thus, medieval
bridges were the first example of real multipurpose bridges and were indeed closely linked with
the lives of their contemporaries. This multi-purpose concept later reappears in the twentieth
century as an expectation for the future of bridge utilization and is discussed in Section 2.2.3.3.4.
2.1.2.8 Contributions of Medieval Bridge Building

During medieval times bridge construction was revived in the Old World with considerable
influence of the church. Construction was based on empirical knowledge of materials and
structural behavior. The level of mastery and accuracy that the Roman engineers had set in their
stone masonry was hardly reached again until the coming era that had just began to dawn.
Sometimes the bridges were even built with rubble and a brick veneer, as Steinman and Watson
(1941) point out. They also note that building solid foundations for the massive piers was a
problem, as especially the mortar employed was not made of the durable hydraulic cement that
the Romans had used, but normal lime mortar. Span lengths rarely surpassed Roman
achievements.
Development was made, however, in the shape of arches. Formerly only semicircular arches with
a height of half their diameter had been used in Europe. Now pointed and even flat segmental
arches offered much flexibility for span-to-rise ratios. An advantage of pointed arches was that
they put less load on the falsework, which makes their construction easier (Troitsky 1994). Even
some multi-centered elliptical arches were constructed, as e.g. in the Pont dAvignon.
In conclusion it can be stated that although the bridges of the Middle Ages are impressive in their
history, few real engineering developments were made in the art of bridge construction, except
for more varied shapes of the arches, especially in longer multi-span river crossings.

2.1.3
29
The Renaissance
Had the church and its focus on the spiritual world strongly influenced people of the medieval
times, the Renaissance brought along a change in thinking. Renaissance literally translated means
rebirth, in a classical sense. The Renaissance times put emphasis on this life, not on that of the
hereafter (Steinman and Watson 1941, p71). The importance of learning and the accumulation
of knowledge grew again after the first European universities had been formed as early as the
thirteenth century. Along with this new mentality went commercial growth, more traffic, and
naturally also the need for more and better roads and bridges. Arts explored new areas and the
natural sciences were prospering in their development. Multi-talented personalities performed
their work during those times. Steinman and Watson (1941) specifically name Leonardo da
Vinci, Filippo Brunelleschi, Michelangelo Buonarroti, Georgius Agricola, Nicholas Copernicus,
Galileo Galilei, and Francis Bacon, not to forget William Shakespeare, Johannes Kepler, Tycho
Brahe, Blaise Pascal, Christiaan Huygens, Isaac Newton, Robert Hooke, and others. It is this
colorful and creative mixture that makes the Renaissance a very interesting era in the
development of humanity.
2.1.3.1 Renaissance Trusses

During the Renaissance, the truss system was developed further for use in bridge construction.
Known since Roman times, the truss now was finally seen as a means of superstructure in itself.
Every truss relies on the geometrical principle that the very shape of a triangle cannot be changed
without disrupting the length of any of its sides. Gies (1963, p100) puts this in a clear sentence,
a triangle cannot be distorted. Structures constructed of triangles or, in modern times, of their
spatial equivalent, the tetrahedron thus are very strong. Regardless of the stiffness of its hinges
the truss is resistant to forces imposed. Many special truss configurations developed later in
building covered bridges in America (see Section 2.1.4.6), carrying the names of their
developers, and there is virtually no limit to the possibilities of the truss principle.
30
2.1.3.2 Palladios I Quattro Libri dellArchitettura

Andrea Palladio (1508 - 1580), born in Padua as Andrea di Pietro dalla Gondola, described
several different trusses in his I Quattro Libri dellArchitettura (The Four Books of Architecture)
(Palladio 1570), also mentioning an arched truss. An example of his designs is shown in Figure
2-10.
Figure 2-10: Palladian Truss (taken from Palladio 1570, p66)
He made use of the so-called king post truss, which consisted of a triangle that had a vertical
member resting on the lower chord, the king post (Gies 1963). These designs for the most part
were not used in practice until much later, as his ideas still were very advanced for his times.
Palladio, according to Steinman and Watson (1941) was strongly influenced by Vitruvius, whose
De Architectura he translated. Palladio revived the classical architectural orders that Vitruvius
31
had described and wrote extensively about materials and geometrical proportioning, private and
public buildings, and about roads and ancient and modern bridges. Truss structures had already
been used extensively in building construction, specifically for roof trusses, and it is astonishing
that no major bridges of the truss system where built earlier.
2.1.3.3 Veranzios Machinae Novae

Brown (1993) mentions the ideas of another outstanding architect and engineer, Fausto Veranzio
(or Faustus Verantius, 1551 - 1617), who published his Machinae Novae (Veranzio 1615) in
about 1615. Interesting about this work is both the technical contents, and the way of publication.
Veranzio compiled a comprehensive volume of existing and theoretical mechanical engines,
mostly watermills, windmills, clocks, a parachute similar to da Vincis (1452 - 1519) design
and some agricultural tools. Most important, however, are the depictions and descriptions of
bridges that appeared. A very simple truss, wooden arch bridges, and even a masonry arch with
prestressing rods are included. Modern looking suspension bridges made of ropes or iron eyebars
are further presented in considerable detail.
Two editions of Machinae Novae are known, one of which contains the copperplate engravings
and the text in Latin and Italian, another edition additionally contains the text in old-fashioned
Spanish, French and German. Several other books of mechanical engines were published in about
this time. The afterword of Veranzios facsimile edition mentions a number of other authors.
2.1.3.4 The Rialto Bridge

Similar in concept to the Ponte Vecchio, but completely different in its appearance is the Rialto
Bridge in Venice, Italy, over the Canale Grande, built 1587 - 1591 when a previous bridge over
the Grand Canal was to be replaced because of obsolescence. Venice by this time was a
flourishing merchants and seafarers city. Over several decades a variety of proposals were
submitted to the Venetian Senate, including a design by Palladio until the final design by
32
Antonio da Ponte (1512 - 1597) was chosen. A single 27-m long segmental arch spans the waters
with a 6.4 m rise and the considerable width of 22.9 m (Brown 1993). The Rialto Bridge is
shown in Figure 2-11.
Figure 2-11: The Rialto Bridge, Venice, Italy (taken from Leonhardt 1984, p96)
Most difficult to construct were the foundations, which required stepped groups of piles to be
rammed into the soft ground close to existing buildings, onto which masonry layers were placed.
A mechanical pile hammer was used (Steinman and Watson 1941) to drive the piles to refusal.
Doubts as to the stability of the foundations arose in public and interrupted the construction
process. Finally construction was resumed after an investigation by the Venetian Senate decided
in favor of da Ponte and his work. Major falsework was erected to build the single span. The
33
courses of stones in most of the superstructure were laid in voussoir-like fashion radial to the
centerpoint of the arch, giving the arch an enormous stability. Shortly after completion the bridge
really proved to be stable when it withstood an earthquake without any damages. Two rows of
small shops at both sides of the bridge with a center roof above give the bridge its typical unique
appearance (Brown 1993, pp36f).
2.1.3.5 French Renaissance Bridge Building

France became an important location in bridge building in the Renaissance. King Louis XIV had
the so-called Corps des Ponts and Chausses established in 1716 in order to promote the
building and maintenance of the national road system. Derived from the success of this group the
cole des Ponts et Chausses was founded and became the first real engineering school
worldwide. An experienced engineer, Jean-Rodolphe Perronet (1708 - 1794) took the lead of this
institution. Brown (1993) also provides background information on Perronets most important
discovery. When noticing that an arch of a bridge under construction was leaning to the still-tobe-built span Perronet realized that the arches mutually exerted horizontal thrust. This principle
he used for the Pont de Neuilly, built 1771 to 1772 across the Seine north of Paris with five
elliptical 36.6-m spans. The arches he constructed were extraordinarily shallow and rested on
very slender piers of only 4 m width, with strong abutments resisting the thrust from the arches.
Perronet also experimented with horse-driven piles (Gies 1963). Furthermore, the Pont de
Neuilly incorporated a relatively new shape of the arches themselves a tapered edge of the
arches called corne de vache created a shadow that underlined the arches and made their front
view appear even shallower, as can be see in Figure 2-12. This corne de vache, or splayed arch
(Steinman and Watson 1941), had been used for the first time in another stone arch erected in
Paris, the Pont Notre Dame, built by the priest Fra Giovanni Giocondo between 1500 and 1507
(Gies 1963). This special design, according to Gies (1963) also facilitates a broader deck and
funnels the passage of floodwaters through the arch.
34
Figure 2-12: The Pont de Neuilly, Paris, France (taken from Brown 1993, p42)
However, the new construction scheme of shallow segmental arches required that the arches were
erected on falsework simultaneously. Previous constructions had mostly utilized very solid piers
that carried an arch even when its neighbors had not been completed yet. In this case,
construction of the superstructure was done during one year only, which employed a large work
crew. Perronet used sophisticated means to construct the foundations. The bucket wheels to
dewater the cofferdams were powered by the current of the river itself (Brown 1993). Despite the
elaborate manner of construction and the reduced weight of the long-spanning bridge, there were
still some settlements of the piers. The Pont de Neuilly remained in service until 1956, when it
was removed.
Perronet built several other bridges. His final works, the Pont de la Concorde in Paris, built 1787
to 1791, remains an example of extraordinary engineering achievement. Its five arches with
slightly increasing span lengths towards the middle arch bridge the Seine are shown in Figure 213. The parapet of this bridge is not massive, as usually built until then, but an open balustrade
that gives the bridge further lightness (Leonhardt 1984).
35
Figure 2-13: The Pont de la Concorde, Paris, France (taken from Leonhardt 1984, p83)
Another well-known bridge of the same era shall not remain unmentioned at this point, as it is a
very beautiful structure of harmonic proportions, shown in Figure 2-14. The Pont Neuf, which
literally means New Bridge, is located at one end of the Seine Island and was built between
1578 and 1607. Leonhardt (1984) notes the unusual width of 20.8 m, which also incorporated the
corne de vache principle. The Seine Island divides the bridge into two parts, a longer northern
half with seven arches, and a southern half with five skewed arches. The pier width is only 4.5 m.
Cofferdams were employed, but regarding the foundations Steinman and Watson (1941) report
that initially no pile foundation was built to withstand the scour of the river current, making
repair work necessary.
36
Figure 2-14: The Pont Neuf, Paris, France (taken from Leonhardt 1984, p92)
2.1.3.6 English Renaissance Bridge Building

After Old London Bridge had served the British capital for about 550 years, finally plans for a
new bridge were made. Westminster Bridge was built between 1740 and 1747, carrying out a
thirteen-span version with semicircular arches and pronounced piers. As the foundations were the
most difficult part of the works, the Westminster Bridge Commission asked the builder, Charles
Labelye, to first only build the foundations until further notice (Brown 1993). Labelye was a
graduate of the cole des Ponts et Chausses that was mentioned in Section 2.1.3.5 (Gies 1963).
Brown further reports that Labelye efficiently used a timber caisson, whose base remained under
layers of masonry whereas the sides could be detached and reused. Pre Romain, who was
consulted by the designer Jules-Hardouin Mansart in building the Pont Royal in Paris, had first
37
used the caisson technique in 1685 (Gies 1963). Labelye furthermore employed horse-driven
piledriving machines that were far more effective than manually driven machines. But even with
these sophisticated techniques foundation of bridges remained difficult, for some considerable
settlement in one of the piers of Westminster Bridge required extensive repair work around the
pier.
2.1.3.7 Contributions of Renaissance Bridge Building

The Renaissance times brought more daring bridge structures with them. The piers of the bridges
became more slender as the span-to-rise ratios of the bridges became larger. Had the ratio
formerly mostly been very small, the Renaissance bridges brought along a considerable increase
in span-to-rise ratios. Most importantly, the bridge builders used elliptical arches, as the threecentered arch, and very shallow segmental arches to their full extent.
Although there were still some problems with foundations of the piers, a variety of methods, e.g.
using piledriving machines and cofferdams as well as the first caissons had been used in practice
and builders were confident in these methods. The need to follow suitable ground conditions in
the riverbed diminished, so that more flexibility in location of bridges and their piers grew.
The bridges naturally had to withstand the same environmental influences, but they were
mastered in different ways now. Longer slender spans with fewer piers diminished the problem
of scour at the foundations considerably, and the builders also experimented with cutwater
shapes different from the triangular medieval type, i.e. more rounded forms as for the Pont de la
Concorde. Tapered edges, called corne de vache, could better lead the waters through the bridge
in case of floods. Piers were not built extremely solid anymore to withstand the construction
loads from an unfinished arch and to withstand the pressures exerted by floodwaters and ice on
the river. Segmental arches were shallower than semicircular arches. However though, their
abutments needed to be strong to withstand the horizontal forces that arose from these arches. It
has already been mentioned that segmental arches required considerable work efforts to erect all
spans at the same time.
38
Summarizing, the Renaissance did not only change the appearance of bridges, but also
successfully experimented with new principles in bridge construction, thus giving later builders a
bigger variety of choice how to build their bridges at hand. A new revolution was still to come
that did not arise from varying stone arches anymore, but that opened new horizons through
introduction of a new material into bridge construction iron.
2.1.4
The Industrial Revolution
The country in which the Industrial Revolution took its beginning was England. The
development of spinning and weaving machines and the development of the steam engine and
later of the steam locomotive all fall into this time. England had rich resources in coal and iron
ore that supported the progress of industrialization. With growing industrial production, railway
tracks were spreading across the country and required building many new bridges to cross natural
obstacles.
2.1.4.1 The Ironbridge

Brown (1993) reports of the Englishman Robert Mylne (1734 - 1811), who made an important
contribution to modern bridge building; he sketched the design of a small bridge with iron
arches. The bridge that he had depicted was never built, but the first step had been done. After
other engineers had produced similar designs for small iron arches, finally a bridge was built in
1777 to 1779 that opened the way to a new chapter in the history of bridge building. The first
bridge built completely of iron is now a cherished British monument.
The Coalbrookdale region at the River Severn can be considered one of the centers from which
the Industrial Revolution spread. The location of this developing mining area with furnaces to
melt iron made it ideal to built the first bridge of cast iron. Cast iron is strong in both tension and
compression, making very slender members possible. The Ironbridge near Coalbrookdale is
shown in Figure 2-15. It has a single span of 30.5 m that rests between two masonry abutments.
39
Five semicircular ribs that were cast in two halves formed the arch. Its erection over a deep
valley took only three months. In its design the Ironbridge relied on masonry and timber
structures, which was specifically apparent in the dovetail joints and wedges utilized (Brown
1993). Appreciation of the new possibilities that lay in the material iron had just begun. Bridge
projects that fully utilized the advantages of iron were realized in the next decades to come.
Figure 2-15: The Ironbridge, Coalbrookdale, Great Britain (taken from Brown 1993, p44)
40
2.1.4.2 Early Iron Structures

Some names are closely linked to the further development of iron bridges. Thomas Telford (1757
- 1834) is considered one of the greatest British engineers. He was born in Scotland, worked in
the area of the Ironbridge, and he started building bridges a few years after the Ironbridge itself
had been built. Telford pioneered the art of building bridges of iron in the following years.
A truly beautiful bridge that was built in 1815 after his design is the Craigellachie Bridge over
the River Spey in Scotland, which is shown in Figure 2-16. It consists of a slender trussed arch
with a gently curved roadway supported on a framework of diagonals. The bridge rests on
inclined masonry abutments, each decorated with two circular towers in medieval style.
Figure 2-16: The Craigellachie Bridge, Great Britain (taken from Leonhardt 1984, p222)
In 1805 Telford built a major iron-trough aqueduct at Pontcysyllte in Scotland to drag boats
across. It carries a canal at a maximum of 38.7 m over ground across the River Dee on a length of
307 m. Its nineteen arches have a span of 13.7 m and consist of cast iron members (Brown 1993).
41
The thin-walled waterway rests on the arches that are separated by masonry diaphragms on top of
the stone masonry piers, and it is strengthened by stiffening ribs at its outside that give the large
structure a regular pattern.
The great number of different structures that were built under Telfords supervision is a good
example of the broad scope of projects that a civil engineer of the nineteenth century could
participate in. Telford became the first president of the Institution of Civil Engineers, as Gies
(1963) reports. His greatest achievement, the Menai Strait Bridge, will be presented in the
following Section 2.1.4.4.
John Rennie (1761 - 1821), also of Scottish roots, developed designs for iron arches similar to
the one at Coalbrookdale, but was mainly involved in masonry bridges and gathered considerable
experience and reputation with these. His work gave London the Waterloo Bridge. It was built
between 1810 and 1817 and consisted of nine plain elliptical granite arches of 36.6 m span with
6.1-m thick piers, which were decorated with two Doric columns on each side. Rennie decided
upon use of cofferdams for all piers. Steam engines provided the power for pumps to dewater the
cofferdams. Afterwards, prefabricated falsework was delivered by barges, setting it into place for
the next arch once the previous one had been completed (Brown 1993). In 1930 the bridge was
demolished because of unstable foundations and later replaced with a new bridge.
John Rennie built many masonry aqueducts in the growing canal system, of which the Lune
Aqueduct, built in 1798 with strong semicircular arches, remains the largest in Great Britain
(Brown 1993). He built the impressive Southwark Bridge across the Thames, a massive cast iron
structure with three spans. The heavy center span had a length of 73.2 m and a rise of 7.3 m.
Again, cofferdams were used to found the piers properly. Rennie also designed the replacement
for Old London Bridge, whose story has been told briefly in Section 2.1.2.4. In 1746 a
commission under Charles Labelye surveyed the bridge and later commissions made proposals to
remove the buildings from its superstructure, perform some widening, and to replace two middle
arches with a longer span. One proposal for the replacement that was never built came from
Thomas Telford, who designed a 183-m cast iron arch. Rennies son finally built New London
Bridge with five elliptical spans between 39.6 and 43.6 m long. John Rennie died before the
work had been begun. The bridge was opened in 1831 and survived until 1971 when the
42
remainders were transported to Lake Havasu City in Arizona to be re-erected there (Brown
1993). Figure 2-17 shows New London Bridge in its original state.
Figure 2-17: New London Bridge, London, Great Britain

2.1.4.3 Early Suspension Bridges

The modern suspension bridges particularly rely on the work of James Finley, who was a judge
and justice of the peace in Pennsylvania and died in 1828 (Steinman and Watson 1941). He
received several patents on chain suspension bridges. Although some of the bridges he built later
collapsed, their construction was an important milestone in the development of modern
43
suspension bridges. All the important features of suspension bridges were incorporated in his
designs: Towers holding the main chain cables, with hangers supporting the deck, which
sometimes was stiffened with a truss. In 1809 a bridge near Philadelphia even incorporated a
multi-span system. Shortly thereafter, the first temporary bridges with wire cables made of
wrought iron appeared, and the eyebar chain cables were developed further. Tests were
performed to gather data on the tensile strength.
In 1834, the Grand Pont Suspendu was completed in Fribourg, Switzerland to carry the traffic
between Bern and Lausanne with a single span of 273 m length. Wire strands were grouped
together to form the long and heavy main cables. However, the bridge construction was still
conservative in the way the cables were constructed, as Brown (1993) points out. Severe
corrosion problems required repair of the cable anchorages, the Grand Pont Suspendu was finally
replaced by another structure. French engineer Henri Vicat invented the air-spun cables
thereafter, which are used in all major suspension bridges today.
2.1.4.4 The Menai Strait Bridge

When working on road surveying, Telford proposed a three-span iron arch bridge (Gies 1963) to
cross the Menai Strait in Wales with a roadway. His revised design of 1818 for a suspension
bridge was chosen for construction. Classical semicircular masonry arches lead to the main
suspended span of 176 m length that is shown in Figure 2-18. The massive masonry towers were
erected between 1820 and the beginning of 1825. Altogether, sixteen chain cables needed to be
hoisted from barges to the towers to support the roadway via hangers.
An intensive testing program of the iron bars of which the chains consisted had been performed,
and Gies (1963) reports that the chains were designed in such a way that single elements could be
replaced independently. In the years following the completion problems with wind undulations
occurred. Several repairs and retrofitting became necessary, including bracing between the chains
and a trussed railing, until the iron chains were finally replaced with steel (Brown 1993).
44
Figure 2-18: The Menai Strait Bridge, Great Britain (taken from Brown 1993, p58)
2.1.4.5 The Britannia Bridge

George Stephenson (1781 - 1848) is often referred to as the Father of the Railways, because of
his further development of the recently invented steam-driven locomotives. James Watt had
come up with a steam engine in the early 1780s, and by the beginning of the nineteenth century,
the first attempts of steam locomotives appeared.
Stephenson grew up near Newcastle in a coal-mining district surrounded by engines in
workshops that inspired his talent and in 1814 built one of the early locomotives. Further
improvements were made to his locomotives, until in 1825 he opened the Stockton and
Darlington Railway, the worlds first public railways. Thus he considerably influenced the then
growing Railway Mania, which according to Brown (1993, p62) around the mid-nineteenth
century literally doubled the number of bridges in Great Britain.
Stephensons son, Robert Stephenson (1803 - 1859) was an assistant in his fathers company and
contributed to his fathers most famous work, the Rocket, which in 1829 achieved a record
45
speed of about 57.9 km/h (36 mph). He also became an outstanding bridge engineer, who built a
number of railway bridges. Most famous of these is the Britannia Bridge that also crossed the
Menai Strait, close to Telfords daring structure. The Britannia Bridge is shown in its original
state in Figure 2-19. It was built from 1846 to 1850 and consisted of four pairs of wrought-iron
tubes that were chosen because of rigidity and requirements for free traffic flow under the bridge.
First, the abutments and three massive towers were erected, with the highest tower in the middle
being founded on a small island in the stream. The towers were high enough to permit additional
chain stays to support the tubes, but as Gies (1963) writes, a testing program proved that the box
cross sections would be able to support themselves under all expected traffic loads.
Figure 2-19: The Britannia Bridge, Great Britain

46
Brown (1993) gives a detailed account of the further history of the bridge. Erection of the two
side spans was done on timber falsework, with the tubes being riveted together from plates and
angles on site. Each tube measured 4.47 m in width and 9.1 m in height, leaving enough space
for railway trains to pass through. The two center spans of more than 140 m in length were
hoisted up from barges and while performing this, timber was being placed under them to hold
them in place. Stephenson opened the bridge himself and put the last rivet into the bridge. In
1970 a fire damaged the bridge so badly the most of its unique superstructure had to be removed
and be replaced with a new structure.
2.1.4.6 Covered Bridges

A type of bridges specifically used in the United States was the covered bridge. By the beginning
of the nineteenth century, after the War of Independence, the former colonies were working on
building better road connections to promote trade (Brown 1993). Timber was a very cheap
material to build with and existed plenty. The bridges built at that time were enclosed with a
triangular roof to protect the timber structure against decaying. This principle was not new; it had
previously been used in bridges such as the Kapellbrcke and the Spreuerbrcke of Switzerland
that have been introduced in Section 2.1.2.6. Furthermore, even the sides of the bridge could be
enclosed with wall panels, giving the American covered bridges their typical appearance. Several
authors have given detailed accounts of covered bridges in the United States and their story. The
surviving bridges are now precious remainders of past times.
The structural system of these timber bridges consisted of trusses, sometimes in combination
with arches. Lattice trusses with grids of diagonals were also used, thus putting together the loadcarrying system of many small members. Invented by Ithiel Town of Connecticut in 1820, the
Town lattice truss became a great success.
Two other truss types need not be forgotten at this point. The Burr arch truss, developed by
Theodore Burr in 1815 (Brown 1993) that combined a multiple king post truss with a single
wooden arch. The Long truss, utilized by Colonel Stephen H. Long of 1830 (Gies 1963) and
47
anticipated by Palladio may have been developed from combination of upright and inverted king
post trusses, creating the typical crossed diagonals bracing the frame. Several different types of
trusses are shown in Figure 2-20. Thus Palladian principles were rediscovered and put to full use
in the U.S. Reports are given on a very remarkable structure that was built in 1811 and was
destroyed by fire in 1838. The Colossus Bridge had a single 103.6-m long span over the
Schuylkill River in Pennsylvania (Gies 1963, p107). It consisted of two trussed arches with iron
diagonals that carried a gently curved roadway over the stream.
Figure 2-20: Different Truss Types (taken from Petroski 1995, p36)
2.1.4.7 Railway Bridges

A revival of timber structures also took place in Great Britain. The famous British engineer
Isambard Kingdom Brunel (1806 - 1859) built them. Much less known than other of his
accomplishments, e.g. the steam ship Great Eastern, completed in 1858, the timber viaducts
dominated the era around the middle of the nineteenth century. Brown (1993) specifically notes
that Brunel put emphasis on economy and availability of materials for his structures, and timber
48
was chosen for a great number of viaducts. The shapes of these viaducts were of great variety,
including beams, trusses, and a bowstring arch of 35 m span (Brown 1993). A bowstring arch
consists of the load-carrying arch that spans the obstacle, with its ends connected by tension
members that can sometimes also serve as deck for the bridge, which withstand the horizontal
forces. The piers of the timber viaducts also showed creativity. They employed many different
forms of timber trusses and masonry, some of them tapering vertically. Figure 2-21 shows an
example of such a timber railway viaduct.
Figure 2-21: Timber Railway Viaduct (taken from Brown 1993, p66)
Around the middle of the nineteenth century the growing American railway systems required
more and more bridges to cross the natural obstacles. Trusses in manifold configurations were
employed and improved through use of cast iron tension members in the trusses, e.g. the
diagonals. Later, wrought iron was used more and more to carry the increasing live loads.
49
Throughout this learning period, as Brown (1993, p78) calls it, failures of trusses occurred, as
better understanding of the truss system statics and the materials employed still was emerging.
Particularly high dynamic live loads need to be dealt with in railway bridge structures. The everchanging stresses imposed by trains passing generate fatigue of the materials and especially the
joints between structural members require careful planning and execution. At the same time, the
railway tracks only allow a minimum of horizontal sag for reasons of driving comfort and safety.
Thus, the stiffness of the whole structural systems is extremely important for railway bridges.
2.1.4.8 Failure of the Tay Bridge

One of the most prominent bridge failures occurred in 1879 in Great Britain. Providing a link in
the railway route from England to Scotland, the shallow Firth of Tay was bridged by Sir Thomas
Bouch with 85 spans of altogether 3,246 m. Construction was carried out between 1871 to 1877.
Bouch had designed trusses that rested on masonry piers, which were founded with cast-iron
piles and caissons. To provide navigation spans for ship traffic thirteen riveted lattice trusses, socalled High Girders through which the trains passed were implemented (Gies 1963, pp135f).
An overall view of the bridge is given in Figure 2-22. On the whole, no particularly innovative
features were implemented in this structure; the only remarkable fact about it was its length.
Brown (1993) mentions that much difficulty occurred in constructing the pier foundations and in
lifting the trusses on top of the piers, including accidents with some fatalities. As it later turned
out, some of the members consisted of low-quality material and workmanship and maintenance
of the bridge could be considered poor (Gies 1963). The bridge had not been designed strong
enough to be safe in all cases; especially the girders lacked sufficient bracing. When a mail train
crossed the bridge in December of 1879, a heavy storm blew down the main girders, causing all
75 persons aboard to die.
50
Figure 2-22: The Tay Bridge, Great Britain (taken from Brown 1993, p70)
After this disaster had happened, Brown (1993) writes, design of bridges against dynamic wind
pressures was improved considerably. The Tay disaster had not been the only bridge failure, as
more trusses failed and caused some railway accidents, one of the worst ones occurring in Winter
of 1876 when an iron Howe truss over Ashtabula Creek in Ohio collapsed under a train during a
storm. Trusses of wood or iron in the Eastern United States were apt to failure. Especially joints
between members and the materials themselves were weak spots of the bridges. Founded as early
as 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers then initiated regular bridge inspections, as
Gies (1963) reports. The Tay Bridge was finally completed with a modified and strengthened
design several years later.
2.1.4.9 Contributions of Bridge Building during the Industrial Revolution

One of the most important features of the Industrial Revolution was the extensive development
and enormously growing use of a new source of power the steam engine. Shifting away from
manual labor towards machines, e.g. for piledriving and making use of steam-driven locomotives
instead of the traditional horse-drawn vehicles brought a massive change in bridge construction.
The bridges had to serve the new function of carrying heavy dynamic loads from the trains
passing over them.
51
Furthermore, as outlined above, the new construction material iron brought much innovation into
the shapes and structural systems of bridges. Use of iron first as cast and later as wrought iron
and understanding its characteristics and capabilities as a construction material (high tensile and
compressive strength) opened new paths for bridge designers. It became possible to have
considerably light members that were strong enough to carry the increasing live loads of steam
locomotives, and they could be prefabricated, to speed up construction. The common I-beam
shape appeared for structural members, though riveted together from plates and angles, since
welding not been invented yet.
Building bridges for the growing railway systems brought an enormous growth both in number
and variety of bridges. The characteristics of railway traffic heavy, dynamic live loads also
required the engineers to deal with these new stresses. New shapes were emerging slowly and
many of the bridges built in this time still show the strong influence of the classical concepts. As
Brown (1993) notes, many railway bridges in the very beginning therefore were conservative
masonry arches. Classical forms such as the arch were complemented with new shapes, e.g.
trusses and suspension systems or even replaced by them. A large number of different shapes of
bridges began appearing during the Industrial Revolution. Iron arches and trusses surpassed
simple precast iron beams in span length and the early suspension bridges took the spans even
further. Trusses were not only used as stiffening elements but as load-carrying structures in
themselves.
The early suspension bridges, first with chain cables and soon after with wire cables, allowed
spans that had never been achieved before. Methods to construct the main cables of suspension
bridges on site with special spinning machines were invented and opened the door to suspension
bridges with yet longer and longer spans to be built after the middle of the nineteenth century.
Equipped with new materials and methods the bridge engineers of the Industrial Revolution
initiated a boom in bridge building that brought great advancement.

2.1.5
52
The Great Bridges
Of the many bridges of different structural types and sizes, a few shall be presented the following
paragraphs to give an impression of the enormous growth that bridge building has seen since the
days of the Industrial Revolution. It shall be clearly stated that any of these bridges has a long and
very interesting history from the initial concept to its construction and beyond, and some authors
have attempted to explore these. Especially suspension bridges continuously impressed with
longer and longer spans, and until today this development that begun in the U.S. in the later
nineteenth century has come to no end.
2.1.5.1 The St. Louis Bridge

Captain James B. Eads (1820 - 1887) was raised at the banks of the banks of the mighty
Mississippi, where he started doing business in recovering wrecks from the riverbed (Gies 1963).
Later he turned on to successfully building military vessels during the Civil War. Bridging the
Mississippi had been thought of earlier, but the site imposed some severe difficulties, namely the
soft soil and the strong current of the wide river that would have caused scour to bridge
foundations. According to Gies (1963), John A. Roebling was one of the men that submitted
proposals. Finally, Eads produced a design for a bridge with three tubular steel arches on stone
piers. Sir Henry Bessemer (1813 - 1859) had developed the process of producing steel from
crude metal in industrial amounts in 1856. After being molten in blast furnaces the metal was
treated in the converter with stream of air, burning some of the carbon content. Steel was still an
extremely expensive material and was new to use in construction.
Founding the piers and the abutment of the St. Louis Bridge on the deep, sloping bedrock on one
of the shores required use of pneumatic caissons as had been previously used in France, as Gies
(1963) writes. Work on the foundations began in 1867. The caissons, large hollow boxes of iron
plates, each with a pressurized working chamber under the pier that could be reached through
airlocks, were floated into place. While workers removed the soft soil with a new sand-pumping
device other workers stacked masonry on top of the chamber, pressing the caisson further down.
Many workers in the caisson suffered from the caisson disease, called the bends (Brown 1993,
53
p83) and a considerable number died until slow decompression and improved working conditions
relieved the situation.
Figure 2-23: The St. Louis Bridge, St. Louis, U.S. (taken from Troitsky 1994, p19)
Much clearance was needed for the bridge, which had arch spans of 153, 158.5, and 153 m,
carrying a double deck for both vehicles and railroad. Reportedly, Eads presented the contracting
steel suppliers with tough specifications that ensured the superior quality of the material. When
the arch halves had been installed through cantilevering from scaffolding on top of the piers, they
were closed and the supporting cables were removed (Gies 1963). In 1874, the bridge was finally
finished. A contemporary view of the finished bridge is shown in Figure 2-23.
2.1.5.2 The Brooklyn Bridge

John A. Roebling (1806 - 1869) was an immigrant from Germany who collected experience with
suspension bridges on the 250-m span over Niagara Gorge that was built from 1851 to 1855.
54
Roebling had an own plant for wire cables that were used for suspension bridges (Brown 1993).
The Niagara Railroad Suspension Bridge had a double deck for both road traffic and railway
traffic with a deep truss superstructure. The four main cables all were air-spun and additionally
enclosed in wire for protection. When in 1854 the longer Wheeling Suspension Bridge over Ohio
River collapsed in strong winds Roebling added cables below the bridge to stabilize it against
wind-induced movements.
In New York City plans were made to cross the East River with a major suspension bridge.
Roeblings design for the Brooklyn Bridge comprised a bridge with a daring span length, 486 m,
which is more than 1,500 feet. Unfortunately, Roebling was killed in an accident when surveying
the bridge site before construction had even begun (Brown 1993). It was his son, Col.
Washington A. Roebling (1837 - 1926), who had worked on other bridge projects and who
supervised construction of his fathers masterpiece when it began in 1869. Large caissons were
employed for construction of the foundations. The soil to be cut through was less deep than for
the St. Louis Bridge, but it was harder and construction showed only slow progress, so that
finally even blasting had to be used under the caisson (Brown 1993). Workers suffered from
several accidents that happened during work in the caissons and from the caisson sickness. On
the New York side of the East River the pier had to be founded deeper, and in 1872 Roebling
himself became paralyzed from the caisson sickness. Construction proceeded successfully with
his wife, Emily W. Roebling, carrying instructions to the site personnel. The architecturally
shaped towers with their gothic openings grew until the main cables were installed from which
vertical hangers were suspended. Additional radiating stays and a trussed deck provided the
necessary stiffness of the superstructure (Brown 1993). Brooklyn Bridge was completed in 1883
and since then has been one of New York Citys landmarks.
2.1.5.3 The Forth Rail Bridge

In comparison with the shallow Firth of Tay the second major railway crossing for routes heading
north in Great Britain at the Firth of Forth created more difficulties because of the greater depth.
After the catastrophic failure of the Tay Bridge the initial design by Sir Thomas Bouch was
55
quickly abandoned. Sir John Fowler and Sir Benjamin Baker came up with an innovative design
to build not only the largest but also the strongest, stiffest, and hence the safest, bridge in the
world (Brown 1993, p72). They designed a solid bridge with three towers of tubular steel
framework resting on circular caissons, making use of a small island in the middle of the stream.
These towers of 100.6 m height extend over the waters with cantilever arms that were built
parallel to both sides for stability during construction. The cantilevers are supported from above
by strong struts attached to the top of the pylons, from below by struts curving upward, with
major bracing made of diagonal trusswork. Between the cantilevers, two suspended girder spans
of 107 m length that were also built cantilevering are carried, giving the main spans an overall
length of 521 m. Gies (1963) points out that this statically determinate systems simplified
calculation considerably, as opposed to e.g. a continuous truss. The huge main spans and
approaches of the Forth Rail Bridge are shown in Figure 2-24.
Figure 2-24: The Forth Rail Bridge, Great Britain (taken from Brown 1993, p72)
56
The approaches to this impressive bridge consist of some masonry arches on shore and further
towards the main spans, of trusses on masonry piers. The mighty bridge with its typical reddish
brown color was built between 1882 and 1889. Although of magnificent scale and uniquely
strong but simple shape, the Forth Rail Bridge remained very conservative in its construction
principles, all of which had been utilized in earlier projects and in its material utilization.
2.1.5.4 The George Washington Bridge

Othmar H. Ammann (1879 - 1965) grew up and was educated in Switzerland before he came to
the U.S. (Petroski 1995). By that time the enormous growth of suspension bridge spans had
begun. Ammann first worked under Gustav Lindenthal (1850 - 1935), who oversaw construction
of the Hell Gate Bridge, a major steel arch erected with cantilevering from 1912 to 1916 in New
York. The George Washington Bridge across the Hudson River was built from 1927 to 1931. Its
dimensions are most impressive, the suspended span being twice that of the Brooklyn Bridge,
1,067 m long between steel towers that are 183 m high. Construction of the foundations provided
fewer difficulties, cofferdams were needed only for one of the tower foundations. Two pairs of
suspension cables and groups of vertical hangers carry the trussed deck. Originally it had been
intended to enclose the riveted framework of the steel towers with a decorative stone cladding.
Later this idea was abandoned, probably also due to cost reasons by the end of the 1920s,
revealing the lightness and aesthetics of a steel substructure and superstructure. In 1962 a second
roadway was added below the original deck to increase the capacity of the bridge and Ammann
was made guest of honor at the second inauguration of his bridge (Brown 1993, p102).
2.1.5.5 Failure of the Quebec Bridge

The designer of the Quebec Bridge, Theodore Cooper (1839 - 1919) had worked with James B.
Eads in St. Louis before he started a career of his own in New York (Petroski 1995). His ill-fated
greatest work was the Quebec Bridge over the St. Lawrence River in Canada. Similar in
appearance to the Forth Rail Bridge, the Quebec Bridge would only have only one span and
57
straight cantilever struts. Compared with the Forth Rail Bridge authors generally agree that the
Quebec Bridge was less well shaped. Cooper modified the original design of a 488-m long span
(1,600 foot) to a longer main span of 549 m (1,800 foot) in order to avoid deep tower foundations
(p102). The official investigation revealed, Petroski (1995) writes, that during design the total
weight of the bridge had been determined by a rough estimate that was not properly adjusted to
later design changes. Construction began in 1904 and had progressed to cantilevering more than
230 m in August of 1907 (Brown 1993). At that time buckling occurred in the riveted rectangular
base struts. Cooper himself was not present on site himself; in fact he had almost completely
been in New York during construction. Several days after the first problems had been noticed
southern cantilever collapsed and fell, causing 85 workers to die. Another tragedy was about to
happen years later when the 195-m long suspended middle span was hoisted into place in 1916.
The steel structure fell and caused more fatalities. Finally, the bridge was completed as shown in
Figure 2-25.
Figure 2-25: The Quebec Bridge, Canada (taken from Petroski 1995, p118)
58
2.1.5.6 Failure of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge

Another prominent bridge failure occurred in 1940. The Tacoma Narrows Bridge was built in
Washington State over the Puget Sound. Leon S. Moisseiff (1872 - 1943), who had participated
in building the George Washington Bridge and several other major projects (Petroski 1995),
designed a suspension bridge with a 853-m long main span. The plate girder deck was planned to
be only 2.4 m deep and 11.9 m wide for two lanes of traffic, making it an extremely slender and
light superstructure for reasons of economy. After its opening in 1940 it was realized that the
new bridge was susceptible to motion under even quite light winds, which not only caused it to
sway from side to side but also sent rippling waves along the deck (Brown 1993, pp106f). Soon
the bridge received the nickname Galloping Gertie for this behavior. Additional stay cables
were installed but did not have the intended effect.
Figure 2-26: The Tacoma Narrows Bridge Prior to Failure

(taken from Petroski 1995, p101)
Oscillations of the flexible suspension bridges under wind influence were not completely
unknown to the engineering profession, though. Other suspension bridges had exhibited similar
behavior, e.g. the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge in New York City and the Deer Island Bridge in
59
Maine that were both completed in 1939. Even the Golden Gate Bridge, completed two years
earlier by Joseph B. Strauss (1870 - 1938) with Charles A. Ellis (1876 - 1949), moved because of
winds (Petroski 1995). It rather seems that these motions were not percepted as being potentially
hazardous to bridge structures.
Brown (1993, pp106f) reports that under a modest wind of 68 km/h (42 mph) the Tacoma
Narrows Bridge began to undergo severe lateral twisting of the deck as well as longitudinal
rippling. By this time the bridge was closed for through traffic and the following sequence of
events was filmed. The oscillations increased in amplitude until the steel superstructure ruptured
from the suspended hangers and fell into the sound.
After this failure the focus of attention was finally put on the aerodynamic behavior of
suspension bridges. Analysis of the aerodynamic behavior was performed with scaled models in
wind tunnels Subsequent bridges were built under the impression of the failure of the Tacoma
Narrows Bridge with strong trusses stiffening the deck. They included e.g. the replacement for
the fallen structure, the 1,158-m long Mackinac Strait Bridge in Michigan, built 1954 to 1957 by
David B. Steinman (1886 - 1960), and the breathtaking 1,298-m long Verrazano Narrows Bridge
in New York, which was built from 1959 to 1964 by Amman (Brown 1993).
Other engineers, especially Fritz Leonhardt drew different conclusions from the failure of the
Tacoma Narrows Bridge, as will be described in Section 2.2.3.1.
2.1.5.7 The Severn Bridge

Between 1961 and 1966 the Severn Bridge, shown in Figure 2-27, was built in Great Britain. The
bridge is interesting for several reasons. It is a 987.5-m long suspension bridge that took a radical
change from the common American way of design, as Leonhardt (1984) points out. Instead of
incorporating a major stiffening truss to provide rigidity against wind-induced oscillations the
bridge superstructure consists of a 3-m deep steel box girder with pointed edges. Wind tunnel
tests were performed to examine the aerodynamic behavior of this cross-section. This aerofoil
deck is based on an idea by German engineer Fritz Leonhardt and will be explained in Section
60
2.2.3.1. Large prefabricated segments were lifted into place from barges on the river below after
the light bolted steel towers and the main cables had been erected. Further notable are the
suspended hangers that carry the deck because they are inclined in the longitudinal direction, thus
giving a zigzag composition that is intended to improve structural damping (Brown 1993,
p116). Brown (1993) gives further information that due to increased traffic the bridge was
strengthened and upgraded two decades after its completion.
Figure 2-27: The Severn Bridge, Great Britain (taken from Leonhardt 1984, p293)
61
2.1.5.8 Contributions of Bridge Building between Nineteenth and Twentieth Century

From the second half of the nineteenth century until the middle of the twentieth century a
considerable number of major bridge projects was realized, particularly in the U.S. Use of steel
instead of cast or wrought iron became common and was developed to longer and longer spans.
Long-span steel bridges were built as large arches, cantilever bridges, and impressive suspension
bridges. After major failures the problem of wind stability of suspension bridges had finally been
recognized and attempts to relieve it were developed, mostly trussed decks and bracing with stay
cables. Around the second half of the twentieth century two types of suspension bridges existed,
incorporating the classic truss-type deck and, newly developing, with aerodynamically shaped
steel box girder superstructures.
During the Industrial Revolution a vast number of railway routes had been built and the bridges
of those times had been adapted to these traffic loads. After the turn of the century the growing
automobile traffic changed design requirements for new bridges.
Innovations did not only occur in the structures themselves but also in ways of constructing them.
James B. Eads and other builders made use of very large iron caissons that were pressurized to
construct the foundations of bridge piers. These large cylindrical devices were brought into place
and sunk down into the riverbed. Workers then excavated the soft soil until they reached bedrock
that was stable enough. The working conditions in pressurized chambers under the stone piers
that were piled up were quite hard and many of the workers got ill or even died until it became
known that slow depressurization was necessary.
2.1.6
The Era of Concrete Bridges and Beyond
The following sections will introduce the wide range of modern bridge structures and their
development. The main focus is placed on concrete structures. Historic developments and
characteristics of certain types of concrete bridges will be presented. Certain specialties in
bridges will not be discussed, e.g. moving bridges of all kinds (i.e. bascule bridges, lift and swing
62
bridges), and highway bridges, many of which are made of prefabricated concrete beams. The
specific problems of skewed and curved bridges are also excluded from this section.
2.1.6.1 Concrete Characteristics

Concrete had already been commonly in use in Roman times, as described in Section 2.1.1.8.
Simple mortars had already been used much earlier. Strong and waterproof mortars as the
Romans had used, however, were only rediscovered around the late eighteenth century, as Brown
(1993) notes.
Concrete is an artificial stone-like inhomogeneous material that is produced by mixing specified
amounts of cement, water, and aggregates. The first two ingredients react chemically to a hard
matrix, which acts as a binder. Most of the volume of the concrete is taken by aggregates, which
is the fill material. In modern concrete design mixtures special mineral additives or chemical
admixtures are added to influence certain properties of the concrete. Strength can be increased
through use of special types of cement and a low water-cement ratio; workability can be
improved with retarders and superplasticizers; and durability depends on the volume of air
enclosed within the concrete. Proportions and chemistry of the ingredients as well as the manner
of placement and curing determine the final concrete properties.
Concrete is the universal construction material of modern times due to several advantages. It is
formable into virtually any shape with formwork, its ingredients are relatively cheap and can be
found ubiquitously, it has a high compressive strength and, provided good quality of
workmanship, is very durable at little maintenance cost.
Reinforced concrete is a composite material that is composed of concrete and steel members that
are embedded and bonded to it. These steel bars or mats fulfill the purpose of enhancing the
resistance of a reinforced concrete member to tensile stresses, as concrete alone is strong in
compression but has less resistance to tension that is applied. The amount and location of the
reinforcement needed for a certain structure is determined during its design. In sound concrete
63
the steel reinforcement is protected by the natural alkalinity of the concrete that creates a
passifying layer on the steel surface.
2.1.6.2 Early Concrete Structures

Several names are linked with the beginnings of reinforced concrete. A comprehensive historical
review of the developments that led to application of reinforced concrete in the construction
industry is given by Menn (1990). In 1756 John Smeaton came up with a way of cement
production and in 1824 the mason Joseph Aspdin invented Portland cement in England.
Thaddeus Hyatt (1816 - 1901) examined behavior of concrete beams as early as 1850 in the U.S.
Some years later, in 1867, French engineer Joseph Monier received a patent on flowerpots whose
concrete was reinforced with a steel mesh. Monier also became first in building a bridge of
reinforced concrete in 1875 (Menn 1990). In the years to come, the first scientific approaches to
the behavior and analysis of reinforced concrete were taken and opened the way to more and
more advanced structures. French engineer Franois Hennebique (1842 - 1931) researched Tshaped beams and received patents on these around 1892, after which a larger number of bridges
was built in European countries in the following years. While construction of reinforced concrete
bridges spread across Europe, the first national codes for reinforced concrete appeared.
According to Menn (1990), prior to the 1930s steel bridges still dominated the U.S. landscape
since they were cheaper and allowed rapid erection. In later years reinforced concrete bridges
became more common in the New World.
2.1.6.3 Concrete Arch Bridges

Robert Maillart (1872 - 1940) was exploring the structural possibilities of the new construction
material in an impressive diversity of arch bridges in Switzerland. Located predominantly in
mountainous terrain the more than 40 bridges he designed were ingenious in their slenderness,
variability of shapes and beauty. It can be said that in his structures all possibilities of concrete,
including superior compressive strength and formability were used to their full extent. One of his
64
more known structures is the daring shallow arch of the Salginatobel Bridge that spans 90 m. In
this bridge the superstructure was dissolved to a slender arch that carried the deck with transverse
wall panels. Melaragno (1998, p19) in this context uses the term structural art to capture the
spirit of this unique family of concrete structures.
2.1.6.4 Prestressed Concrete Bridges

As early as 1888 a German engineer had examined prestressed concrete members (Menn 1990).
Yet it was Eugne Freyssinet (1879 - 1962), a graduate of the cole des Ponts et Chausses, who
is considered the father of prestressed concrete bridges. His most known bridge is the Plougastel
Bridge that was built between 1925 and 1930 in France. A construction stage of this bridge is
Figure 2-28: The Plougastel Bridge under Construction (taken from Brown 1993, p122)
65
Three 186-m long arches of still normal reinforced concrete with a box girder cross-section
support a two level truss deck for road traffic and railway. For this bridge Freyssinet employed
large timber falsework that was brought into place by pontoons and reused for all three arch
spans. Brown (1993) stresses the importance of this bridge with respect to prestressing, since it
was the Plougastel Bridge where Freyssinet became aware of the phenomenon of concrete creep,
which needs to be considered in prestressed construction. Freyssinet implemented jacking the
concrete bridge spans apart prior to closure of the midspan gap to account for creep. Principles of
prestressing are presented in Section 4.1.
Between 1941 and 1949 a famous family of six prestressed concrete bridges were built after
Freyssinets design at the River Marne in France, five of them with similar spans of 74 m (Menn
1990). These bridges were shallow frames with vertically prestressed thin girder webs (Brown
1993). Segments for these bridges were delivered by barges and lifted into place in larger sets.
Freyssinet came up with concepts for both pre-tensioned and post-tensioned concrete (Menn
1990, p30) and thus initiated the rapid development of prestressed concrete bridges.
2.1.6.5 Concrete Bridges after the Second World War

After the Second World War the European transportation infrastructure needed to be rebuilt and
extended. Steel box girders could now be put together by welding instead of riveting. Some of
the first of these bridges were built at the Rhine by German engineer Fritz Leonhardt (born
1909), who also designed a large number of concrete structures. Box girders, which had been
used for the arches of the Plougastel Bridge, were more and more introduced in steel and
concrete bridge construction as better understanding of the properties and the inherent advantages
of closed hollow cross-sections grew. These features of box girders will be discussed in more
detail in Section 3.7. Prestressed concrete bridges were built in large numbers. In Germany,
Franz Dischinger (1887 - 1953) built prestressed concrete bridges with a system different from
Freyssinets; he used unbonded tendons that did not reach widespread application until much
later due to problems with loss of prestressing force (Menn 1990). Subsequent development of
different prestressing systems was therefore based on the original Freyssinet system. Cast-in-
66
place cantilever bridges have been built for almost half a century. Ulrich Finsterwalder, student
of Dischinger, took the first step in erection with the balanced cantilevering method when he
built the 62-m long span of the Lahn Bridge at Balduinstein in Germany between 1950 and 1951
(Fletcher 1984).
Prestressing of concrete bridges reduced deflections, prevented cracking, and allowed higher
loads to be carried by the bridges (Menn 1990). Freyssinets system of implementing full
prestressing was not very economical, though. Therefore, partial prestressing became prevalent
as it was introduced into the design codes. Partial prestressing permitted limited tensile stresses
in concrete and made use of mild reinforcement to alleviate the cracking of the concrete because
of these stresses.
Precast segmental construction emerged in the early 1960s, as Menn (1990) also reports. In the
following decades, solutions for the problem of segments joints were developed, including
match-casting of the segments at the precasting yard, implementation of shear keys, and use of
epoxy agents that sealed and glued the joint faces together. More on precast segmental
construction can be found in Section 4.2.1.1.
In the decades since the first prestressed concrete bridges were built many technological
achievements have been made. Research allowed better understanding of the internal flow of
forces in concrete and in the embedded steel and helped improving material properties of these
construction materials.
2.1.6.6 Cable-Stayed Bridges

Cable-stayed bridges can appear in many different ways. The bridge pylons and the bridge
superstructure can be made either of concrete or steel, or be a composite of concrete and steel
members. Pylons can be shaped in a great number of ways, including A, H, X, and inverted V
and Y-shapes, or combinations and variations of these.
67
In a cable-stayed bridge inclined straight stay cables that are attached to pylons above the deck
carry the bridge deck. A multitude of arrangements for pylons and cable layout exists.
Furthermore, the bridge can be designed with one central or two lateral planes of stay cables that
can even be inclined toward each other. Cable-stayed bridges can have several different
arrangements for the stay cables, as explained in Table 2-1. The respective arrangements are
shown in Figure 2-29. Cable arrangements do not necessarily have to be exactly symmetric about
the tower. Variations and combinations between these types are possible. Cables can be anchored
both on the deck and at the pylon or can run continuously over a saddle at the top of the pylon.
The anchorages for the stay cables are critical structural details that have to be resistant to
corrosion and fatigue.
Fan Arrangement
Harp Arrangement
Half-Fan Arrangement
Star Arrangement
Figure 2-29: Stay Cable Arrangements
68
Table 2-1: Stay Cable Arrangements
Cable Arrangement
Fan
(often called radiating)
Harp
Half-fan
(often called fan)
Star
Description
Cables run radiating from one point at pylon
Cables run parallel from equal spacing at pylon
Combination of fan and harp arrangement
Cables run from several points at pylon to one location at deck
Cable-stayed bridges are not an invention of the twentieth century. Some attempts to built
bridges supported by stay cables were already made in previous centuries, but did not prove
successful, as means of calculation for the statically highly indeterminate system and adequate
materials for the cables were lacking (Brown 1993). Cable stays were applied in the
superstructure of the Brooklyn Bridge, as mentioned in Section 2.1.5.2 to add stiffening to the
suspension system.
Cable-stayed bridges were revived after the Second World War when economical rebuilding of
the transportation infrastructure in Europe became a prime issue. Franz Dischinger had already
implemented stay cables to support the deck of a suspended railway bridge (Brown 1993).
Amongst the first modern cable-stayed bridges was a family of three cable-stayed bridges over
the Rhine at Dsseldorf with steel superstructures that were built by German engineer Leonhardt
(1984) around 1952. One of them, the Oberkassel Rhine Bridge, is shown in Figure 2-30. These
slender bridges, of remarkable clearness and simplicity in their appearance all have a harp-type
cable arrangement. Since then, a great number of cable-stayed bridges have been built all over
the world, of which just very few shall be mentioned in this overview.
69
Figure 2-30: The Oberkassel Rhine Bridge, Dsseldorf, Germany

(taken from Leonhardt 1984, p260)
The first concrete cable-stayed bridge was the Lake Maracaibo Bridge in Venezuela, which was
built between 1958 and 1962. The designer Riccardo Morandi came up with a major concrete
structure with five main spans of 235 m length (Brown 1993). He designed uniquely shaped pier
tables that had a massive complex X-shaped substructure, which carried A-shaped towers above
the deck level. The central concrete spans were comparatively massive to achieve stiffness and
were suspended with one group of stay cables on each side of the towers. A view of the structure
with its characteristic approaches is shown in Figure 2-31.
70
Figure 2-31: The Lake Maracaibo Bridge, Venezuela (taken from Leonhardt 1984, p271)
Later bridges incorporated a greater number of regularly spaced cables that provided almost
continuous support for the bridge deck. Menn (1990) calls this type of multi-cable bridges the
second generation of cable-stayed bridges. He mentions the Pont de Brotonne in France,
completed in 1976, as the first example of a bridge of the second generation. The Pont de
Brotonne is shown in Figure 2-32. Its main span of 320 m length is supported by a single central
plane of fanning stay cables. Leonhardt (1984) specifically points at the stiffness that can be
achieved with such a structural system despite the slender deck girder, making the bridge suitable
even for railroads. With the larger dead load of concrete bridges better damping of vibrations is
achieved as Podolny (1981) writes. Concrete is also suitable for the bridge deck because it can
withstand the longitudinal horizontal stresses that the inclined stays induce in the bridge
superstructure. Podolny (1981) further mentions that concrete cable-stayed bridges incur only
small deflections from live load, as the ratio of live load to dead load is relatively small.
71
Figure 2-32: The Pont de Brotonne, France (taken from Leonhardt 1984, p270)
Several advantages make cable-stayed bridges very economical structures. Due to the almost
continuous elastic support of the deck (Podolny 1981) of multi-cable arrangements sufficient
overall stiffness can be achieved even with slender superstructure girders. Multi-cable systems
are aesthetically advantageous because of their apparent lightness. They have a high degree of
structural redundancy and even allow repair or replacement of single stays with relative ease. It is
possible to optimize the stay cable prestressing sequence towards a more equal stress state in the
structural system. The overall structural system allows quick construction in comparison with
e.g. suspension bridges, especially by use of precast elements. Another major advantage is that
cable-stayed bridges do not require large anchorages at the abutments as necessary to hold the
main cables in suspension bridges. Cable-stayed bridges are economical especially for span
ranges between about 250 and 300 m, as Swiggum et al. cite (1994). Even much longer spans
have been built up to date.
With improved analytical capabilities due to modern computer software the statically highly
indeterminate system of cable-stayed bridges can be analyzed very accurately. Better analysis
72
techniques for aerodynamic and seismic behavior with scaled models in wind canals and
computer simulation of the structure allowed optimizing bridge cross-sections. The scaling
process requires special consideration because all properties of a bridge have to be scaled for
examination in a wind tunnel. A model test e.g. included scaled stiffness, mass, inertia,
geometry and, we hope, scaled damping, the most difficult aspect (Fairweather 1987, p. 62).
The trend, according to Fairweather (1987) in this area is to incorporate aerodynamic testing not
only for verification of an existing design, but to also use it directly during the initial design.
With aerodynamic testing it is also possible to evaluate the effects of innovative details for both
aerodynamic and seismic resistance. These details can be mass dampers or tuned damping
systems at bearings, joints, and cable anchorages, installation of interconnecting ties between the
stay cables, and special shaping and texturing of the cables sheathing to prevent vibrations from
wind and rain.
Cable-stayed bridges are ideally erected with the cantilevering method. The stay cables hence
serve to support growing cantilever arms from above and will also be the permanent supporting
system for the bridge superstructure. Goi (1995) gives a profound example of a major cablestayed bridge, the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Bridge. It was erected using progressive
placement and was completed in 1995. According to him, the 229-m long main span consists of
two parallel box girders that are interconnected by so-called delta frames and supported by a
single plane of stays in harp-type arrangement. It was put together from precast segments that
were placed by a crane at the tip of each cantilever. After placement of the segments new stay
cables were installed and initially prestressed. Construction loads resulted especially from the
cranes on the cantilevers and the placement of precast segments. A detailed computer analysis of
the erection procedure that included several hundred construction steps (e.g. segment placement,
tendon installation, and changes in prestressing forces or loads) was performed. With respect to
the motions of the uncompleted cantilever due to winds, Normile (1994) points at the need to
provide sufficient stiffness in the bridge superstructure for construction.
73
2.1.6.7 Recent Bridge Projects

Several impressive large-span bridges have been completed in recent years. The three most
important examples to be mentioned are the Pont de Normandie in France, the Akashi Kaikyo
Bridge in Japan, and the East Bridge of the Great Belt Link in Denmark. A brief comparison of
these three breathtaking projects will be given in Table 2-2, based on information from Brown
(1993), Robison (1993), Normile (1994) and the Honshu-Shikoku Bridge Authority (1998). The
currently longest bridge in the world, the Akashi Kaiyo Bridge is shown in Figure 2-33.
Table 2-2: Recent Major Bridge Projects
Name
Pont de Normandie
Location
France / Brittany
Type
Cable-stayed (twoplane half-fan)

856 m
2,141 m
Suspension
Great Belt East

Bridge
Denmark / Great
Belt
Suspension
1,991 m
3,911 m
1,624 m
2,694 m
59 m
214 m, concrete,
inverted Y
Aerofoil
Main span partly in
balanced cantilever
construction, central
part made of steel
1988 1995
65 m
297 m, steel,
X-bracing
Truss
Towers withstood
Kobe Earthquake in
1995, towers were
displaced by 1 m
1988 - 1998
65 m
254 m, concrete,
cross-beam
Aerofoil
Main span segments
erected suspended
from midspan
inwards
1991 - 1998
Main span
Total length of
main bridge
Maximum clearance
Towers
(above sea level)
Deck
Remarks
Construction
Akashi Kaikyo
Bridge
Japan / Akashi Strait
74
Figure 2-33: The Akashi Kaikyo Bridge, Japan

(taken from Honshu-Shikoku Bridge Authority 1998, p1)
2.1.6.8 Contributions of Modern Concrete Bridge Construction

The introduction of concrete into bridge construction opened almost unlimited new possibilities
for the profession. The several advantages of concrete, such as free formability, strength, and
durability came to full use in bridge construction and contributed much to successful use of
concrete in other branches. Through use of steel reinforcement to bear the tensile stresses in the
members a composite material was created that combined positive characteristics of both
concrete and steel and could be strengthened exactly as needed for a certain structure.
Prestressing concrete by means of tendons that are installed in the bridge superstructure made
extremely long, yet economical spans possible. European engineers, such as Freyssinet carried
the prestressing concepts further. Other engineers, e.g. Maillart explored structural possibilities
along with artful shaping of concrete bridges.
Along with growing understanding of the properties of the new material went the development of
a variety of construction methods that will be presented in Section 4.2. Choice of either cast-in-
75
place construction, precast construction, or a combination of both methods made it possible to

adapt construction procedures exactly to the requirements of the specific site and the project
conditions.
The concept of box girder superstructures had already been used in bridges as e.g. the Britannia
Bridge. Since the end of the Second World War the versatile box girders have become a widely
used type of superstructure cross-section.
With cable-stayed bridges a relatively new type of bridge rapidly developed in the second half of
the twentieth century. Economical and elegant long-span cable-stayed bridges were subsequently
built that were only surpassed in length by a handful of the longest of all bridges, which are
suspension bridges.
2.2
FUTURE CHALLENGES IN BRIDGE ENGINEERING
Having given an overview of more than two millennia in bridge building with some discussion of
the impact of developments on later bridge engineering, the following paragraphs shall look
ahead. The second half of this chapter will give an overview of the wide spectrum of future
challenges. As opposed to the history of bridges, for which an abundance of literature can be
found in any library, books or articles on the future of bridge construction are more rare.
How can predictions be made at all? The basic approach is to identify current problem areas and
trends in research interests. With some imagination, it is then possible to derive ideas of where
bridge engineering may be heading. These predictions will certainly not be exact, but they give
an impression of future challenges. New concepts are emerging, yet there is still very little
experience with the practical application of these. It will take creativity and sometimes also
courage to face them.
The following sections will outline these areas of challenge for coming generations of bridge
engineers. Three main areas are identified: Dealing with the engineering approach towards the
76
complete project life-cycle, including design, construction, maintenance, and rehabilitation;

secondly new or improved materials; and finally new types of structures are discussed.
2.2.1
Improvements in Design, Construction, Maintenance, and Rehabilitation
The construction industry is unique in the way that most of its structures are one-of-a-kind
products. As opposed to industrial manufacturing, the construction industry in most cases
produces structures that are adapted to the owners specific wishes and to constraints imposed by
site conditions and technical possibilities. The processes that lead to the complete structure are
discussed in much more detail in Chapter 3. Here, some areas of possible improvements shall be
pointed out.
2.2.1.1 Improvements in Design

Since the construction of a real structure is the ultimate goal of all design, the design process
inevitably needs to consider the requirements and limitations of construction methods. Current
issues in improving design for construction focus on better designs through an increased team
effort of all parties involved. Construction engineering concepts, such as Design-Build
Construction and Partnering all deal with trying to foster close cooperation and improve
communication to achieve better overall project performance.
Apart from managerial improvements, especially the development of prestressed concrete
segmental bridges has given designers a wide range of possibilities at hand. In addition to the
possibilities inherent to this kind of concrete, designers are able to choose from improved or
newly developed materials. More information on high-performance materials is given in Section
2.2.2. Use of advanced materials of higher strength, less weight, and improved durability will
allow smaller structural members for substructures and superstructures and less dead load of the
structures that they form. Up to a certain point these improvements remain well within the classic
design methodology, but as Podolny (1998, p26) writes, with enhanced materials and new
77
structural concepts necessity can arise to deal with new limit states, such as user sensitivity to
vibration or claustrophobic reaction to long tubular structures or tunnels. With these advanced
materials in innovative structures, the center of attention may shift even more to the
serviceability of the structures. Podolny and Muller (1982) state that at some time a situation is
reached where stress criteria are not determining anymore, but are overruled by limitations to
deformations. They also point at the increased necessity to examine special failure modes of
slender, yet strong structural members, such as buckling. Fabrication tolerances would have to be
included in these considerations.
In the past two decades, the enormous development of computer capabilities has certainly
provided engineers with much better tools for performing a vast amount of analytical calculations
in very short time. Still, it has to be cautioned about too much relying on computer results and
the models on which they are based. Issues of modeling structures for analytical purposes will be
discussed in Section 3.5.1.
2.2.1.2 Improvements in Construction

The core issues governing the actual construction process are safety and economy, with the latter
one referring especially to a smooth construction process on budget and within time scheduled.
Quality control is necessary to ensure that the structure and its parts are built according to the
specifications. Control of all these goals is the main task of construction management.
Depending on the actual construction method employed to the specific project, various ways of
simplifying and speeding up construction works for economy exist. Examples provided in
technical literature are e.g. increased use of precast elements to speed up construction on site,
such as prefabricating webs for cast-in-place box girders (Mathivat 1983). Podolny and Muller
(1982) give an example of a modified method of incremental launching, where the concrete deck
for a steel superstructure is cast and launched forward stepwise, thus reducing the need for
formwork considerably. More methods of combining different erection methods and
implementing both precast and cast-in-place segments where advantageous are conceivable.
78
In future, introduction of more automated equipment on site can help accomplish certain
repetitive tasks. The uniqueness and complex conditions of every site, as well as the multitude of
tasks to be performed during construction yet still make such automation very difficult. Use of
improved equipment, e.g. modular formwork and shoring systems, are but small steps towards
the goals outlined above.
2.2.1.3 Improvements in Maintenance and Rehabilitation

Bridges have to withstand a large variety of environmental influences during their service life.
The natural environment induces stresses in the structure e.g. through temperature gradients.
Strong winds, flood events and seismic events put the structural stability and integrity to a test.
Corrosive chemicals in water and air, as well as present through deicing agents for roadways
affect the soundness of the materials. Dynamic loads from traffic and winds generate fatigue.
Construction details, as e.g. joints, bearings, and anchorages suffer from wear and tear. Apart
from these influences various forms of impact, e.g. from passing vehicles or ship traffic need to
be anticipates in design of the structure.
Maintenance of bridges comprises regular inspections, renewal of e.g. protective exterior
coatings, replacement of parts as e.g. worn out bridge bearings, and other minor repairs. A certain
percentage of total construction cost is commonly budgeted for annual maintenance of bridges
under service. Inspections are required in order to keep informed on the current state of the
bridge. Future development of technical systems could support or even replace these inspections.
Sensors built into the structure could then be used to measure the current state of deterioration,
e.g. in the bridge deck and to detect weaknesses. Links with computer databases and software for
so-called bridge management systems could then help interpreting the data collected. Accessing
these data will allow for decisions as to the measures required to keep the structure at a
serviceable condition.
Measures that simplify construction work can also make repair and rehabilitation work easier.
Modularization of structural members and good accessibility of the whole assembly will
79
contribute to performing repair and rehabilitation work with greater ease. Structural details
affected by wear and tear and thus most susceptible to corrosion are traditionally bearings and
joints. Reducing the number of complicated details and focussing efforts on good detailing of
these will contribute to a longer service life of the whole structure. Good design will also
anticipate easy replacement of these parts.
Another most important factor for the length of bridge service life is materials. As will be
described in Section 2.2.2, high-performance materials can have improved durability to
environmental conditions. Less weight of structural members due to stronger materials will
simplify handling these members. Workability is another factor that can determine the high
performance of a material. In the area of materials for repair and rehabilitation development of
coatings, epoxy grouts, fiber reinforcement, and other materials enables the repairs to be very
specific adapting to the problem.
2.2.1.4 Smart Bridges

Smart bridges are bridges that incorporate control systems to measure environmental conditions
with sensors and process this information to generate a response. These systems can have
different ways of functioning. According to Zuk (1993, pp3-8), so-called level I systems produce
some kind of alert or warning and comprise sensors, data processors, communications
systems, and signaling devices. Zuk gives a comprehensive list of different sensors and explains
the following possibilities for practical use of level I systems. They can alert to impacts,
overloading, flood events, wind, scour, ice on bridge decks, seismicity, cracking, fatigue, deck
delamination, and corrosion.
As opposed to the aforementioned level I systems, Zuk understands level II systems as systems
where dynamical measurement of data is performed and an active response mechanism in the
bridges to counteract any detrimental influence is controlled. He mentions Cathodic Protection of
metals, e.g. reinforcement against corrosion as an example of a promising technology, as well as
deicing systems for bridge decks. Smart materials with custom-made properties for any spatial
80
direction, and even with reactive capabilities when sensing a change in pressure, temperature, or
electrical current (Zuk 1993, p9) can be implemented in reactive systems. Another application
of smart systems mentioned by Zuk (1993, p11) is Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems, that
guide vehicles on their journey and help preventing accidents, e.g. collisions with bridge piers.
Various applications of smart systems are directly dealing with the structural safety of the bridge.
These are e.g. self-adjusting hydraulic bearings, tuned mass dampers, and aerodynamic
appendages (Zuk 1993, p11), e.g. as wing flaps from aircraft technology, a controllable airfoil
deck (Podolny 1998, p26). All these structural mechanisms are supposed to help maintaining
stability of the bridge under dynamic loads.
Making structures as e.g. bridges smart is currently being researched in multiple areas of
engineering, including materials science and electronics. Common application of systems as the
outlined ones, however, will still take time. Not only technical functionality, but also economic
feasibility first has to be proven in field studies.
2.2.2
High-Performance Materials
The term high-performance refers to an outstanding performance of a material in one or several

of its properties as compared with common use of this material. Although this generic definition
may sound theoretical it has a very practical background.
When speaking of high-performance materials in construction the first notion is often the
strength of materials, e.g. use of high-strength concrete in high-rise buildings. However,
obviously high-performance materials need not only be of high strength. High-performance of
materials refers to a wide range of properties. Key issues equally important for the overall
performance of materials are workability for construction and durability during their service life.
A good designer will carefully specify values for material properties. Generally any material can
show outstanding performance in some of its properties. Podolny (1998) discusses properties of
high-performance concrete (HPC), high-performance steel (HPS), high-performance aluminum
alloys, and fiber reinforced polymer composites (FRP) in bridge construction.
81
2.2.2.1 Strength and Other Mechanical Properties

Under the three headings strength and material properties, workability, and durability the features
that indicate high-performance will be described in the following paragraphs. Basic mechanical
properties of a material are strength, toughness, and ductility. With respect to high-strength
materials, Podolny and Muller (1982) write that by the early 1980s application of high-strength
concrete in highway bridges were still in its very beginnings. Materials can be isotropic, meaning
that properties are the same in all three-dimensional directions. Certain materials, however, are
anisotropic and have properties that depend on direction of the material with respect to stresses.
Wood is an example for an anisotropic material. Composites can be anisotropic and can have
custom-designed properties in different spatial directions.
2.2.2.2 Workability
Regarding workability a multitude of physical and chemical material properties needs to be
looked at to determine the performance. Specific weight of the material is very important to
determine the size of modules that might be prefabricated, transported, and put into place.
Lightweight materials with sufficiently high strength facilitate prefabrication and allow quick and
easy erection. With respect to metal alloys, Podolny (1998) mentions criteria such as formability
and weldability. For concrete structures, workability is the ease of placement of fresh concrete.
Suitability for transportation and placement, e.g. pumpability, duration of setting, and
consolidation of the concrete are the main issues in workability. To achieve high durability of the
concrete structure, proper curing and finishing are important. Especially permeability of the
concrete determines its resistance to corrosion from intruding moisture and chemicals that affect
the steel reinforcement within. A certain amount of air volume in the concrete will serve to
protect it against freeze-thaw action.
82
2.2.2.3 Durability
Durability of the material means that a material has very slow deterioration under service
conditions. For concrete the design mixture and the aforementioned careful placement and curing
are critical for the final product to have resistance to the chemical environment, e.g. deicing
detergents and physical wear and tear, e.g. abrasion. Epoxy-coated reinforcement bars, fiberreinforced polymer modified concrete mixtures, and polymer coatings for concrete surfaces are
examples for measures to achieve high durability. Fire resistance and resistance to fatigue under
dynamic loading also needs to be considered. Finally, choice of materials can be influenced by
the ease of repair works. High durability will result in reduced maintenance cost.
2.2.2.4 Composites
Composites can be used in two variants in the Construction Industry. Structural members of the
bridge superstructure can consist of different materials, e.g. in a composite bridge with a concrete
deck cast onto steel trusswork. Especially the connection between these members, e.g. with shear
studs, requires special attention. On the other hand, the material of a member itself can be a
composite made of several ingredients. Reinforced concrete is a simple example for a composite
material; it can also be combined with fiber material and polymers to create composites. These
sophisticated composite materials today still have a high price in comparison with classic
construction materials, such as concrete and steel.
In any case, for both structural and material composites, compatibility of materials is the main
issue of design. Similar to requirements for compatibility between repair materials and the
original substance, chemical and mechanical properties of the ingredients of composites need to
be matched.

2.2.3
83
Innovative Structural Concepts
Literature on the history of bridges in some cases contains a brief description of bridge projects
that are planned for the near future and discusses their technical data. Most of these have a
considerable scale due to the nature of their proposed setting. These plans include e.g. bridging
the Strait of Messina; other proposals have even been developed for the Strait of Gibraltar and a
connection at the Bering Strait between the Northern American Continent and Russia. Plans for
bridging major straits separating countries or even continents with unique bridges whose
dimensions are measured in kilometers rather than in meters could give the wrong impression
that bridge engineering generally is only heading towards larger and larger spans. Future bridge
building will not only consist of a few super-span bridges; these are but a part of future
developments. Quite the largest amount of bridges has always been of a small to medium scale,
and future developments are not expected to change this situation. Melaragno (1998, p237)
fittingly calls these bridges the silent majority. An uncounted number of simple highway
overpasses, small pedestrian bridges, and the like serve their purpose without the glamour
associated with the major bridges around the world (Melaragno 1998, p248). Quality of design
and construction for these bridges is at least as important as for major projects, as they are
ubiquitous in our built environment.
The bridges of todays infrastructure system will still serve for more years or decades. They have
to be inspected regularly, and maintenance work and minor repairs will be one. Finally, it will
not be economic anymore to slow down the deterioration process with intensive repair work, and
the bridges will by and by have to be replaced in coming decades. Other reasons why new
bridges will be needed are mentioned in Zuk (1988b), such as population expansion,
demographic shifts, economic pressures, and general obsolescence.
The present means of bridging obstacles will be developed further in the future. As new materials
and composites of existing materials are being developed, the structures will inevitably change
their shape and utilize the possibilities that these materials offer to an increased extent. Dealing
with possibilities in structural design, three ways exist to come up with new concepts:
84
Enhancement of existing types of structures through improvements in some of their

features;
Combination of existing concepts to come up with a new solution;
Development of completely new concepts, probably the most difficult and exciting of all
three ways.
2.2.3.1 Enhancing Existing Structural Concepts

Enhancing existing types of structures can be done in various ways. Material properties of highperformance materials have already been discussed in Section 2.2.2. But improving the
properties of a material and thus optimizing its utilization need not be the only way of
enhancement. Other examples are:
Use of improved details, e.g. bearings, expansion joints, anchorages, and dampers;
Use of continuous superstructures with less joint details for better durability;
Use of tendons with textured surfaces or interconnected stays that are less susceptible to
fluttering and vibration;
Use of prefabricated elements to simplify and speed up construction;
Stronger implementation of architectural concepts in the design and awareness of

principles of aesthetics.
Enhancing the design of substructure and superstructure can have both structural and aesthetic
advantages. Leonhardt (1984) e.g. reports on the Lake Maracaibo Bridge in Venezuela, which
was designed by Riccardo Morandi. Approaches to this bridge have rising V-shaped pier tables
with slender columns. The main bridge itself with six A-shaped towers over heavy pier tables
85
with crossed legs and may not attract undisputed approval. Especially use of more slender and
lighter pier tables and a multi-cable arrangement is proposed by Leonhardt (1984). Multi-cable
arrangements in this case allow a more even distribution of the superstructure weight and make
the whole bridge look lighter. More information on cables-stayed bridges is given in Section
2.1.6.6. A large variety of pier shapes have been used in practice, some of these with A, H, X, or
inverted V or Y-shapes. Apart from the clear expression of the structural system, they can also
improve the appearance of the structure through their simple, yet interesting shaping.
An example of enhancing a whole family of structures that is worth being mentioned is the
monocable suspension bridge, shown in Figure 2-34. The initial idea for the monocable
suspension bridge was put forward by the German engineer Fritz Leonhardt in 1953 (Leonhardt
1984) under the impression of the failure of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in 1940. Section 2.1.5.6
gives more information on this event. Where many American engineers reacted to this failure by
building sturdy trusses into further suspension bridges to provide rigidity to wind forces,
Leonhardt proposed to build a suspension bridge with one main cable only. Inclined hangers
attached to this cable would support the deck. As he further reports, tests with scaled models
showed the stability of this type of structures, due to the inclined planes of hangers and their
zigzag arrangement.
In conjunction with these developments, Leonhardt also developed the so-called aerofoil deck.
This deck does not consist of a truss system anymore, but is rather a flat, aerodynamic box girder
with long pointed flanges. The tests showed that the steel box girder need not be closed over its
circumference, the braced bottom part can be left open.
A major monocable suspension bridge has not been built so far, although at least two very
appealing proposals had been submitted, 1960 for the Tagus Bridge in Portugal and 1961 for a
bridge across the Rhine in Germany (Leonhardt 1984). Both bridges were finally realized in the
traditional form of suspension bridges with trussed decks Leonhardts idea was presumably too
innovative for its time.
86
Figure 2-34: Monocable Suspension Bridge (taken from Leonhardt 1984, p292)
Brown (1993) gives an impression of the theoretical limits for span lengths for todays highstrength steel bridge types. Being able to support at least their own weight, according to these
calculations, trusses could reach 500 m, arches 1,500 m, cable-stayed bridges 2,500 m, and
suspension bridges about 5,000 m in length.
2.2.3.2 Combination of Existing Structural Concepts

Combining existing concepts may be useful in coming up with unusual structural solutions.
However, there are arguments that speak against this way of improvement. The construction
process may become more complicated and thus more expensive. Aesthetics are of prime
importance in bridge design, as discussed in Section 3.3, and a mixture of structural elements
will not necessarily satisfy the observer, since structural simplicity and pleasing appearance of
the bridge may be disturbed. Examples for combinations of structural concepts are:
87
Use of trussed superstructures in suspension or cable-stayed bridges;
Use of stay cables and trusswork to support, brace, and stiffen structures;
Use of e.g. arch superstructures that carry the deck below with suspension cables or
above with columns.
An example of a combination of structural concepts from a conceptual study to cross the Strait of
Messina is shown in Figure 2-35.
Figure 2-35: Combination of Structural Concepts (taken from Petroski 1995, p367)
88
A prominent example of a hybrid between suspension bridge and major cantilever spans is the
proposal by T. Y. Lin for a permanent crossing of the Strait of Gibraltar, connecting Europe and
Africa (Melaragno 1998).
2.2.3.3 Development of New Structural Concepts

Developing a completely new concept is the most difficult, but also the most challenging and
rewarding of the methods pointed out. In his report on futuristic bridges Zuk (1988b)
distinguishes between minor, major, and radical changes in future bridge construction. It is these
radical changes that relate to the completely new concepts discussed here. The following sections
give summaries of notions developed in Zuks report and other concepts.
2.2.3.3.1
Kinetic Structures
Different types of movable structures or structures with movable elements exist, such as lifting
bridges, swing bridges and bascule bridges that move parts of their superstructure to open for
ship traffic to pass.
The military has long used movable bridges and pontoon bridges that can be transported and put
together with armored equipment. Zuk (1988b, p7) appropriately describes that those structures
will look more like large machines than traditional bridges in that they will employ motors,
rotating members, telescoping arms, and the like. While he anticipates them to be mostly a
temporary replacement of old bridges under repair it is also possible that kinetic bridges will be
used as permanent structures in smaller applications. The serviceability limits of deflection and
vibration as well as robustness of the moving mechanisms and susceptibility to creep would have
to be examined carefully for kinetic bridges.

2.2.3.3.2
89
Underwater Bridges
These structures that resemble floating tunnels anchored to the seabed would have the advantage
that ship traffic would remain undisturbed. Stabilization of underwater bridges with corrosionresistant cables is essential for structural integrity and would have to be a research issue. Apart
from that it would have to be examined how fatigue due to movements of the water body around
the structures influences the structural materials. To resist the deep currents, Zuk (1988b) stresses
that they would need a streamlined shape. Means of construction would resemble building
tunnels and also maintenance and repair concepts would be derived from tunnel construction.
Although underwater bridges would provide means to cross waters, they should be better defined
as submerged floating tunnels, since the very definition of bridges includes crossing over an
obstacle.
2.2.3.3.3
Stress Ribbon Bridges
Stress ribbon bridges have already been used for smaller pedestrian bridges (Zuk 1988a). In this
type of bridge very slender prestressed concrete ribbons are hung between the piers. German
engineer Ulrich Finsterwalder developed this type of bridges for a proposal to cross the Bosporus
in Turkey in 1958 (Podolny and Muller 1982). His design is shown in Figure 2-36. A major
disadvantage of stress ribbon bridges is the deflection and probable vibrations of the deck, which
make them less suitable for vehicle traffic. However, aerodynamic analysis has indicated that a
stress ribbon bridge is safe against torsional oscillation, Podolny and Muller (1982, p546)
report. They also point at the heavy abutments necessary to withstand the tension that the ribbon
induces. The unusual sagging shape of the ribbon in connection with the common perception of
concrete as a rigid material might complicate public acceptance of this bridge type. Further
development is necessary to make stress ribbon bridges become a feasible way of building
bridges.
90
Figure 2-36: Stress Ribbon Bridge (taken from Liebenberg 1992, p38)
2.2.3.3.4
Multiuse Bridges
The most famous of all multiuse bridges, the Old London Bridge has already been introduced in
Section 2.1.2.4. This type, also mentioned by Zuk (1988b), does not really introduce a new
structural system, but rather comes along with a multifunctional use. Thus, a multiuse bridge
would not only carry traffic routes, such as roads and railway tracks, but would also have
residential and commercial functions with e.g. parking facilities in the lower parts of the bridge
(Zuk 1988a). Building this type of bridge would become a very community-oriented task to
provide a sound bridge structure with acceptable public and private facilities at the same time.
2.2.3.3.5
High-Art Bridges
Since many bridges built in the last years have been quite strict and simple in their appearance,
especially concerning their plain concrete surfaces, a trend may develop to give bridges a more
artful appearance. Use of colors, textured and structured surfaces and covers, and an aesthetically
pleasing shaping might be put more focus on, making bridges more sculptures than simply
objects of technology. Implementation examples could be representational structures for
international exhibitions and technology parks. Zuk (1988b) already provides the limiting factor
for this development, which is the cost of such decorative measures. Therefore he expects that
91
the number of high-art bridges will remain small. Yet on the whole a more conscious design with
respect to aesthetics may be anticipated in bridge engineering.
2.2.3.3.6
Spatial Structures
So far, most bridges showed a very clear structural system with identifiable main members. Often
smaller bridges are even statically determinate. In trusses, in suspension bridges, and in cablestayed bridges this situation changes towards a statically highly indeterminate superstructure
system with many smaller members that carry the deck. Structural indetermination introduces
redundancy and increases structural safety. It can also allow replacement of single members
while maintaining structural integrity. Podolny and Muller (1982, p548) explain this structural
redundancy with the ability for loads to redistribute by seeking an alternate load path. Complex
analytical calculations of the structural behavior under different load cases are necessary to
examine statically indeterminate systems for possible modes of failure.
Carrying this idea further, spatial network structures can be developed. These would consist of
many smaller elements, such as trusswork and cables, which would make very large, yet light
structures possible. Elements of these structures would predominantly carry axial forces. Special
node connections between elements would have to be developed to allow for easy construction
and to have flexibility for removal of single elements if required. Zuk (1988a, pp7-10) provides
an example for such a combination of truss elements and cables: The so-called Skyrail system
would consist of longitudinal cables wound around stiffening diaphragms. A system particular
for mega-span bridges is outlined by Gibson (1998, p29), who reports of ideas for a so-called
Space Web. Advantages of this system, in which a chain of three-dimensional arches made
from cabling, which creates a horizontal suspension mechanism resistant to wind and earthquake
forces, are mentioned. These advantages are anticipated to be less cost than suspension bridges,
possibility to bridge extremely large obstacles with spans of about 3.2 km or more, and
advantages in the erection sequence (Gibson 1998, p29).
92
Elements for spatial structures can be pre-assembled in sets that are transported to the site and are
installed. Steel, lightweight metal alloys, or advanced plastics could be used as structural
materials. However, special attention needs to be paid to the degree of complexity both for
construction process and for later maintenance, and for an aesthetically pleasing appearance.
Certainly, spatial bridge structures would have to fulfill all common requirements of structural
safety and serviceability to become competitive solutions in bridge engineering.
Application of the outlined principle is not new in the construction industry. As mentioned
above, bridge types such as trusses, suspension, and cable-stayed bridges already implemented
trusswork and cables in manifold variants. Metal trusswork is often used for wide-spanning
roofs, such as roof structures for large, column-free sport facilities, auditoriums, civic centers,
and the like (Podolny and Muller 1982, p548). Further development of trussed structure is,
however, still possible.
2.2.3.3.7
Concrete Trusswork
Examples for truss application even in concrete bridges can be found in the technical literature.
Podolny and Muller (1982, p547) report of a bridge proposal that had prestressed concrete trusses
instead of the usual inclined solid box girder webs, thus forming a system of multitriangular-cell
concrete box girder elements. They give several examples of prestressed concrete truss bridges,
including the trussed box superstructure of the Mangfall Bridge in Austria, built in 1959, a
proposal for a precast truss by Freyssinet (pp392-394), and the arch-shaped trussed Rip Bridge in
Australia (Wheen 1979a, 1979b). The Mangfall Bridge is shown in Figure 2-37. Another idea by
Freyssinet was longitudinal confinement of prestressed concrete members in a jacket creating
permanently biaxial transverse compressive stress, which proved very high load-carrying
capacity in tests (Podolny and Muller 1982, p399). Menn (1990) mentions the Rue Lafayette
Bridge, which was finished in 1928 in Paris and consisted of two spans with parallel reinforced
concrete trusses without prestressing.
93
Figure 2-37: Concrete Trusswork in Mangfall Bridge, Austria

(taken from Leonhardt 1984, p203)
Other futuristic ideas for bridge structures are presented by Podolny (1998), who reports on
aerodynamically shaped tubular superstructures with traffic enclosed within and on threedimensional tubular space frames, which, in conjunction with advanced materials, would provide
both light and stiff structural solutions.
2.2.3.3.8
Bioengineering
An interesting and promising approach that has only been little been developed is the use of
bioengineering in construction. The main point of this approach is the examination of principles
in natural structures, especially in the living environment. Applications of bioengineering
knowledge are found in the aerospace industry, which has implemented e.g. specially textured
foils on the surface of airplanes to decrease air resistance. A similar approach is possible for
construction engineering. The variety of natural structures is worth being examined further under
94
an engineering point of view. Research need not be limited to bridge construction, other areas
will also be influenced, e.g. building technology may explore new means of heating and
insulation, the construction materials industry may find new means in utilization of biologically
produced or modified polymers, and the like. The following examples shall merely give an
impression of structures and concepts that nature has developed:
Cobwebs, which form strong but extremely light networks;
Grass and corn, which incorporate both strength and flexibility;
Tress and shrubs, composed of strong wood fibers tower their environment;
Crystals, which have an enormous strength through their regular inner composition and
also show interesting electrochemical effects;
Bee honeycombs, whose regular geometrical structure makes them stiff and light;
Bones, which have an interior matrix network adapted to the flow of forces;
Thermal insulation, which allows animals to inhabit roughest climates.
2.2.4
Conclusion
With the prospects and possibilities presented above one can say that the future of bridges has
just begun. The three main areas of future development that were pointed out in the previous
sections show that the range of ideas to be explored is very wide. Some of these ideas may prove
impractical within the technical environment, while others will become feasible once the existing
technologies have been developed further. The approaches mentioned will contribute to the
development of amazing new structures. Only the fascination that is characteristic for bridge
engineering field will remain the same that it has always been, during the many centuries that
have passed since the first bridges were erected.
CHAPTER 3: THE DESIGN PROCESS OF

SEGMENTAL BRIDGES
After having given an overview of the great history and heritage of bridge building, the next parts
shall deal with the factors and characteristics of what engineers do and think when designing a
structure. When appropriate, special reference will be given to concrete segmental bridges,
whose construction is the topic of Chapter 4.
3.1
DESIGN PHILOSOPHY
Characterizing for the engineering design process is that it is highly subjective and individual. It
is not a predetermined path that is laid out in any professional code, the process is rather similar
to the process that artists go through when creating a new piece of art. As there are many ways in
which the process can be carried out, there will also be many possible outcomes. One specific
optimum solution for a project can hardly exist, as every designer will acknowledge. Designing is
a complex process consisting of several steps and consideration of a great amount of information
is involved. Environmental, technical, and cultural factors give the frame in which the designer
performs his work of structural design. In any case, engineering is always seeking for a good
compromise between these many factors.
Apart from technical knowledge a lot of creativity, which will be dealt with in Section 3.1.5.1, is
necessary for successful design. Many authors have attempted to give guidelines how to achieve
a successful design that is both economic and beautiful. In this context Leonhardt (1984, p30)
writes very clearly that one must not assume that the simple application of these rules will in
itself lead to beautiful buildings or bridges. The designer must still possess imagination,
intuition, and a sense for both form and beauty.
95
Chapter 3: The Design Process of Segmental Bridges

3.1.1
96
The Nature of Engineering
Engineering is essential for the human society in that it provides the many tools, systems, and
facilities that make modern human life possible. Most importantly, engineering is a social
enterprise. By creating the means that are supposed to serve the people of a community and
increase their standard of living it is deeply woven into the functioning of society with its
manifold interrelationships. Petroski (1997, p80) cites a definition for Civil Engineering that
especially tries to grasp the wide scope and ubiquitous nature of this profession:
Civil Engineering is the profession in which a knowledge of the mathematical
and physical sciences gained by study, experience, and practice is applied with
judgement to develop ways to utilize, economically, the materials and forces of
nature for the progressive well-being of humanity in creating, improving and
protecting the environment, in providing facilities for community living, industry
and transportation and in providing structures for the use of mankind.
Civil Engineering achievements along with other engineering professions are based on a long
history of technological developments that led to todays state-of-the-art. The history of
engineering comprises many successes and some tragic failures, from both of which a great deal
can be learned. Skillful and thoughtful use of natures resources and of technical means are and
will remain the key elements of engineering. This feature distinguishes engineering from other
professions that focus more on understanding the very nature of our world, or create works that
stimulate our intellect and senses. Yet engineering does share traits with both art and science,
for engineering is a human endeavor that is both creative and analytical (Petroski 1992, p80).
An extended model of this relationship is given in Figure 3-1, which is adapted from a paper by
Burke (1995). Engineering can be placed between the three areas of science, technology, and arts
since it incorporates features from all of them. With science it shares analytical and experimental
approaches to investigate and better understand material properties and structural behavior,
mostly based on models of the real structure. The knowledge extracted hereof is then used on the
technological side in finding a practical way of putting the structure in place by technical means
and methods. As Section 3.1.3 lines out, more requirements than just pure functionality need to
be fulfilled by the structure while being under construction and during its service life. An
important consideration for highly visible structures as e.g. bridges is their appearance. To design
97
a truly satisfactory bridge, the engineer needs aesthetic sensibility as an artist does, too. Creativity
is of prime importance to comply with the requirements on structures and make the whole project
a successful undertaking.
Technology
technical
+ practical
Engineering
Science
analytical
+ experimental
creative
+ aesthetic
Arts
Figure 3-1: Relationship of Engineering with Science, Arts, and Technology

(adapted from Burke 1995, p34)
3.1.2
Current Issues in Engineering Education
Traditionally, design philosophy is rarely taught in Civil Engineering education, since much time
is taken by conveying codified technical knowledge and its rational application to the students.
Professional attention has, however, already been given to the dominance of theory and
mathematics in the education as Addis (1990) reports, yet still without much noticeable results. It
has been clearly mentioned that the engineering education follows a different path than
engineering practice; problems given to students mostly contain a given set of structural
information, loads, and clearly stated problems to be solved (Petroski 1996). Much of everydays
work of the engineers, however, deals with determining these data at all, coming up with
reasonable assumptions and creating models for the structure to perform analysis of its behavior.
98
Several other authors also show their concern on the restricted scope of todays Civil Engineering
education in universities. Burke (1995, p34) states that senior professionals realize that the usual
academic education and early professional training of most bridge engineers is restricted almost
exclusively to the scientific or analytical aspects of design. Burke (1995, p35) also expresses
hope that bridge aesthetics study, instruction, research, and eventually () the development of
bridge aesthetics courses and design manuals will become part of future education. Study of
these issues would certainly include examples from the rich history of structural design and
analyze how they are percepted in the eye of the beholder.
Apart from aesthetics in todays design, authors have even pointed out some more basic
concerns. Addis (1990, pp60-63) stresses that practical understanding, i.e. a feeling for
materials and structural behavior is needed by structural engineers. Yet he also shows concern on
the current education of engineers that seems to focus predominantly on calculation efforts in
structural analysis. Basic skills, such as visualizing and clearly communicating ideas to peers,
owners, and the public by means of sketches, drawings, and descriptions are extremely important
for engineers. From this point of view Schlaich (1995, p60) makes the following statement:
Structural engineering is a practical profession and therefore no student should
be admitted without practical training, and no university curriculum should fail to
include courses in sketching, drawing, and modeling. Students must be taught
how to live with computers, but should use them only after getting approximate
results by rule-of-thumb calculations. They also should learn how to keep good
company with their future architectural colleagues. This is the best investment for
quality.
3.1.3
Functional Requirements for Structures and Interdependencies
Functionality, safety, economy, and aesthetics are the four main goals of all engineering effort, as
OConnor (1971) expresses. Although technology has advanced considerably during the last
century and provided engineers with new challenges in implementation, these four prime issues
of engineering have always remained the same.
99
The author of this thesis added the interrelationships between these four issues and
conceptualized them as shown in Figure 3-2. The required safety of the structure under all
possible combinations of loads is clearly determined by codes and other regulations. Structural
safety is composed of two components. These components are strength of the materials to
withstand the loads imposed and overall stability of the structural system.
Pre-Service
+
In-Service
Codes
+
Specifications
Safety
(Structural Integrity)
In Service
Limit States
= Strength + Stability
= Stiffness + Durability
Factors
of Safety
Guidelines
+
Engineering
Judgement
Economy
(and Ecology)
Serviceability
(Functionality)
Quality
of Life
Design Quality
Elegance
(Aesthetics)
Figure 3-2: Functional Requirements and Interdependencies for Engineering Structures
On the other hand, the structure in service need not only be safe but also has to serve its function
in an acceptable manner, as also determined by codes and regulations. Serviceability relates to
issues such as durability of the structure against deterioration and to adequate stiffness, e.g. a
bridge must not develop excessive yet structurally harmless deflections that would reduce the
driving comfort. It must be wide enough for the traffic to safely pass it at an acceptable speed and
should not have sudden changes in alignment.
100
Sufficient structural safety and also serviceability should be clearly expressed in the visual
appearance of a structure to be recognized by the public as a successful design. Slight movements
under dynamic loads, deflections, or other apparent weaknesses on the other hand may not
decrease structural safety under service conditions, but can psychologically lead to disapproval of
the structure. As sagging is detrimental to the driving comfort, bridge superstructures are usually
built cambered. Codes and regulations provide information as to the so-called Serviceability
Limit State (SLS) and the Ultimate Limit State (ULS). In addition to this, the structure also needs
to serve its purpose in an economical way. As part of the overall life-cycle cost it should e.g. be
attempted to keep maintenance cost low through careful design and construction.
Much less clearly stated in codes or regulations are the two remaining objectives; meaning both
economy and ecology, and aesthetics. In the last decades, growing awareness of responsibility
towards the natural environment has become more present in engineering thinking and the new
field of environmental engineering is being explored. Environmental laws and technical
regulations determine which measures need to be taken when constructing the project and
maintaining it. For the owner building the project according to the specifications both on
schedule and within budget is the prime interest, in addition to low cost for maintenance during
the life-cycle.
The relationship between safety issues and cost is given by factors of safety. Increased structural
safety by overdesigning the bridge members will be costly and make the whole structure seem
inelegant. Finding the acceptable level of safety at an appropriate cost is the task of the engineer
and expresses the quality of the design. The appearance of bridges is the topic of Section 3.3,
where some guidelines and opinions on aesthetics are given. Bridges contribute to the societys
quality of living by serving their function in an elegant and delightful way. Overall, an
impression of the quality of the design may be gained by examining how the structure accounts
for both economical and ecological, as well as for aesthetic considerations.

3.1.4
101
Design against Failure
Since Civil Engineering is a human undertaking, mistakes can and do occur. Liebenberg (1992,
p99) gives a list of what he calls gross errors that can directly affect structural safety:
1. A conceptual misunderstanding of one or more aspects of structural function on the

part of the designer or analyst.
2. The use of incorrect assumptions as the basis for the design.
3. Gross computational errors.
4. A breakdown in communications (brief, specifications, drawings, instructions).
5. Undetected flaws in materials and serious omissions or errors in the execution of the
work (workmanship).
Designing a structure deals with the fundamental issue of achieving all requirements that have
been set for it. Success in Civil Engineering can be measured as how closely these requirements
are met. In other words, engineering success is correctly foreseeing and avoiding failure of
structures. Total or partial structural collapse as mentioned above is the most well-known mode
of failure. Yet failure in a more broad sense as used by Addis (1990) means that any of a set of
previously stated objectives has not been met accordingly. Types of failures thus include, with
respect to the aforementioned four primary goals of engineering, structural failures of various
degrees, functional failures, failure to meet aesthetic expectations, and failure to meet economical
prospects for all phases of the project life-cycle. Economical considerations during the life-cycle
are e.g., cost of design efforts, budget and project duration scheduled for construction, and little
maintenance cost during the service life.
In order to be on the safe side, safety concepts have been introduced into the design process. The
so-called factor of safety is the centerpoint of these; it is dealt with in Section 3.5.2. Apart from
human causes for failures during design, construction and service life, e.g. collision accidents,
there can be Acts of God, such as earthquakes, floods, and storms that strike with unexpected
severity. All these external influences need to be taken into consideration to design a sound
structure. It can be easily imagined how difficult prediction and codification of these events in
practice is. In many cases, historical data is used, e.g. designing for the worst recorded event over
102
a period of about 100 years. Further complexity is introduced when the natural deterioration and
time-dependent material behavior such as creep, shrinkage, and relaxation is considered. Loaddependent behavior is captured under the heading of fatigue, depending on the intensity, range,
and frequency of imposed load cycles. Information from the applicable codes and sound
engineering judgement at which stage and where failures may occur are required to implement
sufficient safety.
3.1.5
The Design Process
Designing a structure is a comprehensive engineering process that spans from the very first
compilation of information on the project and making the first drafts to the final preparation of
shop drawings, schedules and other documents. The following sections take a closer look
particularly at the steps of the first phases in the design process that are undertaken prior to
generating detailed analytical calculations.
3.1.5.1 Creativity at Work

In the introduction to Section 3.1 basic traits of the design process have been mentioned,
including creativity. Creativity, one of the basic requirements for the design process, shall be
defined as the skill of coming up with innovative ideas for a problem based on both existing and
new concepts.
Facing a difficult problem people often experience a kind of blank paper syndrome that hinders
innovative work, as Petroski (1997) has noted. Once the first thoughts have been put on paper,
however, it may be felt that the flow of thought will be much better. A variety of counseling
literature can be found on how to overcome blockades in thinking and how to deal with problems
in a creative and elegant way. They introduce special creativity techniques, e.g. the well-known
brainstorming technique (Fogler and LeBlanc 1995), stressing that a stimulating atmosphere
103
helps generating fruitful ideas. Breaking down problems into substeps will make difficult
undertakings become clearer and simple to accomplish.
It is possible to stimulate the creative process in engineering through active reading of
professional journals, communications with peers and similar activities. Keeping up to date with
current construction projects of interest can give valuable information and helps further fostering
the own creativity.
3.1.5.2 Conceptual Design

The initial phase of the design process is commonly referred to as the conceptual design phase.
In this phase the engineer becomes familiar with the overall picture of the project and gets an
impression of the required functions and imposed limitations. Sources contributing to this
process are of various natures; they comprise e.g. maps and existing plans, surveying data, codes
and regulations, and many more. More of these factors are discussed in Section 3.4. Moreover,
throughout his career the engineer will accumulate experience in addition to the knowledge
gained from studying, which will also contribute to the quality of his proposals. Melaragno
(1990, p215) very fittingly speaks of a kaleidoscope of design ideas that exists in the designers
mind at the beginning of working on a new project. With the information reviewed and readily
available, the first sketches will be put down, using the classical instruments of the engineer,
pencil and paper (Melaragno 1990). Engineers will also use Computer Aided Design and
Drafting (CADD) software in following steps of the design as a comfortable and versatile tool to
implement and study various designs. Simple back-of-the-envelope calculations, with which
Petroski (1997) deals from a historic perspective, are used to determine the overall feasibility of a
concept. Alternatives will be evaluated by means of cost estimates for material use and
complexity and duration of erection works, and by elaboration on the performance of the
structure in service. Documentation of the material produced and the rationale that leads to
design decisions is advisable. Further in the process the underlying concept is refined, yet it will
not be drastically changed anymore. Improvements to existing plans should be implemented as
early as possible and be critically reflected on. The importance of these first simple drafts should
104
not be underestimated, because the basic outline of the whole design is already determined in
them. Schlaich (1995, p60) stresses the importance of the phase of conceptual design, which in
his opinion is also the most creative phase that comprises the joy of engineering. He also
observes that many costly problems that occur during construction and under service of bridges
could be avoided if enough care was put in the initial phases of design (Schlaich 1995, pp54f):
To an observer of the scene of structural engineering, it must be surprising how
little time is usually spent on the initial phase of the design of a structure. Later
phases only carry out what was initially conceived during the conceptual design.
Later on, engineers proudly report of their immense mental input and
computational efforts to grasp the exact forces at singular loads by refining the
FEM mesh, to develop a most intricate reinforcement layout at a complicated
joint, or to find the special concrete mix including superplasticizers to ensure that
it will penetrate an extremely dense reinforcement cage. Looking closer at such
problems and their sophisticated solutions, one will in most cases find their
origin in a negligent conceptual design.
3.1.5.3 Analysis and Dimensioning

Based on a profound understanding of structural behavior, the structure will then be analyzed.
Attention needs to be given to both overall system and also to structural details, such as
expansion joints, hinges, and bearings. The structure will evolve to its final form by optimization
of its structural members. This dimensioning process attempts to minimize the use of material
while keeping the maximum stresses in the respective member well within the limitations given
by allowable values from the codes. For the largely iterative process between size of members
and the stresses and deformations within the structure the use of computer software is very
valuable.
3.1.5.4 Design Process According to Leonhardt

Most vivid a description of the design process has been provided by Leonhardt (1984) in his
book Bridges: Aesthetics and Design. A summary of his key thoughts as to how the initial idea
105
evolves to a complete set of plans, specifications, detailed descriptions, estimates, and schedules
will be given in the following paragraphs.
Leonhardt (1984) considers it necessary to have comprehensive information on the nature of the
project and its boundary conditions in addition to skills, experience, and knowledge of the
engineer himself. He urges the designer to perform a site visit to get a personal impression of the
setting of the future bridge. Coming up with an initial idea, rough sketches of the bridge that
capture the anticipated elevation are made first. Important features of proportioning and
composition, such as span length and position of piers and abutments, shape and depth of the
superstructure will become clearer in these sketches. Leonhardt continues his description with a
phase of revision and criticism of these drafts in which the proportions of the structural elements
can be improved. Doing more detailed sketching the superstructure cross-section and the pier
shape can be drafted next. Since the bridge needs to be evaluated in its overall three-dimensional
appearance, some sketches looking at the structure from different angles will greatly facilitate the
impression. An important source of information that Leonhardt mentions is the professional
criticism of peers. At this stage thoughts on a feasible construction method become necessary.
Refining the form of substructure and superstructure will be the next task in the design process,
once the overall concept has been fixed. Substructure and superstructure members will become
more detailed when producing larger drawings of them, making reasonable assumptions on the
thicknesses of concrete members to provide sufficient space for reinforcement and prestressing
tendons. Alternative solutions for the structural system can then be compared and evaluated.
Leonhardt (1984) calls this revision stage meditating on the concept, checking that it fulfills all
requirements and gives an aesthetic solution. Only when this stage, which may include more
input from peers, has been accomplished, drawing detailed plans and calculating should start.
It may be added at this point that some simple so-called back-of-the-envelope calculations will
already have been done earlier to support the feasibility and rough dimensioning of the planned
structure. Approximations of the member dimensions and steel amounts required should be done
first; later on more detailed calculations with the help of computer programs will be done.
Optimization for economy is achieved with relative ease through varying single dimensions in
106
the computer input and comparing the results. Still, Leonhardt again notes that purely economic
considerations may not necessarily lead to aesthetic structures.
After having accomplished the aforementioned steps, design drawings will be produced, showing
all relevant details and dimensions. Leonhardt does not specifically mention preparation of a
schedule draft and a cost estimate for construction, but it can be assumed that he included these
issues in the preparation of documents to be submitted for approval. Upon approval by the client
and probably involvement of the public, more detailed work that takes a considerable time will
be done. Comprehensive analytical calculations for all anticipated influences need to be
performed. Sets of final drawings, descriptions, and specifications will be produced to prepare
the project execution. Additional preparation includes the layout of temporary facilities, such as
formwork, scaffolding, and necessary equipment.
3.2
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Projects are unique undertakings with certain characteristics. They are created to achieve a
certain goal, e.g. manufacturing a product, and they have a defined framework of resources that
are utilized to achieve the goal. Resources, as will be discussed in Section 3.2.2, can be of both
concrete and immaterial nature. Apart from physical materials that are either used in the product
itself or support its construction, resources such as time, space, money, and controlling need to be
present for a successful project outcome.
Projects in the construction industry are unique in that in most of all cases they only have one
product, i.e. the new structure as an outcome and not a large batch of similar products as in the
manufacturing industry. To generate the structure, however, much planning and construction
effort is necessary. On a time scale, construction projects go through several different phases, the
so-called life-cycle. The project life-cycle will be explained in the following Section 3.2.1.

3.2.1
107
Project Life-Cycle
A closer look at the time scale shows that any construction project typically goes through several
phases to produce the structure. Structures mostly have an anticipated duration of service for
which they are designed. During this duration they are supposed to serve their purpose in a safe
manner. The following main phases can be identified for a construction project. They are
conceptualization, design, construction, and utilization.
During the conceptualization phase the owner, e.g. a Department of Transportation establishes
need of the structure, e.g. a bridge, and contemplates the feasibility of his ideas. The owner also
determines a time and cost frame for the project and documents these issues.
The owners wishes, put down in descriptions and specifications are then used by the structural
engineers in the conceptual design phase. Codes and regulations also need to be considered,
providing information on e.g. load factors for bridge superstructures, minimum amount of
reinforcement, and the like. The construction phase is planned during the design process and
documented in shop drawings for all parts of the new structure, schedules, and descriptions.
Construction work on site will then proceed. Ideally, the construction will closely follow the
anticipated sequence. Due to uncertainties in factors such as soil conditions, weather conditions,
subcontractors meeting deadlines, and many more it is possible that changes might become
necessary during the construction process. The resources that are involved in the construction
phase of the project are discussed in the following Section 3.2.2.
Completion of the structure does not mark the end of the overall project life-cycle. After
acceptance of the structure by the owner, it is put into service, the so-called start-up. To keep a
bridge structure on an acceptable level of service a maintenance scheme is usually set up that
includes regular inspections to determine need for upgrading. When the structure finally
deteriorates to an extent where repairs or rehabilitation are not economical anymore, demolition
and replacement mark the end of its life-cycle.
Engineering embraces the whole project life-cycle from the very first conceptualization in the
design process to more detailing, calculating, the whole construction process, and finally use,
108
maintenance, and demolition of the structure. This comprehensiveness nature can be the source
of deep satisfaction for the engineer.
3.2.2
Resource Utilization
When doing the planning for carrying out a construction project it will become necessary to
allocate the proper resources to the schedule. Their availability can be an important limiting
factor in coming up with duration data for erection of the bridge foundations, the substructure
and superstructure, and finishing work. When developing the schedule these work tasks and their
interrelationships need to be anticipated. In the beginning and finishing phases of the project
different types and amounts of resources will be needed than during ongoing regular construction
work. Accounting for these developments during project execution will save money and effort.
Resources in this context do not only denote material items, but rather a compound of these and
managerial items. Resources comprise construction materials of all kinds and laborers of
different trades. Concerning materials it should be noted that they are used in two ways in
construction. They form structural members and are secondly needed to construct non-structural
facilities, e.g. temporary railings, scaffolding, and similar items. Moreover, pieces of equipment,
such as formwork and scaffolding as well as small tools and machinery (e.g. hydraulic jacks for
post-tensioning elements of segmental bridges) are necessary. On a larger scale, heavy
construction equipment will be needed to work on foundations, such as excavators and drills, and
for the substructure and superstructure, e.g. haulers to move earth and supply concrete and steel,
and cranes and concrete pumps to bring material in place.
In order to coordinate all these construction efforts, planning and supervision is of prime
importance to keep within time frame and budget. Progress in meeting deadlines needs to be
measured with the real amount of work accomplished. Time and money spent on project
execution only give hints on the actual project status. Quality control needs to be incorporated in
these supervision efforts to ensure that all specifications are met.
109
It is a good comparison to think of a construction site as a mobile temporary plant, erected and
powered to produce the bridge. From this it can be further derived that the third abstract
dimension of project resources in addition to time and money is workspace. Site layout needs to
provide easy access to the site and enough space for storage and moving of heavy equipment.
Finally, construction sites require certain infrastructure installations, such as water supply, waste
and wastewater removal facilities, electricity, telecommunication, office space, and rest facilities.
Sometimes items such as compressed air, gas, heating and cooling devices will be needed for
special means and methods of construction.
3.2.2.1 Economy
Much concern in engineering is given to achieving economical solutions. As already outlined in
Section 3.1.3 engineering structures bear a certain amount of safety, i.e. overdesign to
accommodate for uncertainties of all kinds. In a competitive market environment two issues are
always acting contrarily striving for reliably safe structures and the wish of building cheaper
structures to generate higher profit. It is the engineers task to find a good balance between these
two potentially conflicting wishes.
Cost savings can be achieved by several means, such as optimization of material use in the
structure; partial prefabrication if cost for the precasting yard, transportation, and placement of
the elements are less than cost for cast-in-place facilities on site; and schedule optimization with
respect to labor allocation.
From this point of view, using concrete segmental bridges offers several advantages. Choice of
prefabrication, cast-in-place fabrication of the segments, or even a combination of these
techniques offer possibility for optimization of the erection procedure. As will be discussed in
Section 3.7, segmental bridges with box girder superstructures have much flexibility in shape,
span arrangement and alignment, making them competitive over a wide range of lengths and
curvatures. Todays variety of construction methods is described in Section 4.2. It allows
matching the construction process exactly with site limitations.
110
Use of local materials in bridge construction for earthwork, concrete aggregates, and perhaps
stone masonry contributes both to aesthetics (see Section 3.2.5) and cost cutting of the bridge
project, as long distances of transportation are avoided.
3.2.2.2 Ecology
In view of limited natural resources, responsible use of these has become more and more
important in engineering. The whole construction process should ideally be carried out with
attention to its impact on the natural environment and on neighboring dwellings. Keeping
workspace at a minimum and avoiding noise emission and pollution as required by law
contribute to preservation of the natural environment for future generations. Waste and sewage
disposal needs to be considered. On modern construction sites recycling systems for solid waste
and wastewater have been introduced. Choice of less harmful materials reflects this increased
awareness, as illustrated by asbestos removal in many buildings and replacement of lead-based
paint for corrosion protection of steel structures with other substances. Larger projects usually
implement environmental impact studies.
3.2.2.3 The Linn Cove Viaduct

By way of constructing bridges with the cantilevering method it is possible to minimize
disturbance of the nature at the site. An interesting example is provided by Anon. (1984),
reporting of the construction of Linn Cove Viaduct in North Carolina. This viaduct is located in a
scenic mountainous yet very inaccessible landscape. The solution to these restrictive site
conditions was use of the progressive placement method that allowed reduction of impact on the
site to a minimum. More information on this method and the example will be given in Section
4.2.1.5.
3.3
111
AESTHETICS AND ENGINEERING
Seeing a bridge can create a variety of reactions in observers. The initial glance might create awe
for its grandeur and the elegance with which it spans its way or the impression might be the
complete opposite, producing negative sensations which lead to perception of the bridge as ugly
and not fitting to its surroundings. Obviously, aesthetics, as an art, cannot objectively be
quantified or subjected to fixed rules. Aesthetic evaluation is an individual and subjective act,
affecting each of us individually (Maestro et al. 1995, p39).
Leonhardt (1984, p12) defines aesthetics as the science or study of the qualities of beauty of an
object, and of their perception through our senses. Hence, an aesthetic object, as Leonhardt
derives, does incorporate some aesthetic values, which he calls qualities of beauty, in one way or
the other. He points out that aesthetic thus does not necessarily mean that the object observed is
beautiful. Beauty cannot be captured in purely numerical rules, since it is subjective
interpretation of the perception that makes people consider an object beautiful or not.
In the following paragraphs generic principles that are considered useful in designing
aesthetically pleasing structures shall therefore be presented without attempting to limit the
artistic freedom in any way. It is the engineers challenge to design structures that overcome
short-lived considerations and become timeless manifestations of engineering achievement.
3.3.1
Aesthetic Values
All bridges, regardless of their size, influence their natural and man-made environment through
their very appearance in shape, color, and other aspects. The impact of a bridge on its
surroundings needs to be considered carefully by the responsible engineer, keeping in mind that
aesthetics is an integral part of the design and not a frivolous and nonfunctional adornment
(Garcia 1995, p49). The attitude that building in a very economical way is not necessarily
opposed by the wish to achieve high aesthetic quality still needs to be conveyed to owners and
even to the engineers themselves. Putting emphasis and effort especially into the conceptual
design phase can even help saving cost. Whereas larger bridges with their longer design period
112
and bigger budget more easily facilitate aesthetic considerations during the design phase, the
biggest number of bridges is of smaller scale. They are ubiquitous in the transportation system
and therefore their quality should be given special attention. Melaragno (1998, p237), as already
mentioned in Section 2.2.3, calls this phenomenon the silent majority of bridges.
German bridge engineer Schlaich (1995) puts much emphasis of the quality aspect of todays
bridges. He uses the term quality generically in that it can be considered as perfect manufacture,
construction, safety, and durability at minimum cost. At least equally important, quality also can
be aesthetics, that implies compatibility with the environment including the right scale, least
consumption of natural resources, reusability, and others (Schlaich 1995, p58). Pointing
especially at the many small-scale bridges, Schlaich expresses his concerns with todays
monotony in bridge design. In highway bridges many prefabricated standardized parts, e.g.
prestressed standard beams are used to save cost. Garcia explains this situation as follows.
Standardization is more evident on smaller concrete bridges because special forms and shapes
cannot be amortized on the project (Garcia 1995 p52). In accordance with the previous
statements it clearly becomes the structural engineers challenge to find aesthetically pleasing
solutions even for such industrialized projects.
In conclusion, it can be said that aesthetics are of prime importance in bridges of whatever size
and location as they are contributing to the standard of living of their respective communities.
3.3.2
Character and Function
In many cases of novel engineering structures the initial public reaction was far away from
enthusiastic. An example certainly known is the Eiffel Tower in Paris, built from 1887 to 1889
for the Universal Exposition. Commentaries in the media disregarded the presumably monstrous
tower as an offense to French good taste (Petroski 1997, p172). Yet it took only a short time
for the tower to become an enormous success with over two million visitors during the
exhibition, and by today it is the most famous landmark of Paris.
113
The character of a structures generally speaking denotes its unique appearance, the shape, size,
and color, and what impression it coveys to spectators. Character is closely related to the primary
function of bridges, namely of bridging natural or artificial obstacles within the transportation
systems. If the composition of the bridge combines expression of functionality with its own
identity it will be considered a successful undertaking. The superstructure and substructure need
to show structural consistency in that they correspond with the construction material and clearly
express the natural flow of forces in the structural system. Deviation from this simplicity in the
main structural system by incorporating different types of superstructures usually is not
beneficial, since the mixture of structure types and span arrangements will be aesthetically
horrendous, as Garcia (1995, p52) states. The form of the bridge will have to be the most
logical one, that one which in the simplest, clearest, and most economical way responds to its
intended function, to the building materials, and to the construction methods, Maestro et al.
(1995, p39) explicitly demand.
Where the structural system is simple, as e.g. in cable-stayed bridges, structural clearness is
easily achieved. Box girder bridges usually convey a very clear picture of their structural function
as beams; they can be haunched along their span, i.e. be of variable depth, and visibly cambered
to acquire an elegant arch-like appearance. Other examples for clear structural systems can be
found e.g. in concrete arches with decks supported on columns.
3.3.3
Proportions and Harmony
Proportions are relationships between the geometric measure of objects, such as the lengths,
surface areas, and volumes of structural elements. Matching the apparent masses of bridge
elements through careful proportioning is one of the oldest principles of aesthetic designing.
Leonhardt (1984, p27) writes that in a bridge, for instance, these relationships may be between
the suspended superstructure and the supporting columns, between the depth and the span of the
beam, or between the height, length, and width of the openings. Harmony is also achieved by the
repetition of the same proportions in the entire structure or in its various parts.
114
A great deal of literature exists on this topic, beginning with ancient builders such as Vitruvius,
and continuing with Palladio and other authors. Geometrical relationships in natural objects, e.g.
in blossoms of flowers and even in Man himself were studied and determined to follow certain
rules. Vitruvius gives a whole chapter dealing with symmetry and proportions of the human
body. A well-known principle is the Golden Mean, which can be obtained by dividing a distance
into two parts in such a manner that the proportion of the shorter b to the longer part a equals the
proportion of the longer part a to the whole a+b. The Golden Mean is expressed in the following
(Leonhardt 1984, p19):
b
a
=
a a+b
Equation 3-1
which has the solution

a=
5 +1
b = 1.6180339887... b
2
Equation 3-2
Proportions played an important role in architecture of earlier times, e.g. temples and, in
Christian times, cathedrals and other awe-inspiring buildings. Many proportions that have been
used for these buildings are simple fractions, giving harmony and scale between the elements and
the whole structure. Another area where principles of harmony are used is music.
Harmonic considerations also play a role in integration of the structure into its setting. In the eye
of the beholder, strictly parallel lines appear stiff and static, producing uncomfortable optical
illusions (Leonhardt 1984, p28), whereas e.g. a taper in the vertical axis makes bridge piers
appear more graceful. Recipes for designing well-proportioned tapered columns can again
already be found in Vitruvius (Morgan 1960) and Palladios (Palladio 1570) works. Tapered
design of load-carrying elements logically follows from the flow of forces, since the bottom part
of supports has to carry the most weight. Other of Leonhardts considerations deal with
decreasing span length closer towards the edges of the valley and cambering horizontal
115
superstructures to avoid the illusion of sagging. Overall slenderness of bridge beams and piers is
usually considered advantageous for lightness of the visual appearance.
3.3.4
Complexity and Order
Importance of a clear structural system has already been pointed out in Section 3.3.2. This
should, however, not lead to the impression that the simplest of all bridge designs will please the
most. Interest arises mainly because of contrasts and accents set in the bridge. In bridges of
former centuries one often finds ornamentation with pilasters and capitals, statues, lanterns,
profiled articulated balustrades and protruding piers to enhance the visual impression. While
these kinds of decoration are usually not found in todays bridges anymore, important lessons can
be drawn from the careful application of these details. They evoke interest in the observer and
serve to refine the clear appearance of the bridge in overall view of the site. In Section 3.3.3 the
principle of tapering piers has already been introduced. In fact, a great number of all kinds of
bridge piers can be found which carry the idea of architectural shaping further. Slight additional
edges, small cutouts or inlets of other materials in the surface deviate from a purely rectangular
cross section and create interest.
The order of a structure is expressed in regularly appearing patterns in structural members with
their respective proportions. Introducing rhythm and symmetry in number and arrangement of
structural members can be pleasing to a certain degree, but as Leonhardt (1984) writes, this
should not lead to overall monotony through endless repetition. To avoid confusion and
displeasure, he also gives advice to limit the number of spatial directions into which the lines and
edges of the structure run. He also cautions to consider the three-dimensional appearance of
substructure and superstructure. We must also check the appearance of the design from all
possible vantage points of the future observer. Often the pure elevation on the drawing board is
entirely satisfactory, but in skew angle views unpleasant overlappings are found. We must also
consider the effects of light and shadow (Leonhardt 1984, p28).

3.3.5
116
Color and Texture
Coloring is paid much attention to by the visual arts. In entertainment and advertising colors
contribute much to the image that ought to be conveyed to the audience. Although structures
work in a completely different setting, they nevertheless attract peoples attention. The Golden
Gate Bridge in San Francisco, built from 1933 to 1937, spanning the bay with unique elegance, is
much cited as an example of how a bridge can enhance its setting. Brown (1993, p105) gives a
pronounced statement in his comprehensive work on bridges when he calls the red bridge
spanning the San Francisco Bay the worlds largest Art Deco sculpture. Choosing a specific
color strongly influences the impression that an object makes. Red usually symbolizes alert and
attention, green and brown colors are related to quiet nature, yellow can stand for happiness, and
blue can symbolize freshness, energy, and flow. Much literature exists on color psychology and
how colors should be chosen to achieve harmony. Architects and interior designers will
deliberately use colors to control the effect of objects and to create emotions. Coloring bridges
helps integrating a bridge into its natural environment, e.g. through use of soft natural coloring,
or it can be specially accented as a technical object through plain, intense colors and distinctive
lines. In some cases bridge substructures have a distinctively darker color than the superstructure
that they carry, which thus appears lighter. This effect will not only be achieved by artificial
coloring, but also by the natural sun lighting at the site. Light and shadow are factors to be
considered, as they create the final visual impression of the bridge shape. Barker and Puckett
(1997) stress the effect of light and shadow with respect to the shape of the bridge beam. As the
shape of the superstructure evolves toward a box girder with large cantilevers and perhaps even
inclined webs, the visual impression of its depth will be reduced. Shadow in this case diminishes
the lower parts of the bridge optically and makes the thin fascia band of the superstructure
become more pronounced.
Introducing texture means adding scale to the bridge surface. It is possible to use stone cladding
or inlets in members to add some distinction to the bridge and make it match better with its
environment. Good integration can especially be achieved by choice of local materials and
architectural styles.
117
The Wilson Creek Bridge in Virginia, also called Smart Bridge after the research site on which
it is located, is presented in Chapter 5. It incorporates vertical inlets of natural stone in all faces
of the piers. This so-called Hokie Stone from a local quarry adds interesting details to the high
tapered piers and creates a visual connection with the typical architecture on campus of nearby
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Apart from use of natural stone the piers also
show architectural shaping at the pier table. The lines of the tapering vertical pier edges are
carried across about half the height of the pier table while the box girder tapers in the other
direction. Thus the smooth horizontal lines of the long overall superstructure girder are separated
into the smaller lengths of the spans. A photograph of the pier table design of the Wilson Creek
Bridge is shown in Figure 3-3.
Figure 3-3: Pier and Pier Table Design of the Wilson Creek Bridge
118
Texturing of bridges is very much dependent on the materials of which they are built. The two
main materials for bridge superstructures, concrete and steel, come with very different
characteristics with respect to texture. A description of possibilities of how to treat concrete
surfaces to enhance their visual impression is given by Leonhardt (1984). He points out that
using textured formwork panels less suitable for bridges. However, methods such as bush
hammering in various techniques and depths as well as exposed aggregate can have an enhancing
effect. These techniques of removing some of the concrete surface by means of tools require
extra thickness of the cover to sufficiently protect the reinforcement embedded within against
corrosion. Leonhardt is aware that the aforementioned methods may result in increased cost for
finishing works, so that careful planning and consultation with the owners is necessary. Exposed
concrete surfaces, when crafted carefully can remain untreated or can also be colored artificially.
In addition to its normal grayish appearance, which varies with the choice of ingredients for the
concrete design mixture, concrete can be colored with a variety of natural and artificial pigments
that are added. Examples of colored concrete are shown in Figure 3-4.
Figure 3-4: Examples of Colored Concrete (taken from Leonhardt 1984, p65)
Strongly textured rough surfaces will give the member a more rustic and solid appearance;
smooth surfaces are more suitable for slender columns and beams, as Leonhardt (1984) writes.
When precast segments are chosen the aforementioned techniques of texturing and coloring can
be applied more easily due to the controlled environment in the plant. Surface finishing of the
119
concrete, such as sandblasting and other texturing, coating, impregnating, and coloring will
contribute both to appearance and durability of the bridge.
Steel, on the other hand, will be protectively coated with layers of paint to prevent corrosion,
often using reddish or blue paints. Less than the material itself, the shape of the plates, girders,
hangers, and trusswork of which steel bridges are composed will first and foremost influence the
appearance of these bridges. Rivets and bolts or welding seams in more modern bridges serve to
connect elements and structure the surface of steel members. External ribs and bracing, e.g. for
steel box girders give the bridge superstructure a regular pattern and provide order in the
horizontal and vertical lines.
3.3.6
Environmental Scale
Bridges never exist secluded from their environment; they become an integral part of it and
hopefully contribute to its beauty. Natural landscapes all have a certain scale to them. Narrow
valleys and wide bays, deep gorges and shallow streams all accommodate different kinds of
bridges best. Long lines full of grace e.g. better fit to a wide, large-scale site, small curves more
to a location full of tiny details. The specific scale of the structure should be matched with the
scale of nature. Artificial landscaping in conclusion of the construction efforts will help
integrating the bridge into its new setting. Both construction methods and their product need to
take care of the sensitive natural environment. More information on environmental issues is
given in Section 3.2.2.2.
3.4
FACTORS INFLUENCING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
A wide range of data has to be compiled and considered in the design effort. These pieces of
information can come from many different areas. They can deal with the site and its specific
physical conditions and with the surroundings of the site. More abstract considerations, such as
requirements of subcontractors and local communities need to be paid attention to when planning
120
and executing construction work. The particular erection method chosen will require a certain
sequence and will impose some technical limitations, e.g. as to the size and weight of
superstructure segments. In the following sections all factors have been separated into four main
categories. A diagram showing all these factors and giving examples is provided in Figure 3-5.
Environmental Factors
Soil
Geology:
Different layers
Bedrock depth
Groundwater
Material type:
Settlements
Load-carrying
capacity
Other:
Seismicity
Material supply
Topograp
hy
Dimensions:
Approaches
Span lengths
Pier heights
Alignment
Skewness
Location:
Accessibility
Workspace
Waterway
Nature
Current:
Volume, velocity
Tidal range
Flood events
Ice pressure
Scour
Sediments, debris
Chemistry
Traffic:
Navig. clearance
Ship impact
Material delivery
Location:
Vegetation
Endangered
species
Wildlife
refuges
Protection:
Groundwater
Soil erosion,
siltation
Technical Factors
Structural System:
Codes and specifications
Details, accessories
Erection method
Safety
Resources:
Time, money, space,
material, equipment, labor
Climate
Temperature:
Daily range
Seasonal range
Wind:
Direction,
velocity
Humidity:
Rainfall
Snow, ice
Chemistry
Labor Factors
Conceptualization
Design
Construction
Utilization
Owner Needs
Labor:
Experienced personnel
Payment rates
Working hours, holidays
Labor unions
Community:
Local politics
Architectural styles
Standard of living
Future development
Figure 3-5: Factors Influencing Design and Construction
3.4.1
Environmental Factors
Most importantly, the site itself will influence the outcome of the design process. Many different
parameters of the site will have to be acquired, recorded, and considered to properly design
bridge foundations, substructure, superstructure, and approaches.
121
3.4.1.1 Soil Conditions

Soil conditions are determined by means of geological and hydrological maps and field
investigations. The type of soil materials, thickness of layers, the level of groundwater, and the
chemical and mechanical properties are needed data. With these information the load-carrying
capacity of the soil, earth pressure on foundations, and the expected settlement of foundations
can be calculated. Foundations and substructure need to be designed accordingly, using either flat
foundations that rest on sufficiently load-bearing bedrock or using deeper pile foundations.
Seismicity is another factor to be considered in certain areas. Local supplies of suitable rock and
soil may be used in construction to save cost and blend with local architectural styles.
3.4.1.2 Topography
Main dimensions of the bridge, such as span length, pier height, and necessary approaches to the
main spans depend on the topography of the site. Roadway alignment should ideally remain
unchanged at the bridge and its approaches for reasons of driving comfort and safety. In addition
to this, whenever possible the bridge should be located where the waters are narrow and should
cross at an angle close to 90, as Troitsky (1994) advises. Otherwise, longer skewed bridge spans
may become necessary, making construction more difficult and leading to higher cost. Aesthetics
of such a bridge, e.g. pier positioning will also require more work to achieve a satisfying result.
With respect to the construction itself the topography determines accessibility of the site and how
much workspace for heavy machinery exists.
3.4.1.3 River Crossing

In case the waterways are fitting, provision of larger amounts of material and prefabricated
elements can be done by use of barges, which can also accommodate lifting devices, e.g. to place
precast elements of a segmental bridge. Ship traffic sets limitations for both construction work
and the finished bridge in that it requires navigation clearances and widths that cannot be
122
obstructed. For this reason, cantilevering of the bridge spans is often a very viable method of
construction. The special load case of ship impact on the bridge structure also needs to be
considered to ensure stability of superstructure and substructure even in this catastrophic case.
The nature of the waters to be crossed determines design of foundations and substructure. They
need to be strong enough to resist the varying flow of water, including the impacts of high tides,
flood events, and ice. Scour, abrasion of the foundations through debris, and the amount of
sediments carried with the current need to be taken in account so that that the stability of the
bridge will not be affected. Deep foundations and banks of riprap at the piers are some measures
that help alleviating this hazard.
3.4.1.4 Protection of the Environment

The closer surroundings of the bridge site can require special protection during construction if
e.g. sensitive vegetation, wildlife refuges for endangered species or groundwater protection areas
are present. Erosion and siltation protection is usually required during the construction process.
3.4.1.5 Climate
Local climatic conditions need to be researched, especially to get data of temperature levels and
temperature ranges daily and over the year, rainfall and snowfall or ice, and winds with their
primary directions and speeds. Heavy storms have been the cause some of the most prominent
structural failures in the history of bridge engineering, such as the Tay Bridge in 1879 and the
Tacoma Narrows Bridge in 1940, which are presented in Sections 2.1.4.8 and 2.1.5.6. Extremely
adverse natural events, such as tornadoes and earthquakes may additionally have to be dealt with.
In addition to these factors, the ambient chemistry of the environment and the waterway will play
a role for the durability of materials. Concrete and steel can be affected through aggressive
industrial emissions and salts from deicing detergents and seawater. The shape of the
superstructure determines the exposed surface areas that can be affected by these chemicals. In
123
comparison with other types of load-carrying members, such as T-girders supporting the deck
and coffered slabs, the application of closed cross-sections offers the advantage of having less
surface area that can be affected.
3.4.2
Technical Factors
Technical considerations for bridge construction primarily deal with design of members and their
materials and methods of putting them into place in a safe manner. Economical limits are set by
the financial and time frame under which the whole bridge project shall be carried out. The
available workspace and the labor force also influence project execution. Codes and regulations,
specifications, safety regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
which is overseen by the U.S. Department of Labor, union labor regulations, and other sources
provide information for design and construction efforts.
3.4.2.1 Structural Type and Erection Method

The structural type of the bridge will have strong implications on the choice of a feasible erection
method for a particular project. Depending on the erection method and site restraints the
structural engineer develops a detailed erection sequence and allocates necessary equipment.
Depending on the bridge location, availability of construction materials and heavy equipment
from local suppliers will have to be investigated. Larger contractors will often employ
construction equipment from their own fleet.
As mentioned earlier, cable-stayed bridges can be erected best with the cantilevering method.
More erection techniques for segmental bridges, specifically concrete box girders, will be
discussed in Section 4.2. Afterwards, dealing with the construction loads introduced by the
erection technique will be examined closer in Section 4.3.
124
3.4.2.2 Construction Details

The various Departments of Transportation mostly have standardized details for bridges, such as
drainage gutters and pipes, drip noses, curbs, parapets, sidewalks, railings, lighting, and
information systems. Apart from information on standard bridge furniture, also called
accessories, the Departments of Transportation also provide specifications for e.g. piers and
abutments and for the materials for pavement layers, the wearing surface, slope protection, and
other elements of the structure (VDOT 1997c).
Special attention is required for the two structural details expansion joints and bearings. They
need to be designed so that they can easily be inspected and replaced if necessary. Specialized
certified manufacturers supply the aforementioned details. Durability for a long service life is an
important goal to be met. Reduced corrosion and ease of repair can be accomplished through e.g.
high quality of materials and their finishing and design of modular elements that can be replaced
one by one.
3.4.3
Labor Factors
Not only when a construction company is working on projects in foreign countries the local
culture needs to be taken into account. Any community has attributes that influence the
construction process and therefore need to be taken into account during the preparation phase.
The availability of experienced local work force and their habits of working, with respect to e.g.
working times, holidays, levels of payment, and presence of trade unions and their regulations
becomes an important factor in carrying out the work on time and within budget. Local
preferences in architectural styles are amongst the factors to be considered from the very
beginning of the design process.

3.4.4
125
Owner Needs
Apart from environmental, technical, and labor factors the owner of the structure plays a major
role in design and construction process. It is the owners need of a new facility that initiates the
construction project at all. For bridge projects this need could have reasons such as replacement
of an old bridge due to its deterioration or building of new routes within the existing
transportation system. Wishes of the owner concerning the layout of the structure have priority
for structural engineers. In case of Departments of Transportation these issues are put down in
comprehensive manuals with specifications that become part of the bidding and contract
documents.
For anticipation of future growth of traffic the social and economical development of the region
needs to be researched. Not only the frequency of traffic, but also its dimensions in weight and
speed will play a role when designing the transportation system.
3.5
CHARACTERISTICS OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
The following section will deal with the nature and typical tasks of structural engineering and
issues related to design of bridges. A definition of structural engineering is provided by Petroski
(1992, p40), who cites that it is the science and art of designing and making, with economy and
elegance, buildings, bridges, frameworks, and other similar structures so that they can safely
resist the forces to which they may be subjected. Structural engineers typically perform
mathematical analysis of models of structures that are based on assumptions on the geometry,
structural details, materials properties, and loads. In these calculations they include factors of
safety to account for uncertainties in the assumptions.
Afterwards, issues pertaining to cast-in-place cantilevering construction of segmental concrete
bridges will be presented. Different aspects of this erection method, e.g. the characteristics of
cantilevering will be explained. Finally, quality aspects of the erection method are addressed.

3.5.1
126
Modeling Reality
It is important to realize that in engineering in most cases except for field measurements of the
behavior of a real structure abstract models are used. Simple graphical models of structures are
widely used in the classic beam and truss theory to visualize the flow of forces and analyze its
effects. From these models, equations describing their behavior can be derived and solved for the
unknown parameters. Contributing to the wide use of graphical representations is that they are
easily communicated amongst peers, as the language of the engineer is the drawing.
As is discussed in the following paragraphs, the author of this thesis has conceptualized generic
structural design concepts in the diagram shown in Figure 3-6. Features of a real structure are
represented on the left side of the diagram; a model representation of the structure is found on the
opposite side. Transferring reality into a model will necessarily include idealizations and
assumptions to simplify the real structure for purpose of analysis. Even a most exact numerical
solution of an analysis given that the results are checked for numerical errors can only be as
good and valid as the assumptions on which it is based. Yet absolute accuracy cannot be
achieved with engineering calculations because the solutions obtained are based on models
simplifications of reality only. In a passage on analysis of structural systems Barker and Puckett
(1997, pp256f) state the importance of the engineers responsibility to understand the
assumptions and their applicability to the system under study, i.e. how results from the model
are interpreted and applied to the real structure that is to be built. They further point at the
cyclical, iterative nature of the structural design process, which is represented through feedback
loops within the cycle. Which features of a structure are specifically modeled depends on the
desired information that the model analysis shall give.
127
1. Concrete Reality
Real Geometry:
(Construction tolerances)
Real Details:
(Specifications for manufacturer)
Material Properties:
(Environmental conditions,
imperfections, corrosion)
Real Loads:
(Probabilistic, highly uncertain
actual influences on structure)
2. Abstract Model
Idealization
+
Assumptions
=
Simplification
Factors of
Safety
Model Geometry:
(Member dimensions)
Model Details:
(Joints, bearings, changes in
geometry, materials, or loads)
Material Properties:
(Linear-elastic or elastic-plastic,
short-term or long term)
Model Loads:
(Deterministic, given in codes,
short-term or long-term)
Data
Constr.
Feedback Loops
4. Interpretation
3. Analysis
Experience + Knowledge
Structural Behavior
Checking
Input: Mathematical Model

Output: Numerical Results
Figure 3-6: Modeling Reality

Any real existing structure comprises four main elements, namely its geometry and boundary
conditions, structural details, e.g. bearings and expansion joints, material properties, and any
loads on the structure.
The exact geometry of the structure is variable within the tolerances of fabrication. Boundary
conditions denote the integration of the structure into its environment, especially through the
interaction between its foundations and the specific soil on site. Structural details need to fulfill
manufacturing specifications as to their performance during the service life. Material properties
are variable due to flaws and imperfections during fabrication. Furthermore, materials change in
their behavior depending on environmental conditions, such as temperature and moisture, and
depending on time and loads, revealing the phenomena creep, shrinkage, relaxation, and fatigue.
More complicated to predict are the loads that will influence the structure. Loads on the structure
vary considerable during construction process and service life. During construction, the
resistance of the incomplete structure has not reached its final state. This relationship between
the structure under erection and the load steps occurring will be examined in Section 4.3. A
128
comprehensive list of loads on foundations, substructure, and superstructure as they appear in the
AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) Standard
Specifications for Highway Bridges is given in Melaragno (1998).
Any modeling effort of the real structures needs to include the aforementioned four elements.
Member dimensions will usually be taken from plans and specifications. Often it can be
sufficient to model several subsystems of the three-dimensional structure in two-dimensional
planes with transitory conditions between them, thus simplifying the calculation effort. Details,
such as joints and supports as well as changes in geometry, materials, or loads will be idealized
to make them easier to analyze. These inconsistencies of the structure are generally difficult to
model accurately, especially with Finite Element Programs (FEM). FEM programs use discrete
analysis, modeling the structure as a network of incremental elements. Care should be taken to
represent these points of interest correctly as they often attract stress concentrations and possible
flaws during construction.
A very common idealization is to model bearings as element that allow free frictionless
displacements and rotations in certain planes while being completely fixed in other directions.
These boundary conditions in structures can be captured in mathematical equations. Material
properties are expressed with mathematical functions, such as the well-known stress-strain
relationship for the linear-elastic and elastic-plastic range.
Short-time influences on the materials, e.g. expansion and contraction under changes of
temperature and long-term time-dependent influences, such as creep, shrinkage, and relaxation
and load-dependent influences, such as fatigue can be modeled if necessary for the analysis.
Loads and other actions that have to be considered during the analysis are given in current design
codes and specifications.
3.5.2
Factor of Safety
Nowadays structures in developed countries are mostly on a very high level of safety, meaning
that at least structural failures occur extremely rarely. Modern design philosophy, as outlined in
129
Menn (1990), distinguishes between two separate limit states, the Ultimate Limit State (ULS) and
the Serviceability Limit State (SLS) that were mentioned in Section 3.1.3. For both limit states
the limits of stresses and deflections can be set in codes. During structural analysis it has to be
verified that the structure will fulfill the limits under any anticipated combination of load cases.
Structures are by nature overdesigned to some extent. This margin of additional capacity of
structures is meant to account for the limited accuracy and uncertainty in assumptions for
geometry, structural details, material properties, and loads. All these factors show statistical
variability in real life, e.g. flaws in materials. This error margin is an accepted risk in engineering
and does not in itself imply any lack of quality of the engineering work.
Factors of safety are found in codes and are calibrated by expert committees to a certain level of
safety, meaning a very small, yet existing probability of failure. Zero risk of failure is by
definition impossible, as structures become immensely massive and expensive the smaller the
risk of structural failure becomes. Kranakis (1997, p85) fittingly calls the factor of safety a
factor of ignorance, a guesstimate , yet very suitable for the engineering community to work
with. Determining how safe is safe enough, i.e. meaning what standardized numerical values for
factors of safety should be used, is the task of code committees.
As structures can fail in rather complex ways, detailed analysis of possible modes of failure is
necessary. Different modes of failure exist from the structural point of view because of
redundancy built into the structural system. Petroski (1992, p92) gives the technical term for this
redundancy, alternate load paths. Failure of a single structural member, e.g. a bridge pier may
not necessarily cause total collapse of the structure. The loads can often distribute between other
load-carrying members. As there will probably be one mode of structural failure more probable
than other, being the weakest link in the chain of structural safety, the overall level of safety of
the structure can be determined by finding this element.
The most basic concept in structural design is outlined by Barker and Puckett (1997) and other
authors. A structure will safely serve its purpose and carry the loads imposed as long as its
resistance R is greater than the most unfavorable combination of actions S that causes stresses in
the structure. Expressed in a simple way this means that the materials in their geometric
130
configuration need to withstand the stresses imposed by different load combinations. The
following equation expresses this basic concept of structural safety (MacGregor 1997, p14):
Rn 1 S1 + 2 S 2 + L
Equation 3-3
with
= strength reduction factor (less than 1)
Rn = nominal resistance [i.e. computed]
i = load factor (greater than 1)
Si = load effects based on the specific loads
On both sides, for material properties as well as for loads, factors are implemented in the
calculations. They are provided because of the uncertainty pertaining to the exact nature of
materials and loads. On the resistance side, these factors are called strength reduction factors,
on the load side these factors are called load factors (MacGregor 1997). MacGregor in this
context also notes that the ACI (American Concrete Institute) Code 318, applicable for concrete
buildings denotes the right side of the equation with the symbol U.
In exactly the same manner, the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) approach for steel
structures as implemented takes the aforementioned statistical nature of materials and loads into
account, including load combinations with partial safety factors both on the material side and on
the load side (Barker and Puckett 1997).
Clearly, to introduce increased safety, these factors for design purposes lower the assumed
resistance of the structure and increase the anticipated loads. Code committees calibrate these
factors based on empirical knowledge from field data and engineering judgment.

3.5.3
131
Structural Analysis
Once the modeling process has been completed, structural analysis can begin. The four
components of the model geometry, structural details, material properties, and loads are
expressed in terms of variables in mathematical equations for equilibrium, compatibility, and
material response, in conjunction with the assumptions, thus forming what Barker and Puckett
(1997, p257) call a mathematical model of the structure. Solving the obtained system of
equations will produce numerical results for the values of the unknown variables. Checking the
magnitude of these values for errors is an important step within the design process. Afterwards,
the results are interpreted in terms of stresses and displacements by the engineer who is
examining the structural behavior and applied to the given project, e.g. to determine the camber
necessary for a bridge or to come up with an appropriate sequence of prestressing the tendons.
Profound engineering knowledge and experience from previous projects help in this process. In
most cases the design process will be a team effort due to the wide range of work that had to be
done. Most important is good communication between the team participants and awareness of the
philosophy behind the construction process.
Loads on structures can occur in many different forms. A more generic term for influences on
structures is action. An action is defined by Liebenberg (1992, p69) as follows:
An action is an assembly of concentrated or distributed forces (direct actions [in
italics]), or imposed or constrained deformations (indirect actions [in italics]),
applied to a structure due to a single cause. An action is considered to be a single
action if it is stochastically independent, in time and space, of any other assembly
of forces, or imposed or constrained deformations, acting on the structure.
Actions can be qualitatively classified according to their variation in time, or
space, or according to their dynamic nature.
From this definition actions can be dead load and live loads, wind and snow loads, thermal
gradients, water currents and ice loads on substructures, seismicity, foundation settlements, and
the like. The safety of the structure under these actions is captured in the Ultimate Limit State
(ULS), after which any increase in load, however small, results in loss of equilibrium and hence
in collapse of the structure (Menn 1990, p93).
132
Care needs to be taken in use of analytical tools as e.g. computer programs for structural analysis.
Structural failures have already occurred because of overconfidence in computer models of the
structure, an issue that was addressed in Section 3.5.2. A well-known example is the failure and
sinking of Norwegian oil platform Sleipner A in 1991, a massive concrete structure, of which
Petroski (1997) reports that the reason lay in incorrect representation of adjoining cells in the
analysis, which led to underestimation of stresses in the seams.
Using computer programs does only help to solve the complex systems of equations with
mathematical algorithms. Development of better software tools made very complex structural
calculations possible. However, responsibility for the accuracy of the model input and correct
interpretation always remains at the engineers who are using computer tools. In todays technical
environment the abundant presence of computers makes it possible to forget about their purpose
in engineering, to perform calculation operations that would be too tedious for manual
calculation. It is appropriate to think of computers as data processing systems that only support
the engineers in their tasks. Petroski (1992) discusses the problem of uncritical use of computers
in engineering. He states that the ability to quickly perform almost any calculation may foster less
critical use of the many numerical computer-generated results. It is the engineer who has to
interpret the numerous data obtained for stresses and deformations in terms of real structural
behavior.
In addition to that, Petroski (1992) shows concern with the accuracy of computer software
available. Engineers analyzing structural models with computer software have repeatedly failed
to ensure structural safety, which led to failures such as the roof of the Hartford Civic Center in
1978. Computer software generally is a black box often based on unknown algorithms and
assumptions within the program code that may not be clearly expressed in computer manuals. It
could only contribute to the quality of structures if engineers used the time they saved through
use of computers for elaborate calculations for careful checks of computer outputs based on a
sound knowledge of structural behavior (Petroski 1992). This discussion is best captured by
Professor Richard Barkers philosophy, which says: you are to assume that computer results
are incorrect unless proven otherwise (Barker 1999).
3.6
CHARACTERISTICS
OF
CAST-IN-PLACE
133
SEGMENTAL
CANTILEVER CONSTRUCTION
Cast-in-place prestressed cantilever bridges have been built for almost half a century. For the first
time this technique was used in 1950 by German engineer Ulrich Finsterwalder for the Lahn
Bridge at Balduinstein that has a span of 62 m, as Fletcher (1984) reports. The following sections
specifically deal with erection of bridge superstructures with the cast-in-place segmental
cantilever construction. Technical terms of the heading will be defined and explained with their
characteristics to show how these techniques in their combination generate a very feasible means
of construction.
3.6.1
Segmental Construction
Segmental construction is a method of construction in which primary load-carrying members

are composed of individual members called segments post-tensioned together (Podolny and
Muller 1982, p10). For the analytical calculations, information on the planned segmentation and
use of precast or cast-in-place segments is most important. When cast in place, the different ages
and concrete strength of the segments need to be considered. Podolny and Muller (1982) caution
to keep the segments as regular in their geometry and as straight in alignment as possible, with
including only little obstruction through e.g. diaphragms.
Segmental construction follows logically from the technical limitations of erection methods and
the construction equipment. Cranes, concrete pumps, form travelers, and other pieces of
equipment have certain limitations as to the volume and weight of material that they can handle
at one time. A major advantage of segmental construction is the ease with which it can be
adapted to the specific project and the capacity of available equipment, allowing optimization for
economical construction.
Subsequent placement of segments divides the overall construction process into smaller
repetitive steps that facilitate a learning process (Fletcher 1984) and project management.
Segmental construction leads to economic and rapid erection of the bridge superstructure.
134
Several well-tried, feasible erection methods exist for segmental bridges and give the designer
ample choice in coming up with a method suitable for the specific project. Combinations of the
erection methods that are described in Section 4.2 are also possible if necessary.
Subdivision of the superstructure into elements can exist along the longitudinal and in the
transverse direction. Separation in the vertical axis is found less frequently. It is used e.g. in
composite bridge superstructures that comprise steel trusses or box girders with a concrete deck
slab. Longitudinally divided segments are load-carrying members that span the complete length
of one bridge span, e.g. in form of several parallel prestressed AASHTO (American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials) girders, which will be covered with a deck.
Of prime interest in this study is segmentation in the transverse plane. These segments have the
full width of the superstructure. For the common type of box girders the segments are usually 3
to 5 m long (Fletcher 1984) and can weigh up to 250 tons in precast cantilevering construction
(Podolny and Muller 1982) or up to 300 tons for cast-in-place cantilevering construction
(Fletcher 1984). Other lengths and weights are used for incremental launching, which will be
discussed in Section 4.2.3.
3.6.2
Cantilevering Method
A cantilever is a horizontal beam with a fixed support at one of its ends. To begin with the
discussion of characteristics of the cast-in-place cantilevering method, it is useful to take a brief
look at a simple beam theory model shown in Figure 3-7, which can similarly be found in any
textbook on mechanics of deformable bodies. In this two-dimensional graphical model of the
structural system a horizontal line depicts the longitudinal axis of the beam. For simple
calculation of the beam deflection under load one needs to know the beam length, its modulus of
elasticity as a material parameter, and the moment of inertia of the beam cross-section need to be
known. Loads on the beam can occur in form of loads and moments that can be singular or
distributed over the beam length in a uniform or variable manner. With these information it is
possible to determine the deflection of the beam and the resulting angle of the previously
135
horizontal beam at any point along its length. The results obtained by this approach are easily
accessible, yet they are the output of a modeling process that has been undertaken. More
information on the concept of modeling reality is given in Section 3.5.1.
EI
L
F
Figure 3-7: Uniformly Loaded Cantilever Beam
When structural analysis is performed on a cantilever system, the modeling approach is used in
that all major influences are examined separately and are finally superposed to come up with the
overall system behavior. Taking the example of a free cantilever of continuous cross-section that
is composed of segments with different ages and is held together with prestressing tendons the
effect of each of these factors is calculated separately as shown in Figure 3-8. The cantilever
system is loaded through its own dead load and an anticipated uniform live load under service,
which will in turn create the well-known parabolic moment curve for a cantilever beam. Posttensioning tendons are used within the cantilever beam to compensate for the dead load moment
figure. For simplification is shall be assumed that the prestressing tendons that are added with
every new segment are all located at the same eccentricity from the neutral axis of the cantilever
beam cross-section. Assuming further that all tendons are straight without curvature (as would be
used in real bridge structures), the superposition of the moments from all post-tensioning tendons
provides a stepped moment envelope that compensates the dead load moment figure.
136
Pi
e
L
M
Bending Moment of
Uniformly Loaded
Simple Cantilever Arm
More Optimal
Increments of
Post-Tensioning
Mi
Compensating
Envelope of
Incremental Moments
from Post-Tensioning
Equal Increments Due to Adding One More Tendon Per Segment
Figure 3-8: Post-Tensioning of Segmental Cantilever

Two major points in time are examined to determine long-term stresses and deformations of the
structural system based on time-dependent material properties, i.e. creep and shrinkage of
concrete and relaxation of steel. These dates are the end of construction (EOC) and the assumed
infinity, usually chosen to be day 10,000 after beginning construction. Before end of
construction the cantilever system of the bridge will have changed to a continuous system, in
some cases if midspan hinges. Moment redistribution from supports towards the spans will take
place. Different segment ages will certainly play a role when determining stresses and
deformations of the structural system at the end of construction. For infinity, however, the
relative differences in segment ages are usually small enough to be neglected in structural
analysis.
137
It is relatively easy to give a rough estimate of moment values for the completed structural
system. Figure 3-9 illustrates the procedure that is outlined in the following. The range in which
the overall bending moment values will be is given by idealized states of the structural system at
end of construction and at infinity. When the structural system has just reached continuity, all
bending moments at the supports are still at their maximum and no moment redistribution has
taken place so far, i.e. moments at the midspan closures are still zero. Moments will slowly
redistribute in the structural system depending on time-dependent material properties from this
state to the state at infinity. However, time-dependent effects usually show asymptotic
behavior. Hence, the idealized state of infinity will never be reached. The idealized state of
infinity is given by the continuous structural system, assuming that all elements were cast and
loaded at the same times. Calculation of this simple structurally indeterminate system under the
assumed dead load and live loads generates a moment diagram with certain moment values for
supports and spans. Taking the results from the two idealized systems as upper and lower limits,
an initial impression of the dimension of moment values in the real structure with its timedependent material properties has been generated.
138
Bending Moment Figure for

Bridge Superstructure at
Time of Midspan Closure
Immediately Before
End of Construction (EOC)
Bending Moment Figure for

Bridge Superstructure at
Infinity Incorporating
Time-Dependent Effects
Assuming Equal Age
Superposition of Bending
Moment Figures for Upper
and Lower Boundaries of
Real Bending Moment with
Different Segment Ages
Figure 3-9: Upper and Lower Boundaries for Long-Term Bending Moments
3.6.2.1 Cantilevering Defined

Cantilevering means placing segments progressively into their final position at the tip of the selfsupporting superstructure. Cantilevering of the spans always begins at one of the supports, which
are piers or abutments, counterweighted by another emerging span as in Balanced Cantilever
Construction or a massive abutment (Mathivat 1983, p30) or supported by stay cables as it is
often used in the progressive placement method. More specific information on cantilevering
construction and its advantages will be given in Section 4.2.1. More information pertaining to
cast-in-place construction will be addressed in the following Section 3.6.3.
Several authors have taken a closer look at the cantilevering method and examined the critical
topic of prestress losses in segmental construction, with emphasis on cast-in-place construction.
139
As opposed to precast construction, where segments are usually placed into the superstructure
and stressed together at a later age, cast-in-place construction features early loading of a newly
cast segment. The following paragraphs will outline the effects that segmental construction with
cast-in-place cantilevering generates and in what way they need to be considered in structural
analysis of the chosen erection sequence. Figure 3-10, which is based on information from
Barker and Puckett (1997), Bishara and Papakonstantinou (1990), and Shiu and Russell (1987),
provides a comprehensive scheme depicting these effects and their interrelationships.
3.6.2.2 Low Strength of Young Concrete

The simple, self-supporting structural system remains a cantilever during construction until
closure of the spans at midspan. This beam-type structural system is even statically determinate
and thus facilitates structural analysis. Special attention, however, has to be paid to the stepwise
change in length of the cantilever that occurs as new segments are added. Especially when using
the cast-in-place method, strength development of every segment needs to be considered. Here,
segments are usually stressed shortly after casting, sometimes only two days after placement. At
this point of time the concrete has reached only part of the compressive strength that is specified
for an age of 28 days, usually between about 40 and 50 % (MacGregor 1997). Strength developed
by the concrete at ages more than 28 days is usually not taken into consideration for analytical
calculations in structural design. The actual compressive strength of newly cast segments is
determined by running laboratory tests on samples that were obtained during actual casting and
have been cured under field conditions. Precast segments, having been stored for an additional
time before being installed have usually developed a higher strength than cast-in-place segments
by the time they are placed in the superstructure.
Within segments themselves the concrete age is usually assumed to be identical, since different
lifts are placed within a relatively brief time interval. There is, however, the possibility that the
segments are partially fabricated from precast elements, e.g. the webs, or that the top slab is cast
later than the rest of the segment section, as mentioned in Section 4.2.1.2. Moreover, very
140
Segment Design
Segment n
Segment Composition
Geometry
Concrete Design Mixture
Tendon Profile, Reinforcement
Casting
Curing
Prestressing
Detach Forms
Single placement (in lifts)

or prefabricated parts, e.g.
precast webs
Cantilever
Initial Loss of Prestress
System
Segment n+1
Slippage of strands in the anchorages

(before wedges or nuts grip firmly)
Long-term Loss of Prestress

Relaxation of steel strands
(loss of stress under constant strain)
Segment n+..
Elastic shortening of concrete member
(relieves previously stressed tendons)
Friction between tendon and duct interior
(wobble effect because of curved ducts)
Creep of concrete member

(plastic deformation under constant stress)
Closure
Segment at
Midspan
Jacking to
align and precompensate
Shrinkage of concrete member

(volume change due to evaporation)
Continuous Structure
Redistribution of Internal Forces
Moments shift from
Restraints by new
Foundations may
pier towards span
boundary conditions
move horizontally of
of statically invertically or rotate
determinate system
from settlements
Interactions
Superimposed Dead
Loads (e.g.
accessories, pavement)
(e.g. accessories
Camber Data
(Form Alignment)
Dynamic Live Loads

(In-Service)
Cracking, deterioration
Structural Analysis
Stresses, Deformations
Environmental
Influences (e.g. rel.
humidity, temperature)
(e.g. accessories
Geometry Control
Data (Surveying)
Figure 3-10: Effects in Cast-In-Place Segmental Cantilever Construction
141
massive segments, e.g. pier tables, may have to be cast in several individual concrete placements
operations, each composed of many small lifts. Between these placements, new reinforcement
and prestressing tendons with their ducts may have to be installed, and formwork may have to be
added. In such cases the strengths can even differ within one segment of the bridge superstructure
and have to be taken into account in the structural analysis.
3.6.2.3 Prestress Losses Through Elastic Shortening

In case the bridge superstructure is constructed by cantilevering, the process of adding segments
influences the prestressing forces in the tendons. Elastic shortening of all previously installed
segments occurs and reduces the applied prestressing force that causes this shortening, as
determined by the modulus of elasticity of the particular segment. Shiu and Russell (1987, p654)
pronounce that losses in prestress due to elastic shortening is a major concern in the total
prestress losses for segmental balanced cantilever construction. They further capture this
influence in the following (Shiu and Russell 1987, p649):
Use of segmental construction results in complex load histories on individual
post-tensioned elements. Post-tensioning of newly erected segments unavoidably
relieves a certain portion of prestressing in the previous segments through elastic
shortening. This means that the prestress level changes as construction
progresses. Estimation of prestress losses at each construction event becomes
necessary for a proper control of concrete stress levels and geometry control.
Consequently, calculations of prestress losses are very time-consuming and
tedious.
Because of the elastic shortening effect it may be chosen to first apply only a fraction of the final
prestressing force that is enough to carry one or a few subsequent elements. During construction
of these, the segment will gain further strength and more prestressing can be applied to provide
full load-carrying capacity for the growing cantilever.
142
3.6.2.4 Prestress Losses Through Time-Dependent Effects

Along with the lower strength of young concrete and early, stepwise application of loads on the
bridge segments comes increased susceptibility of the loaded concrete to time-dependent effects.
Bishara and Papakonstantinou (1990, p1249) describe the relationship between segmental
construction and time-dependent effects:
During the construction process, a particular segment is loaded incrementally at
different ages, with each age corresponding to the time a new segment is added to
the system. Thus, for predicting effect of creep of concrete for a segment at any
time t, the duration of loading of the segment by the following segments must be
included in the creep coefficient.
Calculations of prestress losses involve uncertainties due to interactions between factors as
listed in Table 4-1 and in addition to that environmental influence [e.g. ambient air and concrete
temperature and humidity] on time-dependent material properties changes conditions of stresses
continuously (Shiu and Russell 1987, p649). Further factors that are mentioned in Shiu and
Russell (1987) are the still ongoing development of concrete strength (creep recovery) that may
compensate for some of the time-dependent effects, the thickness of the concrete member, and
the type of concrete with its characteristic stress-strain relationship and own dead load. Segment
age at the time of loading, i.e. prestressing, is critical for further development of time-dependent
effects.
Shiu and Russell (1987) analyzed prestress losses of a segmental concrete box girder bridge in
northern Illinois, the Kishwaukee River Bridge. It consists of two parallel five-span
superstructures that were built with Balanced Cantilever Construction. The authors (Shiu and
Russell 1987, p650) report that field measurements, laboratory tests, and analytical evaluations
were undertaken for various segment locations. For the laboratory analysis cylinder samples were
taken from these segments and were cured under controlled laboratory conditions or cured
outdoors under field conditions. Afterwards, results were compared with results from
calculations with the then actual simplified formulas as provided by the Prestressed Concrete
Institute (PCI) and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO). Considerable deviations were found between these results. Actual measurements
showed that both shrinkage and creep were slightly less in concrete samples from the
143
Kishwaukee Bridge that were cured under field conditions than for curing in the laboratory.
However, distinct seasonal fluctuations were noted for outdoor shrinkage values (Shiu and
Russell 1987, p650).
3.6.2.5 Redistribution of Internal Forces

Even more interesting is the effect that time-dependent effects of material properties have on the
overall structural system. Bishara and Papakonstantinou (1990, p1247) express how
redistribution within the system takes place over a long time after continuity of the structural
system has been reached:
Particularly, for cast-in-place cantilever bridges, the internal forces and the
associated deformations are influenced by the different ages of the segments.
After continuity is achieved, time-dependent deformations cause redistribution of
these internal forces. Time-dependent foundation displacements [i.e. vertical and
horizontal movements and rotations] induce internal forces in the continuous
system that are a function of both the rate of the displacements and the rate of
creep of concrete.
Redistribution within the structural system, Bishara and Papakonstantinou (1990, p1253) state,
is caused by the fact that displacements (i.e. deflections and rotations) that would have
continued to take place in the statically determinate system due to shrinkage, creep, and
relaxation effects become restrained by the imposed boundary conditions of the indeterminate
completed structure. In the previously statically determinate cantilever arms bending moments
increased towards the fixed support at the piers and were zero at the cantilever tip, since every
segment has to support all following ones. With casting, curing, and post-tensioning of the
closure segment at midspan the moments will redistribute to some extent from the piers towards
the span girder, resulting in a different stress distribution in the segments. Shiu and Russell
(1987, pp652f) in their investigation into prestress losses in construction of the Kishwaukee
Bridge further found with respect to the amount of moment redistribution:
A substantial decrease of prestress loss due to elastic lengthening was noted at
462 days which corresponded to the weight of the closure segments at the
instrumented span. This negative prestress loss accounted for almost 50 % of the
144
total prestress loss. () Substantially bigger prestress losses were recorded for
the segment next to the pier than segments at quarter span and midspan. Higher
prestress losses can be attributed to moment redistribution from the negative
moment region at the pier support to the positive moment region at midspan.
With respect to the continuous statical system that exists after closure at midspan and stressing of
the so-called continuity tendons, Bishara and Papakonstantinou (1990, pp1252f) give a list of
factors influencing forces in the completed structure itself:
(1) Long-time effects of the girder weight and the prestressing forces of the
balanced cantilever system;
(2)
(3)
superimposed dead load (weight of the wearing surface, sidewalks, and
handrails [i.e. from bridge deck and accessories]);
(4)
forces caused by foundation movements occurring after continuity;
(5)
live loads; and
(6)
forces caused by environmental effects (temperature, wind, etc.).
forces induced by the continuity tendons;
3.6.2.6 Further Considerations

Factors that are considered in an algorithm developed by Bishara and Papakonstantinou (1990,
p1247) are effects caused by differences in ages of bridge segments, shrinkage and creep of
concrete, relaxation and curvature of prestressing tendons, and vertical and horizontal support
movements as well as their rotations. The two latter issues, tendon material properties and
tendon profile, as well as changes in the boundary conditions of the statical system by
displacement or rotation of foundations need to be considered in structural analysis.
Displacements or rotations of the foundations will be calculated from measured actual soil
properties at the site. The authors (Bishara and Papakonstantinou 1990, p1261) observe that
effect of tendon curvature in computing prestress losses is often neglected in segmental
cantilever bridges, however, can contribute a considerable amount to prestress losses.
145
Further factors are mentioned in Bishara and Papakonstantinou (1990, p1249), who derive and
present formulas to calculate creep that incorporate a special reduction coefficient to take into
account the effect of compression steel, movement of neutral axis, progressive cracking in
reinforced concrete flexural members and effect of nontensioned steel in prestressed concrete
flexural members. In addition to that, coefficients are introduced to take the particular curing
process of the concrete into consideration. Also, so-called ambient conditions of the immediate
environment of the structure are considered by a correction factor, which results from
multiplying factors for ambient relative humidity effect; minimum thickness effect; slump
effect; percentage of fines effect; air content effect; effect of difference of age of
segments when loaded (Bishara and Papakonstantinou 1990, p1249).
In their study the authors finally note the additional effect of the form traveler itself, which is a
temporary load during construction and should be considered accordingly. After finishing
cantilevering operations, the form travelers are dismantled, resulting in an upward deflection.
() Since the form traveler stays at the same position as long as it is needed for a segment to be
constructed, it introduces time-dependent deflections (Bishara and Papakonstantinou 1990,
p1252).
In summary, displacements (again, the authors refer with this term to both deflections and
rotations) are obtained from superposition of initial displacement due to dead load;
displacement due to prestressing force after instantaneous losses; long-term displacement due
to dead load; additional long-term displacement due to long-term prestress losses; long-term
displacement due to foundation movements; and displacement of the same nodal point n due
to live loads (Bishara and Papakonstantinou 1990, p1250).
3.6.2.7 Importance of Accounting for Prestress Losses and Conclusion

Bishara and Papakonstantinou (1990) describe the development of an algorithm for computer
analysis of cast-in-place bridges. In particular, they examine bridges with box girder
superstructures that are built with Balanced Cantilever Construction and they discuss aspects to
146
be considered in structural analysis that arise from cast-in-place balanced cantilevering. Results
that they obtained in their analysis are compared with more simplified analytical methods, in
which e.g. the design concrete strength of segments is used, disregarding the individual segment
ages, or in which an average age is used. The authors (Bishara and Papakonstantinou 1990)
conclude from these comparisons that effects described hereafter definitely need to be
considered. Many of the effects contributing to prestress losses share the common characteristic
that they are asymptotic over time and are therefore represented by exponential mathematical
functions, as e.g. in the study described in this paragraph.
The importance of calculation of prestress losses is easily understood with the concepts from
Figure 3-2. Loss of prestressing force in the tendons does not immediately affect the structural
safety, but can influence serviceability of the structural member such as camber, deflection, and
crack control (Shiu and Russell 1987, p649).
Shiu and Russell (1987) also note that in order to properly meet both cantilever arms at the
planned midspan elevation, camber of these needs to be controlled closely by calculation of
prestress losses. Results obtained from these calculations will be used in a twofold manner. They
serve to determine the alignment and camber of the formwork during ongoing casting of the
cantilever. The camber is necessary to account for any deflections that arise during construction
and in the finished structure, so that the structure arrives at the planned alignment on the long
run. The second use of the calculation results is that they are reference values to be compared
with actual surveying data for geometry control.
Different ages of segments in two cantilever arms that are to form one span of the superstructure
will display different time-dependent deflections (Bishara and Papakonstantinou 1990). Such
differences in segment ages for corresponding segments in the two cantilever arms can be caused
by the particular construction schedule. It is possible that e.g. there is only one work crew for
installing reinforcement and another crew for placement of concrete to save on labor cost. The
crews would switch working between both cantilever ends so that the cantilever would grow one
step at a time, first on one side, then on the other, and so forth.
147
Care should be taken that jacking the cantilever arms together for horizontal and vertical
alignment is avoided if possible. Thorough analysis of the construction stages including all
effects outlined in previous paragraphs and incorporating the results in the planned camber will
contribute to avoiding these additional stresses imposed on the structure. There is, however,
another reason why jacking may be used on the cantilever arms, it may be chosen to jack them
apart to decrease the effects of long-term creep and shrinkage of the superstructure on the
substructure (Matt et al. 1988, p37).
3.6.3
Cast-In-Place Construction
Cast-in-place construction, as opposed to precast construction where the segments are

prefabricated in a casting plant, denotes a construction process where the segments are
progressively cast on site into their final position in the structure.
Describing the analogy between cast-in-place construction and precast construction will help gain
understanding of the differences in on-site operations for both methods. Precast erection is first
and foremost a lifting activity. It requires lifting equipment, i.e. a large crane or a launching
gantry that lifts and transports the load, i.e. the prefabricated segment along a path, in this case
from the storage yard to the tip of the cantilever. The capacity of the equipment depends on the
moment that is created by the product of load and radius of the crane boom and needs to consider
the size of the segment in comparison with the available workspace.
Cast-in-place erection, on the other hand, is primarily a placing activity. This method requires
placing equipment, i.e. a form traveler or some kind of traveling falsework. Concrete is delivered
to the casting site with buckets, pumps, or other means and is placed into the forms. Required
capacity of the form traveler depends on the size and weight of the heaviest segment to be
supported during casting and curing.
148
3.6.3.1 Cast-In-Place Construction Applied to Cantilevering

In the following paragraph the focus of attention shall be put on cast-in-place construction
applied to the cantilevering method. For cantilevering with cast-in-place segments, form travelers
are implemented. Thus, high cost for erection of a precasting plant is avoided. Moreover,
transportation and storage of the heavy precast segments is avoided and no heavy-duty erection
cranes need to be employed. Podolny and Muller (1982) point out that particularly for very long
structures with many spans precasting can result in cost savings because the project then will be
large enough for amortization of casting, transport, and erection.
Menn (1990) gives information that cast-in-place cantilever construction is economical for a
range of span-lengths of about 70 m to more than 250 m. Compared with precasting larger
segments are possible in cast-in-place erection. Here the form traveler needs to have the capacity
of supporting the heaviest of all segments while it has not gained any strength of its own. This
specified capacity determines the cost of the form traveler as Podolny and Muller (1982) spell
out. More detailed information on form travelers is given in Section 4.2.2.1.
Cast-in-place construction requires careful consideration of the construction stages. It can easily
be understood that for a cantilever every newly cast segment needs to support all subsequently
cast ones. Concrete develops strength with time after casting. Commonly the 28-day strength of
concrete is specified and tested, which is the strength after four workweeks. Later gains in
strength are usually not taken into consideration when doing the structural analysis. They add,
however, some additional strength to the structure. In a cast-in-place cantilever the segments will
necessarily have ages that differ from each other by the duration of a casting cycle. From this
difference in age follows a difference in concrete strength.
Cast-in-place cantilevering will usually have larger deflections than precast cantilevers because
those segments are stored for some time before being placed in the bridge superstructure
(Mathivat 1983). To achieve rapid construction in cast-in-place construction it will be tried to
minimize the cycle time for casting. The casting process is described in further detail in Section
4.2.1.2. British engineer Fletcher (1984, p17) gives information that the casting cycle time
149
generally settles down to one pour per shutter [i.e. form traveler] per week. At the same time
he cautions to consider some factors that influence this scheduling estimate:
Learning effects take place because of the repetitive nature of casting steps;
Form traveler adjustment takes longer when segments change geometry, e.g. the box
girder depth or flange width;
Form traveler adjustment takes longer for incorporation of special details, as e.g. for any
in-span diaphragms, for the effect of having to incorporate bottom flange tendons and
anchorages near midspan (Fletcher 1984, p17);
Furthermore, speed of reinforcement and tendon installation and speed of concrete

placement depend on the size of the segment.
Matt et al. (1988) with their description of construction of the Gateway Bridge in Brisbane,
Australia provide another example of a cast-in-place bridge. The main span of this bridge was
constructed with Balanced Cantilever Construction, and the authors note that the span length of
260 m has approached the limits of balanced cantilever construction of solid-web box-girders
(Matt et al. 1988, p41). They state that through use of trussed girders and higher strength
concrete, the weight could be further reduced, making erection of bridges with Balanced
Cantilever Construction economical with a cable-stayed solution for spans on the order of 300
m (Matt et al. 1988, p42). The average cycle time for casting of a segment of the main span of
the Gateway Bridge was seven days.
From the previous information two factors that are critical to the casting progress can be derived:
Strength development of the previously cast segments;
Necessary adjustments for changing girder geometry, diaphragms, and reinforcement

layout.
150
3.6.3.2 Quality Control

The basic conclusion for cast-in-place cantilever construction is that the lower limit for cycle
time depends on the concrete strength. Quicker casting would lead to structural failure. Quality of
every segment in the cantilevering chain of cast-in-place segments is critical to the structural
integrity of the superstructure. As Fletcher (1984, p15) writes, the cast-in-place cantilever
construction demands high quality consistent concrete. Continuous supervision and quality
control of the ongoing casting is therefore necessary to ensure that every segment has gained at
least the specified strength by the beginning of the subsequent casting cycle.
3.6.3.3 Durability
The goal to be achieved in cast-in-place cantilevering is high early strength. Achieving strong
and durable concrete depends on the concrete ingredients, on its age and consolidation when
placing it, and on proper curing. Admixtures can assist in obtaining early strength. Manuals on
concrete technology and codes give further information on todays concrete design mixtures and
various methods of placement, curing, and testing. For cantilevering Mathivat (1983) gives
examples of feasible curing methods, as e.g. concrete preheating and steam curing.
3.6.3.4 Camber
The growing cantilever beam will deflect during cantilevering because of its dead load, the live
load of form traveler and construction material, and because of temperature gradients in the box
girder and wind load. Mathivat (1983) writes that the stepwise prestressing sequence will also
contribute to deflections. More deflections will occur through the deflection of the form traveler
itself, as Podolny and Muller (1982) mention. They continue their list of causes for deflections
after construction with superimposed dead loads, meaning bridge accessories, the foundation
settlements, and substructure deformations under superstructure loads. Live loads from the future
traffic also need to be included.
151
Superposition of all these influences will generate the total deflection curve and hence the
camber can be planned. Deflection compensation by cambering the superstructure is necessary
for the following reasons:
Ensuring that the two cantilever beams meet at the same midspan elevation so that casting
the closure segment is not hindered. It is, however, possible to jack the two cantilever
beams into alignment to correct minor misalignments before casting the closure segment.
Giving the bridge in service the visual appearance of strength. Sagging below the vertical
plane would also be detrimental to the riding comfort.
3.7
CONSTRUCTABILITY OF BOX GIRDERS
Concrete bridge superstructures can have very different configurations. They can be composed of
slabs only for small-span bridges, precast girders that carry the deck slab, solid coffered slabs,
and a variety of box cross-sections. The following sections describe the characteristics of box
girders and advantages that made box girders a most widely used type of bridge superstructure.
Although primarily concrete box girders are dealt with, many features are also valid for box
girders made from steel.
3.7.1
Characteristics of Box Girders
Prestressed box girder bridges, according to Troitsky (1994), have been used after their
introduction in Europe in Canada since 1964 and in the U.S. since 1973.
Box girders are hollow beam-type structures that consist of webs, top and bottom slab, often with
cantilevering flanges at the top slab to provide a wide deck. Diaphragms at various locations
within the box girder are provided to internally stiffen them. Characteristics and advantages of
box girders in comparison with other superstructure systems are shown in Figure 3-11.
152
Versatility / Economy:
Simple geometry facilitates construction (prefabrication, formwork)

Highly versatile alignment (horizontal / vertical curvature, superelevation) and width
Ideal for prestressed segmental construction, e.g. cantilevering
Simple beam-type structural system
Wide unobstructed deck with integral primary structural system below
Span lengths up to 250 m (Barker and Puckett 1997)
Configurations:
Variable number of
boxes and webs
Constant or variable
depth (clearance,
weight, appearance)
Durability:
Aesthetics:
Interior heaters for curing

Less exposed surface
Installations inside
Access for inspection
and maintenance
Visually light:
shadow under deck,
thin fascia band,
inclined webs
Smooth shape,
plain surface,
clear lines
Strength / Stiffness:
High torsional and bending stiffness of closed box cross-section

Diaphragms at ends and intermediate supports,
possible: Transverse ribs, struts, and cellular flanges
Often transverse prestressing of deck slab, sometimes vertical prestressing of webs
Aerodynamic shape possible (aerofoil deck for long-span steel bridges)
Figure 3-11: Features of Box Girders
3.7.1.1 Webs
Webs are often more massive than flanges since they have to accommodate the torsional shear
stress which is additive to the vertical shear force (Lee 1971, p404). Enough space for
longitudinal prestressing cables and for the necessary shear reinforcement needs to be provided.
Sometimes, vertical prestressing of the webs is done close to supports to withstand shear forces,
as Podolny and Muller (1982) point out in one of their bridge descriptions. The webs of modern
box girders are often inclined outwards, which has several reasons: Lee (1971) specifically
names the reduced size of the bottom slab while providing sufficient support for the deck that
withstands bending moments in the transverse plane, and less visual obstruction and a more
153
slender appearance. Corners of the box girders, e.g. between webs and top slab are often
provided with small haunches. These haunches shall enable a better flow of shear stress from
one element to another (Lee 1971, p402).
3.7.1.2 Diaphragms
Intermediate stiffeners, such as diaphragms are usually only located at the ends of the box girder
at the abutments and over support to accommodate the flow of forces from the box into the
substructure. Diaphragms at intermediate positions within the box are usually not necessary,
only in very large box girders or in box girders having thin concrete webs (Lee 1971, p405)
they may be incorporated to avoid distortion.
3.7.1.3 Structural Behavior

Bouwkamp et al. (1971, p18) write that box girders provide a smooth, functional structure with
a high resistance to torsional moments. They specifically point at the high torsional stiffness of
the closed cross-section of box girders, making them suitable for many project conditions,
including curved and skewed arrangements that induce eccentric loads into the structure.
Box girders also have good bending resistance in the longitudinal plane. Because of their
inherent stiffness, box girders can be smaller than the width of the roadway that they support.
Comprehensive sample calculations and formula dealing with the specific behavior of box
girders can be found in standard textbooks of bridge engineering, such as Menn (1990) and
Barker and Puckett (1997). For analytical purposes the box cross-section is often idealized as
consisting of thin slabs of constant thickness so that they can be analyzed based on classical
beam theory as Menn points out (1990), even if they are thicker at their connections.

3.7.2
154
Implementation of Box Girders
Lee (1971) describes the variety of possible box girder configurations that can be achieved by
altering the number of whole boxes and webs in these boxes. Most common is the box girder
with a single box enclosed by two webs because of economical reasons. OConnor (1971,
pp227f) lists parameters that determine the particular box girder:
(a) the shape of the cross section;
(b) the ratio of the longitudinal dimension, or span [length], to the maximum
cross-sectional dimension [i.e. depth];
(c) a typical ratio of the width to thickness of a wall; and
d) the diaphragm spacing, possibly expressed as a fraction of the span [length].
Its relatively simple geometry facilitates a rapid construction process by using formwork
repeatedly, as in a form traveler for cast-in-place fabrication, or by prefabricating segments in a
casting plant.
3.7.2.1 Width
Box girders are very versatile in alignment and can be adapted to a great variety of horizontal and
vertical curves (camber) and superelevations in the transverse plane. OConnor (1971, p228)
notes their high torsional stiffness of closed box girder cross-section. The width of the box girder
may even be adjusted to the required number of lanes for the roadways by varying the width of
the cantilever flanges without affecting the box itself. As Fletcher (1984, p15) explains, bridge
widths are normally between 10 and 12 m, 22 and 24 m, or 28 and 30 m, respectively, relating to
a carriageway of one, two or three lanes in each direction.
The wide deck, although integral with the primary structural system below, remains unobstructed
from load-carrying member in any case. Transverse prestressing is used to provide enough
stiffening against transverse bending moments in the wide cantilevering flanges.
155
3.7.2.2 Depth
The box girders need not only have a constant depth, but can also be varied in depth along the
longitudinal axis of the bridge. Fletcher (1984) gives average values for the ratio of girder depth
to span length of 1:17 at the supports and 1:50 at midspan. Less depth of the girders at midspan
means less dead load and will lead to a more equal stress level throughout the bridge
superstructure, since continuous depth leads to high bending moments at the supports. It will also
provide more clearance below the bridge. Most people consider the appearance of a gently
curved soffit that becomes more slender towards its middle pleasing. Cost for formwork, on the
other hand, will be higher than for box girders with constant depth because of the necessary
geometrical adjustments.
3.7.2.3 Span Length

Menn (1990) gives the economical range of span length for cast-in-place cantilevering as about
70 to 250 m, with major cost factors being the comparatively large pier heads and the form
travelers cantilevering from these. With span lengths of up to 250 m technically feasible for a
girder superstructure, much longer spans can be achieved in cable-stayed bridges and suspension
bridges with steel box girders (Barker and Puckett 1997). In these long bridges, aerodynamic
shaping of the boxes is strongly advised. Information on the development of these special socalled aerofoil cross-sections for long-span steel superstructures has already been given in
Section 2.2.3.1.
3.7.2.4 Durability
With regards to durability, box girders have several advantages. Their closed cross-section will
have less concrete surface directly exposed, thus reducing corrosion due to environmental
conditions. However, according to Melaragno (1998) corrosion could also occur inside the girder
because of condensation. Inspection and maintenance works inside the girder can be easily done
156
with access through manholes at the piers or abutments. Mathivat (1983) gives information that
initially tendon anchorages were located in the joints of segments so that they could hardly be
accessed after placement of further segments. Nowadays, however, the common trend is to
implement internally accessible anchorages in concrete blocks, so-called blisters on the inside of
the box girder.
Other installations, such as gutter pipes and electric cables for lighting can also be situated within
the box to preserve the plain outside appearance of the superstructure. Apart from these
permanent installations the room inside can also be used to place a heater during cast-in-place
construction if necessary, which helps with the curing process in addition to thermally insulated
formwork and preheating of the concrete ingredients (Mathivat 1983).
3.7.2.5 Appearance
Box girders are generally considered attractive in terms of their appearance. The whole
superstructure expresses simplicity (Muller and McCallister 1988) through its clear horizontal
lines and the plain unobstructed surfaces. The closed box girder surfaces will also accumulate
much fewer dirt than e.g. open truss systems with many edges and nodes. Visual lightness is
achieved by a thin fascia band at the edge of the flanges that contracts with the girder lying in the
shadow below the deck. Inclined webs even reinforce this effect and make the girder seem more
slender (Barker and Puckett 1997).
CHAPTER 4: THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS

OF SEGMENTAL BRIDGES
The following Chapter 4 presents the important techniques for erection of concrete segmental
bridges. Their characteristics are outlined so that understanding of the specific nature of each of
these methods can be achieved. Apart from that this chapter deals with the most important issue
of construction loads by distinguishing the various types of construction loads and showing their
relation to the erection method used for a specific project.
4.1
DEVELOPMENT OF PRESTRESSED SEGMENTAL BRIDGES
Application of prestressed concrete for bridge construction was developed by French engineer
Eugne Freyssinet, as described in Section 2.1.6, and has spread widely thereafter. Only
prestressing made the slender, long-span concrete bridges of today possible. The basic principle
of prestressing is to induce an initial compressive force in the concrete that will balance tensile
stresses that occur in the member under service conditions before any tensile stresses occur in the
concrete and cause cracking. Menn (1990, p126) names the two methods of inducing these
stresses in the structure:
By imposed forces from reinforcing steel that is prestressed to a certain degree;
By imposed artificial displacements of the supports, e.g. bearings.
The second method according to Menn (1990) is much less used because of high losses of the
prestressing force due to concrete creep and shrinkage. Prestressing tendons that are used for the
first method consist of high-strength steel and are fabricated as wires, strands, or bars (Nilson and
157
Chapter 4: The Construction Process of Segmental Bridges
158
Winter 1986). For a continuous beam on several supports, most tension will occur in the lower
fibers of the cross-section around midspan and in the upper fibers above intermediate supports. It
is therefore most useful to place tendons in the locations where tensile stresses will occur in the
structure under service. This thought naturally leads to the idea of implementing longitudinal
tendons in the beam that are not simply straight but follow a curve from the top above supports to
the bottom at midspan and back to the next support. In Balanced Cantilever Construction the top
cables in reaching out from the cantilever base to support the cantilever dead load are called
cantilever beam cables; the bottom cables in the middle of the span are called integration cables
(Mathivat 1983).
Prestressed concrete, compared with normal reinforced concrete has a higher degree of
sophistication and causes higher cost for labor and for the prestressing tendons; on the other hand
it saves cost through more economical use of material. Only prestressing makes long and slender
concrete spans possible at all.
4.1.1
Degree of Prestressing
Menn (1990) mentions that choice of the best prestressing profile for a certain project is not
predetermined but is a task for the bridge designer. He further gives an overview of the degree of
prestressing. Full prestressing is supposed to withstand all tensile stresses under service
conditions. When calculated tensile stresses in the concrete must not exceed a specified
permissible value (Menn 1990, p127), so-called limited prestressing is performed. The last and
most common method is partial prestressed, which does not specifically limit the concrete tensile
stresses. Still, calculation of behavior at ultimate limit state and under service conditions
(Menn 1990, p127) must be calculated, also taking into account the normal reinforcement. The
purpose of the normal mild reinforcement is the control and distribution of cracking. Because of
the high prestressing force, less conventional reinforcement is needed in the concrete, and
members can be thinner and lighter, leading to more economical structures. The reduced
susceptibility to cracking gives prestressed concrete higher durability.
159
Some factors effectively contribute to initial and long-term reduction of the prestressing force.
Immediate losses of prestress, also called initial losses, occur once the prestressing force is
applied, after the concrete has been placed and cured. Loss of prestress needs to be anticipated
during design. Long-term losses in concrete depend on its design mixture, curing, the
environmental climate, and the member geometry. Textbooks give information on the reasons for
prestress losses and provide many formulas to calculate their effect. The following Table 4-1
based on Barker and Puckett (1997, pp455-466) summarizes these effects:
Table 4-1: Influences Causing Loss of Prestressing Force
Initial loss of prestress
Slippage of strands in the anchorages
(before wedges or nuts grip firmly)
Elastic shortening of concrete member
(relieves previously stressed tendons)
Friction between tendon and duct interior
(wobble effect because of curved ducts)
4.1.2
Long-term loss of prestress

Relaxation of steel strands
(loss of stress under constant strain)
Creep of concrete member
(plastic deformation under constant stress)
Shrinkage of concrete member
(volume change due to evaporation)
Pre-Tensioning
Prestressing basically can be carried out as pre-tensioning and post-tensioning, referring to the
time when the prestressing force is imposed with respect to casting. In pre-tensioning the tendons
are anchored to e.g. a stiff frame around the casting bed and are prestressed before the concrete is
placed. When the concrete has gained sufficient strength the tendons are relieved from their
anchorages and stress the concrete through bond between steel and concrete. Menn (1990) notes
that this method is especially feasible for precasting concrete elements because of the solid
anchorages required.
4.1.3
Post-Tensioning
Post-tensioning denotes the method of stressing the tendons only after the concrete has reached a
specified strength. To allow for the necessary movement of the tendons inside the concrete they
160
are installed in tendon ducts that are made from steel or polyethylene. The ducts need to be fixed
to the normal reinforcement to prevent misalignment during casting. After post-tensioning the
ducts are filled with cement grout under pressure for and protection against corrosion of the
tendons. Grouting the ducts will introduce bond between the steel and the surrounding grout.
Unbonded post-tensioning is less common. Very similar to prestressing tendons are the
techniques used for protection of stay cables of cable-stayed bridges against corrosion, as
described e.g. by Funahashi (1995).
Two different ways of construction exist for post-tensioning. The prestressing tendons can be
located either inside the concrete or outside of it. External post-tensioning has the advantage of
easy accessibility for inspection, maintenance works and replacement. Nevertheless problems
with corrosion protection are the reason for use of interior post-tensioning in most projects.
Post-tensioned tendons need special anchorages that are cast into the concrete structure.
Anchorages have the shape of cones that are sitting on the end of the duct for better accessibility
to single tendon strands with the prestressing jack. Anchorages are mostly surrounded by spiral
reinforcement, which serves to distribute the compressive stresses into the concrete member.
Small wedges around each strand or nuts (Menn 1990) fix the strands to the front plate of the
anchorage. Special anchor blocks, so-called blisters are cast into the structure to provide enough
space for the anchorages, e.g. on the inside of box girder segments of the second generation
(Podolny and Muller 1982). Previously, tendon anchorages were also found in the joint faces,
where problems with accessibility occurred. Textbooks on prestressed concrete structures
provide more information on the layout and calculation of prestressing systems.
4.2
CONCRETE BRIDGE ERECTION TECHNIQUES
Concrete segmental bridges have already been introduced in Section 3.6.1. The following
sections will present the important methods that are used in erecting concrete segmental bridges
nowadays and the equipment employed. Special focus is put on constructability issues, pertaining
161
to characteristics and requirements, advantages, and disadvantages of each method to prepare for
the case study that is presented in Chapter 5.
4.2.1
Cantilevering Method
Before used in construction of concrete bridges, the cantilevering method had already been used
in Asia for wooden structures of earliest times, as Podolny and Muller (1982) report. Amongst
the major steel structures that were erected with the cantilevering method are the Firth Rail
Bridge and the Quebec Bridge that are presented in Section 2.1.5. Erection of concrete bridges
with the cantilevering principle led to development of specialized sequences that are discussed
further below.
As already introduced in Section 3.6.2, cantilevering for concrete segmental bridges is a
construction method where segments, either precast or cast-in-place, are assembled and stressed
together subsequently like a chain to form the self-supporting superstructure. Prestressing cables
located in the upper part of the segment cross-section support the cantilever. In the variant of the
progressive placement method stay cables are often used to support the cantilever prior to closure
of the span.
Time-dependent material behavior of the segments under successive load steps requires
comprehensive calculations for all construction stages. Every segment will develop strength with
increasing age of the concrete. Governing for the structural behavior of the cantilever is that
every segment carries and transfers loads from all following segments and construction loads
until closure of the span. From these very basic facts in conjunction with geometry and expected
loads on the structure the calculation of moments and local stresses, as well as calculation of the
deflections that they cause is possible. Optimization of geometry, prestressing, and camber are
then performed.
Depending on the specific segment configuration and erection sequence chosen for the
cantilevering method the cantilever may never be exactly balanced so that the superstructure
needs to be balanced to ensure stability. It is possible to fix the supports at the piers of
162
cantilevering superstructures and install vertical prestressing tendons. Furthermore it is very

common to make use of an additional temporary pier with vertical prestressing that is located
close to the permanent one (Casas 1997). This pier helps withstanding overturning moments
from unbalanced load cases on the bridge superstructure.
Several advantages have contributed to the success of the cantilevering method. Certainly the
most important one is that no falsework or centering is required, leaving traffic under the spans
widely unobstructed during construction. Access from the ground is only necessary for
construction of the piers and abutments and in preparation for the start of cantilevering, which
starts from these locations.
Only relatively little formwork is required due to the segmental nature of the superstructure.
Cantilevering is a very feasible method if the bridge spans are too high above ground for e.g.
economical use of falsework, and if the terrain under the spans is otherwise inaccessible or
unfeasible, being e.g. a deep gorge with danger of flood events. Especially in these cases rapid
construction can be achieved with cantilevering.
Fletcher (1984, p13) notes that especially in cantilevering complete calculations are required for
the construction stage[s] and these are complicated as many stressing effects are timedependent. In addition to this, the influence of stepwise construction needs to be considered.
However, the statical system that needs to be analyzed is rather simple and in case of the
cantilever prior to closure at midspan even statically determinate.
4.2.1.1 Precast Construction

Precast construction means that bridge members or segments are prefabricated at a location
different that the site, transported to the site, and installed there. Mathivat (1983) gives the
maximum economical span of bridges built in precast segment as about 150 m, since cost for the
placement equipment increase considerably the longer the spans are. Construction with precast
segments has several advantages in comparison with cast-in-place segmental bridges. Casting of
the segments can be performed under controlled, plant-like conditions at the precasting yard.
163
This industrialized process allows easy quality control of segments prior to placement in the
superstructure and saves money through reuse of the precasting formwork. Surface finishing
works, such as texturing, sandblasting, painting, and coating can be performed on the ground
level without scaffolding when the segments are still accessible from all sides prior to installation
in the superstructure.
Another major advantage mentioned by Mathivat (1983, p212) is that the complete casting of the
superstructure can be removed from the critical path of the overall construction schedule, since
superstructure segments can be precast during construction of the substructure. Assembly of
the bridge superstructure takes much less time than cast-in-place construction, as precast
segments do not need to cure on site before being prestressed together. Through the early casting
of segments material properties are also influenced positively. As segments are usually stored at
the precasting yard or on site for a while the concrete will have gained more strength until
installation than cast-in-place elements have when being loaded. The time-dependent effects of
concrete shrinkage and creep will occur with reduced extent because of the increase age of the
concrete segments (Mathivat 1983) and will cause smaller deflections of the superstructure than
with cast-in-place construction.
However, cost for the precasting yard, storage, transportation, and installation of precast
segments needs to be evaluated in comparison with cost for the form travelers for cast-in-place
construction to achieve an economical solution.
The precasting yard requires investment in equipment. Adjustable formwork to form the bridge
geometry and alignment needs to be installed. Lifting equipment is also required to put the
segments into the storage area and later load them on truck to be hauled to the construction site.
It is common practice to use the match-cast method to achieve high accuracy in segment
prefabrication. Match-casting means that the segments are cast in the formwork between a
bulkhead at one end and a previously cast segment at the other (Levintov 1995, p46). Segment
joint faces need to be clean of any dirt for match-casting.
Levintov (1995) distinguishes concrete segment prefabrication into short-line casting and longline casting. Short-line casting would comprise formwork of the length of only one segment; with
164
the previously cast segment being moved into position for match-casting on a mobile carriage.
Short-line casting can be carried out in the horizontal position or with the segments tilted facing
upward (Podolny and Muller 1982), however, the normal horizontal position facilitates matchcasting. The overall bridge alignment requires careful adjustment of the formwork prior to each
concrete placement. Short-line casting does not take much workspace.
Long-line casting on the other hand means erection of formwork for about a complete bridge
span. According to Levintov (1995) the formwork can be erected stationary for the superstructure
soffit only, with smaller movable forms for web sides and interior formwork. This formwork will
be cheaper than the flexibly adjustable formwork for short-line casting, but will require much
more workspace. Levintov cautions that the long-line casting is feasible for straight
superstructures or superstructures with constant curvature. Segments are match-cast
progressively on the long-line formwork by step-by-step advancement of the movable formwork
units and a movable bulkhead.
Phipps and Spruill (1990) describe the precasting cycle that was used in construction of the
Biloxi Interstate I-110 viaduct. According to them, the freshly cast segments were steam cured in
a movable shed covering the casting bed of the short-line formwork. The pretensioning strands
were released by cutting them, quality control and testing of concrete samples was performed,
and internal formwork units were removed from the new segment. After lifting the previously
cast segment from its position for match-casting into the storage area, the new segment was
rolled out of the formwork. It was positioned for match-casting according to the required overall
alignment. Cleaning of the joint face and the bulkhead was done prior to casting the next
segment. Reinforcement bars were preassembled in reinforcement cages to speed up placement.
Pre-tensioning strands were used in the box girder segment, being stressed prior to concrete
placement. After concrete placement and consolidation with vibrators the segment was screeded
and given a surface finish before the curing shed was set up over the casting bed. With the
sequence described a casting cycle of one superstructure segment per day could be achieved. In
the final superstructure post-tensioning cables were installed to stress the precast segments
together.
165
Precast segments have joints that require special attention. An epoxy agent is usually applied to
the joint faces shortly before putting a segment into its location in the superstructure. Joints are
usually only a few millimeters thin. Podolny and Muller (1982) explain the functions of the
epoxy agent that is applied to the joint faces when placing precast segments. During segment
placement the epoxy serves to lubricate the joint faces, which are cleaned by sandblasting and
compensate for minor imperfections in the match-cast surfaces (Podolny and Muller 1982,
p485). In the finished structure the hardened epoxy seals the joints against moisture and thus
additionally protects the tendons in their ducts. Furthermore, the epoxy is able to transmit
compressive forces and shear forces. Information on mixing, handling, and properties of the two
main ingredients, the epoxy resin and the hardener, is provided by Podolny and Muller (1982).
Interestingly, the epoxy agent can reach a higher final strength than the concrete itself.
In addition to the epoxy transmitting shear forces between segments the joint faces are given a
special shaping to transmit shear. So-called shear keys are cast into the joint faces to lock the
segments together. They transmit shear forces and also help in exact alignment of the segments
during assembly. Segments of the so-called second generation facilitate many smaller shear keys
that are located not only in the box girder webs, but also in top and bottom flanges (Podolny and
Muller 1982).
4.2.1.2 Cast-In-Place Construction

Podolny and Muller (1982) provide an example for a typical casting cycle. As outlined in Section
3.6.3.1, any previously cast segment needs to have developed at least the specified strength to be
prestressed to previous elements and support the subsequent one. After finishing all work on a
segment the form traveler is detached from the previous position and moved forwards on rails
that are mounted on the bridge superstructure. In order to remain balanced during advancement
the form traveler may be equipped with a counterweight. Upon arrival at the new position it is
adjusted and anchored to the existing superstructure at its rear to be able to withstand overturning
moments that will occur from the weight of new concrete. The external formwork is cleaned and
aligned to the required geometry of the next segment, also incorporating the desired camber.
166
When the form traveler has thus been prepared the reinforcement and tendon ducts for bottom
slab and webs will be installed and connected with the previous ones. In cast-in-place
construction it is possible to have continuous mild reinforcement in the superstructure, whereas
in precast segmental construction only the longitudinal prestressing tendons will cross the
segment joints.
Reinforcement can be pre-assembled into cages that are lifted into place by crane. Prestressing
tendons are already inserted into their ducts prior to placement of concrete because of better
accessibility. After these preparations, concrete is placed. Accessibility of the bottom part of the
box girder may require that the bottom slab is cast before internal formwork for webs and top
slab is advanced and aligned. After curing sufficiently for strength and durability, the tendons in
the newly cast concrete segment can be prestressed. Finally, the casting cycle starts all over again
to cast the next segment.
Concrete placement can be carried out by various means, e.g. with buckets that are hoisted by
crane, or by pumping. While placing the concrete in lifts care needs to be taken that no
segregation of the concrete mixture occurs, and that proper consolidation will be achieved. The
most common method is to vibrate the concrete in the formwork by means of internal or external
vibrating devices. Most important for the quality of the concrete is curing to achieve strength and
durability. Upon gaining enough strength, the tendons in the newly cast segment will be stressed
to some degree and the cycle starts all over again. Based on Mathivat (1983, p201) an overview
of casting steps and typical values for their duration is be given in Table 4-2. It should be noted
that the sequence of steps given in this table is only a generic example and would be broken
down into more steps for planning an actual construction project:
Table 4.2: Typical Duration of Casting Steps
Duration
1 day
2 days
1 day
3 days
Activities
Post-tensioning tendons in previous segment
Stripping formwork
Advancing form traveler
Placing reinforcement, ducts, and tendons
Placing concrete for bottom slab, webs, and top slab
Curing concrete (including Sunday)
167
Mathivat (1983) also gives information on means of accelerating this process. Use of special
form travelers with lateral main beams or self-supporting carriages (Mathivat 1983, pp201f)
will leave the bottom slab widely unobstructed and make construction easier. Secondly,
increasing the length of segments can be considered during the design phase while keeping in
mind the increasing weight and cost of bigger form travelers. Stepwise construction of the box
girder is also possible, with relatively simple formwork for the top slab following a few segments
behind the main form traveler. With this method less concrete has to be placed in one single step
of concrete placement. Yet it requires careful structural design of the vertically segmented
superstructure. Finally, an example of a segmental bridge is given for combination of cast-inplace and precast segment sections. Webs of the superstructure box girder of the Brotonne Bridge
in France were precast and placed into the form travelers, which were used to fabricate the
remaining cast-in-place parts of the cross-section (Mathivat 1983).
4.2.1.3 Balanced Cantilever Construction

Balanced cantilever construction denotes building a bridge superstructure from both sides of the
pier table in a scales-like fashion. This erection method is also known under the name free
cantilever construction (Podolny and Muller 1982). Fletcher (1984) gives information that the
pier table element, serving as a base from which cantilevering is begun, is usually between 6 and
12 m long. In order to balance the weight of both arms of the cantilever superstructure the
segments will be about equally placed at both ends. Actual placement of new segments will
hardly proceed exactly at the same times as Mathivat (1983) expresses. Therefore the pier can
undergo overturning bending moments and needs to be designed accordingly. Temporary towers
with vertical prestressing or counterweights can provide additional support. Figure 4-1
schematically shows a typical construction stage in Balanced Cantilever Construction.
168
Balanced Cantilever Construction

Form Traveler
Temporary
Tower with
Vertical
Prestressing
Pier
Figure 4-1: Balanced Cantilever Construction
Balanced cantilevering can be carried out with cast-in-place or precast segments. For cast-inplace balanced cantilevering a set of two form travelers is required, one for each arm of the
cantilever. For multi-span bridges the form travelers can be dismantled after finishing
cantilevering from one pier and can be set up for new use on the next cantilever.
In case of a bridge with variable box girder depth the pier table segment will be the most massive
segment of the superstructure. This segment needs to be constructed prior to cantilevering to
provide a working platform from which the two form travelers can start. It also includes
diaphragms that facilitate the flow of forces from the cantilever arms into the piers. Because of
size, geometry, and construction separate from the rest of the superstructure the pier table
segment will take a considerable amount of time to construct. It can be put into place either with
large precast segments or as cast-in-place with formwork mounted on the pier shaft.
An interesting pier design specifically feasible for cantilevering is mentioned by Fletcher (1984),
who points out that a pier consisting of transverse twin walls is advantageous as it provides
stability for cantilevering but allows horizontal movement of the superstructure from thermal
elongation through flexing of the wall panels.
169
4.2.1.4 Progressive Placement Method

The progressive placement method, in comparison with the balanced cantilevering method, is a
one-directional process as shown in Figure 4-2. All cantilever segments are subsequently placed
at the tip of a cantilever that is built across all spans. Both cast-in-place and precast segmental
construction can be used. Often stay cables from the tip of a temporary tower on the
superstructure support the cantilever. With growing cantilever superstructure this support
mechanism has to be advanced. Another method of support is use of temporary towers, which are
mentioned in Section 4.2.3.3. According to Mathivat (1983) this method is competitive for spans
between 30 to 50 m in length, whereas incremental launching and balanced cantilevering are also
used for much longer spans.
Progressive Placement Method
Temporary
Support
Figure 4-2: Progressive Placement Method
Progressive placement has several advantages, as Mathivat (1983) points out. First of all, the
placement process does not have to switch sides as it occurs in the balanced cantilevering
method. Thus process control is simplified. In addition to this, good access to the placement
location is given on the already completed part of the bridge superstructure. With the progressive
placement method horizontal curves can easily be accommodated.
From a structural point of view the progressive placement method is advantageous in
substructure design. Only vertical forces from the dead load of the superstructure under
170
construction are experienced. In comparison with incremental launching and balanced

cantilevering, a simpler flow of forces takes place between superstructure and the piers. No
horizontal forces are introduced in the piers and no unbalanced bending moments have to be
withstood by the piers. It is therefore possible to immediately install the permanent bearings
(Mathivat 1983).
Some disadvantages of the progressive placement method need to be dealt with during design
and construction. As construction only progresses at the tip of one cantilever, progress is slower
than in balanced cantilevering. Progressive placement resembles incremental launching in that
the superstructure undergoes stresses very different from the permanent service conditions,
including even stress reversals. In both cases the structure needs to incorporate temporary
prestressing tendons to account for these stresses. Mathivat (1983) also points at the difficulty in
erecting the first span with progressive placement. Other construction methods may have to be
employed for this stage.
4.2.1.5 The Linn Cove Viaduct

An interesting example for use of the progressive placement method is the Linn Cove Viaduct
(Anon. 1984), shown in Figure 4-3. Its location in an environmentally sensitive area in North
Carolina, the inaccessibility of the sloping site at the mountain face, and the highly curved
alignment of the viaduct provided a set of difficult conditions for this project. Match-cast
prefabricated segments for the highly curved viaduct were delivered by truck directly to the end
of the already completed part of the structure, where they were placed and attached with
temporary thread bars and tendons. Deviating from the method outlined above, no cables were
used above the spans, but steel bents were installed under the spans during construction to
provide support. Only drilling so-called microshaft piles for the pier foundations needed to be
done directly on ground, as the piers themselves also consisted of precast segments that were
craned into position from above and post-tensioned vertically. Implementation of the progressive
placement method in connection with precast pier segments that were lowered into place from
171
above, called top down construction, helped protecting the natural environment at the site as far
as technically possible.
Figure 4-3: The Linn Cove Viaduct, North Carolina, U.S. (taken from Rives 1997, p41)
4.2.1.6 Concluding the Cantilevering Process

The cantilevering process will finally have reached its end when both girders meet at midspan
and need to be connected. Three different ways exist to achieve this connection in the structural
system (Mathivat 1983). A hinged connection can be installed that allows horizontal movements
in the superstructure. As Mathivat (1983) writes, this system is structurally relatively simple, yet
the hinges are complicated details and the overall structural redundancy of the system is reduced.
Podolny and Muller (1982) also mention the lower ultimate load-carrying capacity of the hinged
system and the higher susceptibility to creep and relaxation phenomena. Furthermore, the two
superstructure halves can have a slight angle between them as deflections occur, which is
detrimental to the appearance of the bridge and the users comfort (Podolny and Muller 1982,
p36).
172
Secondly, part of the midspan superstructure can be designed as a suspended span sitting on
bearings between the cantilevers. In this configuration the deflection angle between the shorter
cantilevers and the suspended span will be much smaller, and differential settling of the
supports can better be accounted for (Podolny and Muller 1982, p38). Still, the connections
require special details in the structural system.
Finally, the whole superstructure can be made continuous at midspan. Achieving this statically
indeterminate system is the most common way in building cantilever bridges for several reasons.
Mathivat (1983, p41) names specifically that the deflections in the stiffer continuous
superstructures are indeed far smaller than those met in hinged structures and both visual
appearance and drivers comfort are better than in hinged superstructures. He also notes the
necessity for expansion joints in very long continuous multi-span superstructures and advises to
provide expansion joints about 300 to 600 m apart (Mathivat 1983, p45) in points of small
moments in the superstructure. Horizontal movements of the bridge superstructure can be
accommodated by the flexibility of the piers themselves, or by using elastomeric bearings or
sliding supports (Mathivat 1983, p45).
Continuity is generated by casting a closure segment into the gap at midspan, through which
continuity tendons, the so-called integration cables as mentioned in Section 4.1 run in the bottom
part of the box girder (Mathivat 1983). Prior to casting this segment, misalignments of the two
superstructure halves are corrected with hydraulic jacks. It should, however, be tried to keep
these additionally imposed stresses small by paying close attention to the correct alignment
including camber when casting the superstructure halves. Additionally, as mentioned in Section
3.6.2.7, the two girders are often jacked apart to compensate for future effects of long-term
creep and shrinkage of the superstructure on the substructure as Matt et al. (1988, p37) report.
They further mention casting the closure segment of their bridge project at night to avoid
problems from temperature gradients in the superstructure. For casting and curing of the midspan
closure segment the girders need to be fixed in their position. Finally, continuity tendons can be
inserted into the newly cast segment and post-tensioned. Upon closure of midspan internal stress
redistribution takes place, shifting the moments from the supports more towards midspan. The
formerly free cantilevers are now restrained in deflection and rotation. Podolny and Muller
173
(1982) provide a sample calculation for the effect of stress redistribution with consideration of
time-dependent effects.
4.2.2
Cantilever Erection Equipment
Different erection equipment is used in bridge construction. With the specific focus on cast-inplace and precast cantilever segmental bridges, form travelers and launching girders will be
introduced in the following sections. Other equipment that can be used for placement of precast
segments is e.g. cranes.
4.2.2.1 Form Travelers

Cast-in-place cantilever construction requires formwork that is attached to the tip of the growing
cantilever for casting. The following paragraphs will deal with girder cross-sections only. As the
cantilever grows the forms travel are set forth in steps. These form travelers give shape to the
segment, support the weight of the newly cast concrete until it has gained enough strength to be
post-tensioned to the previous cantilever segments, and transfer the segment weight to the
already existing superstructure. Determining for the capacity of the form travelers is the
maximum size and initial weight of the biggest segment in the bridge superstructure, including
other construction loads.
Form travelers available in todays construction industry are made by specialized manufacturers
and are reusable and very flexible (Levintov 1995) with respect to changing geometry of the
bridge superstructure and its alignment, including camber. They can be enclosed in a heated tent
to enable concrete placement and curing to proceed during adverse weather conditions, especially
low temperatures. In comparison with a precasting yard, form travelers often offer the less costly
solution, since transportation and storage of prefabricated segments is avoided, and they integrate
all the functions of the precasting plant into a relatively small device. Fletcher (1984) notes that
by use of form travelers the formwork is reused several times, while adjustments to variable
174
segment geometry, especially depth, remain possible with relatively little effort. Disadvantages of
cast-in-place cantilevering with form travelers are discussed in Section 3.6.3.1. Figure 4-4 shows
a typical view of a form traveler.
Work Platform
Concrete Bucket
Bracing
Main Truss
Rails
Tremie
Pipes
Internal
Formwork
Shoring
Open
Concrete
Surface
Top Slab With

Cantilever Flanges
Web
Work Platform
Bottom Slab
Figure 4-4: Form Traveler Front View
Form travelers consist of a sufficiently stiff steel frame to which form panels for the box girder
segments are attached at the front. According to Levintov (1995, p43), the steel frame is mostly
composed of two parallel diamond- or triangular-shaped frames that are connected and stiffened
175
by diagonal bracing and transverse trusses at the upper front and rear. Wheels allow longitudinal
movement of the form traveler on rails on top of the superstructure. For stability of the traveler it
can be held down by a counterweight at its rear end (Mathivat 1983). After advancing, the
traveler is anchored down to the cast parts of the superstructure with tendons at its back, as
Levintov (1995) writes. Thus, the overturning moment from the load at the traveler tip can be
resisted. It is mentioned that for structural reasons the form traveler main beams are located
above the webs of the concrete box girder, so that construction loads can be transferred into the
main load-carrying system of the bridge directly. The longitudinal main beams of the form
travelers need not necessarily be located above the webs. Form travelers are also used in
configurations with the main beams in a lateral position, leaving the bridge deck free (Podolny
and Muller 1982). Mathivat (1983) further distinguishes so-called self-supporting assemblies,
where the stiffening effect of the form panels contributes to the stiffness of the whole form
traveler.
Suspended from the traveler are not only the adaptable forms for exterior and interior of the
concrete segment, but also working platforms on different levels that can be accessed from
above.
4.2.2.2 Launching Girders

Apart from various types of cranes that can be used to place precast segments, launching girders
are widely used for this purpose. Levintov (1995) mentions limited access under the cantilever
and great height of bridge superstructures above ground as reasons why launching girders would
be used. They are very feasible for bridges with several spans, as due to their length they can be
advanced over gaps that are still to be bridged. During construction they are moved forward on
rails whenever a major part of the bridge superstructure has been completed.
Launching girders, also called launching gantries, are large trusses that are placed longitudinally
on the bridge superstructure. One or more movable crane devices for transportation of the precast
176
segments can be attached to them, running along the chords of the girders. Precast segments are
delivered to the girder by special heavy-duty vehicles.
If launching girders are built of high strength steel their weight can be reduced considerably. At
the same time, however, larger deflections occur that are limited by additional support of the
girders with a king post system with stay cables (Mathivat 1983).
Launching girder trusses can have triangular or rectangular cross-sections and can be constant in
depth or higher towards the middle. They can be disassembled into parts that are connected with
high-strength friction bolts (Mathivat 1983) for transportation, very similar to tower crane
booms.
Most launching girders are overhead trusses that have three leg supports. The three legs are
called rear, central, and guide leg. Some of these legs, often the guide leg, are not permanently
fixed to the girder to allow the advancing movement as will be described below. Very often these
legs form a bent above the superstructure, leaving space for the precast segments that are turned
90 sideward to be moved through the gap. Pivoting the whole launching girder around the rear
support leg (Mathivat 1983) accommodates bridge superstructure curves in the horizontal plane.
A major feature of launching girders is their length in comparison with the span length of the
bridge superstructure. Levintov (1995, p45) writes that launching girders composed of single or
double trusses may range from slightly longer than a span length to slightly longer than twice a
span length. Erection sequences for these two extremes shall be briefly described in the
following paragraphs.
4.2.2.2.1
Launching Girder Slightly Longer Than One Span
Construction of the bridge superstructure with a launching girder about a span long is performed
as follows. After advancement the girder rests with its rear leg on the cantilever tip at midspan
and with its center leg on the next pier. Around this pier new segments will be placed with
balanced cantilevering, filling the remaining half-span behind the pier and advancing the
177
cantilever to the next midspan. Afterwards, the next pier table segment is placed and the
cantilever advances half a span so that it comes to rest on guide leg and rear leg. The guide leg
will remain on the pier as the girder advances further. When the central leg arrives at this pier
and the rear leg is at midspan the next placement position has been reached. Figure 4-5 shows the
construction sequence with a launching girder that is slightly longer than one span.
Launching Girder, Placement Phase
Launching Girder
Placement of
Segments
Launching Girder, Advancement Step 1

Direction of
Advancing
Launching Girder, Advancement Step 2

Direction of
Advancing
Figure 4-5: Working Scheme of Short Launching Girder
178
A major drawback of this method is found in the previous description. The bridge superstructure
will take considerable loads during construction, since the heavy launching girder rests with one
leg at the midspan cantilever tip.
4.2.2.2.2
Launching Girder Slightly Longer Than Two Spans
Construction of the bridge superstructure with a launching girder about two spans long does not
incur the aforementioned detrimental load condition. At all stages the load-carrying girder legs
will be located above piers. This is shown in Figure 4-6. In the normal placement position the
launching girder rests with its rear leg above a previous pier and with its central leg above a free
pier. It is easily possible to also support it at the guide leg once the third pier table has been
placed. Placement of the segments will then proceed on both sides of the pier table in the middle
of the girder. To speed up construction, the girder can be equipped with two crane devices to
place segments on both sides simultaneously. After the remaining gap in the superstructure has
been closed and the cantilever has grown into the next span, the girder is advanced one complete
span. During advancement the girder rests on the guide and central leg that remain on the newly
finished pier and the one that lies ahead. This second way of employing launching girders is the
more recent technique (Mathivat 1983).
Even longer launching girders have been used in construction, as reported by Mathivat (1983).
Due to the long span required for launching girders and the mechanical parts, such as crane and
advancement devices, launching girders can be quite costly. If possible, launching girders should
be adaptable for reuse or should be rented. Launching girders can reach lengths of more than 150
m, depending on the requirements of the bridge spans, and weights of up to about 400 t
(Mathivat 1983). In addition to these specialized, expensive and heavy pieces of construction
equipment it is also possible to use simple lifting devices that are located at the cantilever tip. In
the case of the Linn Cove Viaduct, which has been presented in Section 4.2.1.4, a derrick was
mounted to the bridge superstructure that placed segments as they were delivered by truck (Anon.
1984). Other types of deck-mounted equipment are imaginable and mentioned by Levintov
(1995, p44), e.g. a longitudinal beam fitted with lifting tackle and winches.
179
Launching Girder, Placement Phase

Launching Girder
Placement of
Segments
Lauching Girder, Advancement

Phase
Direction of
Advancing
Figure 4-6: Working Scheme of Long Launching Girder
4.2.3
Incremental Launching
Incremental launching was developed by the German engineers Fritz Leonhardt and Willi Baur
for the Rio Caron Bridge in Venezuela (Podolny and Muller 1982), which was built from 1962
to 1964. The incremental launching technique, as opposed to other methods presented in this
chapter, consists of casting a continuous chain of segments at one particular location on site and
then pushing the growing superstructure out over site to be bridged. A casting bed with
adjustable formwork for the superstructure segments is set up. This casting bed can also be
enclosed in a heated tent so that controlled casting and curing conditions are achieved. The
normal cycle time, regardless of segment length is one week. Segment lengths according to
Liebenberg (1992) typically range between 15 and 30 m.
180
Two different techniques for launching the bridge superstructure from the casting bed exist.
Hydraulic jacks can pull the superstructure with steel rods, as it was done for the Rio Caron
Bridge (Podolny and Muller 1982). The second, more common method is to employ a pair of
hydraulic jacks acting vertically and horizontally. Continuous repetition of lifting the
superstructure off the abutment and then pushing it forward as far as the jack allows will achieve
the launching in incremental steps. Figure 4-7 shows the launching process schematically.
Podolny and Muller (1982) caution to design the jack capacity for more than the usual friction
coefficient of 2 % because of imperfections that can occur during construction.
Incremental Launching, Step 1

Direction of
Advancing
Casting Yard
Launching Nose
Temporary
Support
Incremental Launching, Step 2

Direction of
Advancing
Figure 4-7: Incremental Launching
In front of the cantilevering superstructure a lightweight steel launching nose is attached with
tendons that reaches the next support before the bridge superstructure itself arrives. Its purpose is
181
to keep the bending moments in the superstructure smaller. Mostly the launching nose has a
length of about 60 % of the bridge spans (Podolny and Muller 1982). Another way of reducing
the bending moments is to implement temporary towers between the bridge piers. These towers
need to be able to take the horizontal forces that arise from launching.
On top of all supports, including abutments, piers, and temporary towers temporary sliding
bearings are installed during construction that will later be replaced with the permanent ones.
Stainless steel plates are installed on the bearings. While the superstructure is advanced,
Neoprene pads coated with Teflon and reinforced with steel plates are inserted between concrete
and steel to reduce friction (Liebenberg 1992). Very low friction coefficients of 2% or less can be
achieved with this method.
Several advantages make incremental launching a very competitive erection method. As with any
cantilevering method it leaves the site below completely unobstructed during construction. Only
for very long spans temporary towers or cable stays from above as supports are needed. Except
for these the equipment necessary is reduced to the jacking mechanism, the adjustable stationary
casting bed, and temporary sliding bearings, all of which may possibly be reused, which reduces
the capital investment considerably. Podolny and Muller (1982) furthermore mention the cost
savings due to avoidance of segment transportation and heavy construction equipment. They also
point at less maintenance cost due to the higher prestressing of the superstructure. The controlled
casting and curing conditions allow steady and quick construction progress.
Bridges that are erected with the incremental launching method should, according to Podolny and
Muller (1982), have a constant cross-section, especially in depth, and have a straight
superstructure. It is possible to accommodate small variations in alignment and horizontal and
vertical curvatures provided that they have a constant radius. Close control of the bridge
geometry during casting and launching is very important. Sloping grades at the bridge site are
also accommodated, in this case the launch is usually in the downward direction, more than
2 % slope would require a retarding mechanism to stop the movement of the superstructure
(Liebenberg 1992, p165).
182
Liebenberg (1992, p164) also gives a very clear statement of the main difficulty of the
incremental launching method: During launching, the section undergoes complete stress
reversals as it progresses from a cantilever to the first support and thereafter over the following
spans to its final position. Clearly, this erection sequence generates a bending moment envelope
in the structure depending on the span lengths that needs to be accounted for in designing the
cross-section properties and the amount of reinforcement and prestressing tendons. The stresses
due to the aforementioned high bending moments require much longitudinal prestressing both at
top and bottom of the cross-section. Another disadvantage is the large workspace that is needed
for the casting bed at the abutment and the adjacent storage areas (Podolny and Muller 1982).
The Aichtal Bridge in Germany that was built mainly between 1981 and 1983 serves as a good
example of the incremental launching method. According to Basse et al. (1985) this bridge with
its total length of 1,161 m is the longest one ever built with incremental launching. It crosses two
valleys at a maximum of 48 m and 50 m above ground, respectively. A fixed bearing is located at
the pier between the two valleys. At the same location a second jacking system was installed for
use in later construction stages.
The normal pier spacing for the 21 spans of the Aichtal Bridge is 51 m, reaching a maximum of
80 m and 84 m respectively at the deepest parts of the valleys. These wide spans required use of
temporary towers that were braced with stay cables from the ground to resist the horizontal forces
from launching. The whole bridge superstructure consists of two parallel single cell box girders
that are 3.50 m deep, 5 m wide at the soffit and carry 13.50-m wide decks. After completion of
one girder all construction equipment was relocated for the second box girder.
An enclosed 25.50-m long casting bed with adjacent assembly yard for the reinforcement cages
was erected behind the abutment with the launching jacks. For winter construction work another
50-m long tent with large heaters was set up for proper curing and the piers were built with
thermally insulated climbing formwork. Casting of segments was done in a weekly cycle. Both
longitudinal and transverse limited prestressing was implemented. Basse et al. (1985, p23) give
information on the sequence of casting steps that is compiled in Table 4-3:
183
Table 4-3: Sequence of Casting Steps for Aichtal Bridge

Day
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
and Sunday
Activities
Post-tensioning, stripping of formwork, incremental launching of segment
Placement of reinforcement cages for bottom slab and webs,
Installation of ducts and tendons, installation of interior web formwork
Completion of formwork installation, concreting of bottom slab and webs
Removal of web formwork, installation of interior top slab formwork,
Placement of top slab reinforcement, ducts, and tendons
Concreting of top slab
Curing of concrete
Launching of the cured and post-tensioned segments required many personnel for supervision of
all sliding bearings. An overall longitudinal slope of the bridge reduced the jacking forces
necessary for launching. An overall curvature with radius 1,500 m in the horizontal plane and a
constant 3.5 % cross slope of the bridge superstructure induced stresses due to restrained
deformations during launching. Furthermore, the changing span lengths had to be considered in
coming up with the prestressing program to optimize the tendon profile and prestressing forces.
A surveying program had been prepared to control geometry during all construction steps.
Several fixed surveying points were located along the site. Overall, tolerances for deviations
from the planned bridge geometry during casting and launching were less than 1.5 mm (Basse et
al. 1985).
4.2.4
Falsework
Falsework has been used in construction since ancient times, when Roman bridge builders
erected their semicircular stone arches for bridges, aqueducts, and vaults on wooden centering.
Falsework provides continuous support for the formwork that gives shape to the superstructure.
In most cases falsework is used for cast-in-place concrete structures. It requires firm, relatively
even ground on which it can be erected.
184
Apart from custom-built timber structures a wide range of steel elements and modules for
falsework is available in the construction industry. Liebenberg (1992) gives a range of up to 300
m in length and about 10 m in height for bridges to be built with this method. He also specifically
points at the necessity for stable foundations of the falsework, sufficient bracing of the falsework
structure, and consideration of the deflection of the falsework in the overall superstructure
camber.
Falsework, either stationary or traveling, can also be configured as casting girders that hold the
formwork into which the concrete is placed. In that, these girders resemble the erection girders of
the span-by-span method, which are used to assemble precast segments. Liebenberg (1992)
further distinguishes the girders depending on their location to the bridge superstructure as
overhead or supporting it from below, or combination of both. He also reminds that use of major
pieces of equipment, such as casting girders needs to be considered carefully because of the high
capital investment that is necessary.
4.2.4.1 Stationary Falsework

Stationary falsework is the simplest method of erecting the bridge superstructure. Advantages
mentioned by Liebenberg (1992) are that stationary falsework can be erected by less specialized
workers to any desired shape. Use of modern standard elements of which the falsework is put
together allows uncomplicated erection. There are, however, several disadvantages related to
stationary falsework. A lot of material is required for stationary falsework, which requires much
time and manual labor to be spent on its erection, in addition to the cost of purchasing or renting
the materials themselves. Therefore, Liebenberg (1992) concludes that it needs to be erected
some spans in advance to keep up with rates of placement of concrete that can be achieved.
Today, falsework is competitively used e.g. for the complex alignments of highway interchanges,
as Cassano (1987) reports for the example California. He states that apart from the feasibility for
the highly curved superstructures, use of major falsework systems also allows placement of very
large volumes of concrete at the same time and thus speeds up construction. Cassano (1987)
185
mentions that all falsework in California has to be designed and built according to the Falsework
Manual of the California Department of Transportation and is reviewed and inspected by
qualified engineering personnel.
4.2.4.2 Traveling Falsework

Traveling falsework alleviates some of the problems associated with stationary formwork. This
type of falsework, including formwork, is assembled to larger units that can be moved to the next
span to be cast. As with stationary falsework, this method requires the site to have relatively level
and firm ground to allow movement of the falsework on a wheel assembly. In case the ground
conditions are less favorable, using the span-by-span method might be advisable, where the
superstructure segments are assembled on erection girders. Span-by-span erection is introduced
in the following Section 4.2.4. Traveling falsework is shown in Figure 4-8.
Traveling Falsework
Formwork
Figure 4-8: Traveling Falsework
4.2.4.3 Temporary Towers

A kind of falsework used frequently in construction is the use of temporary towers to support the
superstructure that is under construction at intermediate positions. These towers can e.g. be used
186
in the balanced cantilevering method to stabilize the structure against tipping over from
construction loads. They can be additionally strengthened with prestressing rods to withstand the
forces that are imposed on them during construction. Other applications are found during
incremental launching, where together with the launching nose they serve to keep the range of
bending moments small. Instead of using temporary towers as supports Liebenberg (1992, p156)
also mentions stiffening girders by means of prestraining with a king post and adjustable
inclined ties.
4.2.5
Span-By-Span Erection
Levintov (1995, p47) lays out the characteristics of the span-by-span erection method as
assembling all segments for a span in a set, which is then aligned, jointed, and longitudinally
post-tensioned together to make a complete span. The principle of span-by-span erection is
shown in Figure 4-9. Span-by-span erection is typically limited to bridges that consist of box
girders with constant depth. The actual construction can have several variants, the segments can
be assembled on the ground and lifted in place as a group by a heavy-duty crane or they can all be
put into their final position on erection girders along the spans to be completed. The second
method was e.g. used for constructing the Biloxi Interstate I-110 Viaduct. In this project different
types of erection girders were used. The authors report that on some spans triangular trusses were
implemented, and on the other hand steel box girders came into use, which left more clearance
for traffic underneath (Phipps and Spruill 1990). Erection girders were supported at their ends
by steel falsework resting on the footings at each pier (Phipps and Spruill 1990, p130). After
completion of a span the erection girders were set forward to the next span and adjusted. By then,
the precast segments for this span had already been supplied and would be lifted in place by
crane. Fine adjustments of the segments on the erection girders were possible by means of
variable individual supports. Finally, post-tensioning would be performed to link all the segments
together to form a complete span. The structure became self-supporting after casting of the
closure joints with the pier table segments had been done and the longitudinal prestressing force
was induced. With the method described, an erection speed of one span per about 3.5 days could
be achieved (Phipps and Spruill 1990).
187
Erection girder need not rest on the ground, but can also be supported by already existing
substructure or superstructure, e.g. the piers of a span that is to be constructed. Project specific
design of substructure and superstructure and considerations as e.g. for traffic clearances set the
boundaries for erection with erection girders.
Span-By-Span Erection
Placement of
Segments
Figure 4-9: Span-By-Span Erection
4.3
CONSIDERATION OF CONSTRUCTION LOADS AND STRESSES
The following sections deal with the relationship between construction loads and the stresses that
these induce in structures and the structures themselves while they are under construction and
still awaiting completion. The central issue for all considerations is structural safety, meaning
failure against structural failure. The generic concept of resistance R that is greater than the most
unfavorable combination of load S that induces stresses has been introduced in Section 3.5.2.
Codes require that all construction influences will be properly taken into account during design.
Even a professional code applicable for bridges (ACI 1995, p51) in its Section 5.3 only points
out that Consideration should be given to temporary loads caused by the sequence of
construction stages, forming, falsework, or construction equipment and the stresses created by
lifting and placing precast members. It assigns the responsibility for the construction scheme,
which imposes stresses on the structural members, to the contractor. It is further pointed out that
188
the stability of precast members and prestressing should be taken into account. Environmental
loads should be considered during construction using an appropriate return period or reduced
severity. Lower load factors may be used to account for the acceptability of higher temporary
stress levels (ACI 1995, p51). The aforementioned load factors are provided in tables in the
same code.
How the actual process has to be accomplished in detail remains the structural engineers task.
Close cooperation of designer and contractor in development of the construction sequence
contributes to quality.
For better understanding of the relationship between structures under construction and actions
influencing them it is useful to get a clear definition of the technical terms related to this topic.
The nature of actions has been explained in Section 3.5.3 as any loads or restrained deformations
that can cause stresses within the structural system. The term construction loads should in this
context be understood as the broader sense of any actions that occur during construction of the
structure prior to normal service conditions.
Then again, the concept of construction loads needs to be extended by consideration of the
uncompleted structure during construction, which may not have reached full resistance to
imposed actions.
The term erection method denotes the physical means of putting the foundations, bridge
substructure, and especially its superstructure into place. Every type of erection method requires
certain equipment and site installations to carry out the work tasks. The erection methods goes
along with specific limitations imposed on the flow of work tasks to be scheduled, e.g. that
bridge piers have to be finished prior to begin of incremental launching of a bridge
superstructure.
The construction sequence is the specific succession of work tasks for one particular project
developed under consideration of the erection method chosen for its conditions and restraints for
economic construction.
189
Construction stages are notable steps within the progression of work tasks from the initial site
operations startup to the finished structure. These steps can be distinguished by the appearance of
the structural system, loading conditions, or other factors.
Load steps can be defined as specific sets of loads on a structure in its current construction
stages. These load steps or load cases are combinations of actions that are anticipated to occur at
the same time with a certain probability, and are incorporated into analytical calculations with
partial factors of safety.
4.3.1
Types of Construction Loads and Influences
Generally, construction loads are by nature of relatively short duration in comparison with the
overall planned service life of a structure. Construction loads may influence a structure over a
brief time only, e.g. from equipment or material for a new segment that is temporarily stored on
an already completed part of the superstructure of a bridge. Construction loads can affect the
structure in very unfavorable conditions, e.g. when a crane is located at the tip of a cantilever to
place segments. Thus resulting stresses in the structure can even exceed stresses due to
permanent and dynamic loads under service.
Real loads are generally distinguished into two classes, dead loads and live loads. During
construction the structure has to carry its own weight, its dead load, and the superimposed dead
loads of bridge parts that are not structurally important but necessary for service, as e.g. the
bridge furniture, the so-called accessories.
Many different live loads influence the structure. In most of all cases, live loads are idealized
either as uniformly loaded areas on the superstructure or as singular loads from larger pieces of
equipment. Live loads can result from erection equipment, e.g. the launching nose in incremental
launching and lifting devices placed on the structure such as cranes and launching girders. Forces
are also imposed on the structure through restraints from fixed bearings during construction, e.g.
on piers for cantilevering. Along with these structural details, the boundary conditions can still
change; e.g. considerable settlements can occur when the soil is initially loaded. Temporary
190
supports, e.g. additional temporary towers for long spans or stay cables also generate stresses in
the superstructure. Another factor to be considered is the prestressing tendons that are installed in
the concrete members to withstand stresses during construction and under service. More
longitudinal forces can be caused by the erection itself, e.g. horizontal jacking forces during
incremental launching. Formwork and supporting installations, e.g. the forms and frames in a
launching girder also impose live loads, as well as the fresh concrete that it carries.
Finally, environmental influences also create changing loads on the structure, e.g. wind, snow,
and temperature gradients. Extreme events, such as floods, storms, and earthquakes can also hit a
structure during construction and may need to be considered in the calculations. Apart from these
Acts of God, accidents may happen. Podolny and Muller (1982) note that to prevent a scenario
such as falling of a form traveler during cantilevering, inspections are necessary. They also note
that critical fixtures, e.g. suspension rods that reach through the superstructure and anchor bars
that hold the traveler, need to have a large safety margin and may be provided in double numbers.
In general, cast-in-place cantilever construction has established an extremely good safety
record (Podolny and Muller 1982, p482).
The aforementioned extreme load cases are mostly considered with a lower factor of safety than
for service conditions (ACI 1995). The reason for this approach lies in the reduced probability of
occurrence during the relatively short construction period in comparison with the total duration
of service for which the bridge structure is designed. More explanation for this rationale lies in
the fact that although the resistance is reduced during construction the structure produces less
danger for the general public, as it has not been opened for traffic by then. Furthermore, the
bridge under construction is under direct control of engineering personnel on site that can
immediately take appropriate measures if necessary to ensure safety of further construction
works.
When looking at the structure and its behavior during construction, a striking similarity with the
model presented in Section 3.5.1 appears. In fact, when looking at any structure the four main
elements are geometry of the structural system, structural details and restraints from boundary
conditions, material properties, and loads. For analysis of how a structure behaves while being
under construction the same elements need to be taken into consideration.
191
After having considered the loads and restraints, i.e. all actions, two elements remain to be
discussed. The geometry of the structural system itself is developing continuously with progress
of construction depending in a manner that depends on the erection method and needs to be
considered. Incomplete structures, e.g. the cantilever beam prior to midspan closure for
continuity are inherently weaker than in the finished state because of less structural redundancy.
All these different construction stages need to be analyzed as a combination of load cases and the
resistance of the structure at that construction stage for structural safety.
Apart from that structural resistance the material resistance may also be weaker than in the final
state. Especially for cast-in-place segmental bridges the still young concrete usually has not
developed its full specified strength when it is being prestressed and loaded with more segments
for quick erection. The structural resistance and material resistance can also be understood as the
two components of structural safety, namely strength and stability, as outlined in Section 3.1.3.
Summarizing, stresses induced by construction loads may be higher than those from service loads
as the incomplete structural system is mostly different and weaker than finished structures,
concrete has not gained full strength, and the boundary conditions may be different from the
service state. In other words, the great importance of construction stages lies in the criticality that
results from the still low structural and material resistance, while loads may be actually more
adverse and boundary conditions different.
4.3.1.1 The Zilwaukee Bridge

Underestimating the construction loads and their effects on the unfinished structure caused
several accidents and failures of bridge structures under construction in the past. An example for
an accident of a bridge under construction is provided by Anon. (1988), who describes
construction of the Zilwaukee Bridge in Michigan. The new bridge provided a replacement an
old drawbridge on Interstate I-75 that was necessary because of growing traffic. According to
Anon. (1988, p69), the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) made plans for both
192
alternatives of a steel plate girder and a precast segmental concrete bridge to foster competition
and thus reduce the project cost.
Construction of the concrete structure began in 1981 after a longer bidding process. The
dimensions of the two parallel box girder superstructures are 2.4 km in length with a 38-m high
navigation clearance and a width of 22 m. Balanced cantilevering under a launching girder was
chosen for erection of the 1,592 precast segments. A heavy-duty truck delivered segments
weighing about 110 to 145 metric tons on the bridge. They were placed with the 287-m long,
1,540 metric tons heavy launching girder. Thus, during construction, the new bridge is subjected
every day to far heavier loads that it will ever experience after it is opened to traffic (Anon.
1988, p70).
During construction all expansion joints were blocked against movements by inserting
temporary high-strength concrete blocks, which are fixed with tie-downs (Anon. 1988, p71). In
late 1982 an accident occurred when these blocks failed in one of the joints, which caused the
respective superstructure to tilt and sag at one end, damaging bearings, joints, and a pier footing
that was forced out of the vertical. The subsequent investigation concluded that the main cause
for this incident was construction loads at the particular location that were too heavy (Anon.
1988, p71). Difficult repair works were undertaken to realign and reinforce the pier at its base.
Adjacent soil was temporarily frozen for stabilization and a major concrete counterweight was
placed. Afterwards, pile holes were drilled and filled with concrete, on which the reinforced pier
base was erected. A structural steel frame was fabricated and erected on top of the new footing,
and fitted with 12 hydraulic jacks (Anon. 1988, p72) that should help realigning the
superstructure. After new bearings and connecting cables to the counterweight had been installed
the superstructure was brought back into alignment and construction work commenced again
until opening in 1988.
193
4.3.1.2 The West Gate Bridge

A much more severe failure of a bridge under construction occurred in 1970 in Australia, when a
112-m long steel box girder span of the West Gate Bridge, crossing the Lower Yarra River in the
Melbourne area collapsed during construction (Royal Commission 1971). The description of the
circumstances that led to the total failure and loss of 35 lives reads like a thriller, i.e. like a
compilation of how not to perform a bridge project. Again, the construction influences were
underestimated.
In this case, the whole project throughout the time before the collapse had been plagued with
errors and omissions in overall structural design, in detailing, and in preparation and checking of
field operations, as the Royal Commission (1971) concludes from its investigation. According to
their report, already the design lacked proper consideration of the unusual erection method that
had been proposed. Safety margins for the box girder that was divided into longitudinal halves
were insufficient even despite strengthening that was added after failure of the Milford Haven
Bridge in Wales some months earlier. Even earlier, in 1969 the Forth Danube Bridge in Vienna
had suffered major buckling in the lower parts of its steel box girder (Royal Commission 1971).
Lack of open communication between project participants, especially between the engineering
consultants and the contractors personnel, as well as other managerial disputes and strikes of
union workers further contributed to the unhealthy atmosphere under which the novel structure
was to be constructed.
Direct cause of the collapse was removal of bolts that connected the box girder halves in an
attempt to straighten out buckling that had occurred. Matching the seams between the two halves
of the steel box girder in the lifted position had already earlier proved to be very difficult, despite
efforts of jacking them together and using heavy kentledges to match the camber lines of the
spans. The asymmetric trapezoidal halves tended to bow out of shape when being jacked up at
both ends. In its conclusion, the Royal Commission (1971, p97) once again stressed the need for
continuous reviews, checks, and improvement particularly in bridge engineering:
Engineers engaged on the design of major bridges cannot stand still. It is part of
their duty, not only to their clients but to the community as a whole, to advance, to
194
develop new concepts of design, to adopt new methods of calculation such as the
computer and to encourage the production and use of improved materials, as high
tensile steels and pre-stressed concrete. () It is however necessary to emphasize
that when leading designers are working as pioneers, only just within the bounds
of the engineers knowledge, some slight misjudgment, or failure to appreciate
every aspect of a new problem may prove disastrous and bring fatal and tragic
results. Under these conditions, it is more than ever necessary to employ really
adequate margins of safety and to ensure that they are not eroded by various
unexpected and accidental factors, including of course, imponderables and
human fallibility.
4.3.2
Influence of Erection Method and Construction Sequence
Typically, every erection method with its succession of construction stages brings about a
characteristic stress development in the structure. Examples from different erection methods that
are presented in more detail in Section 4.2 illustrated this point.
Wide use of segmental bridge construction, which is described in Section 3.6.1 makes it possible
to clearly distinguish steps whenever a new segment is placed. Computer software is used to
model these steps and analyze them to ensure that limit stress values are not exceeded at any
time.
Goi (1995) describes how calculations for the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Bridge were
carried out. This cable-stayed bridge was modeled with plane frame analysis software that
accounted for the stepwise construction and time-dependent material properties as needed by the
structural engineers. Input data that were used for processing are given in the following (Goi
1995, p31):
Material properties of each segment including their creep and shrinkage

characteristics.
Data of casting and erection of each box girder segment.
Material properties of each tendon including area, modules of elasticity,

relaxation characteristics, and the friction and wobble parameters that affect
the force along the length of the tendon.
Tendon dimensions and layout.
Properties of each cable stay including area, modules of elasticity, and

location of their connections to the pylon and deck.
Coordinates of the model nodes and definition of the segments.
Definition of all the construction loads applied during erection.
Definition of the support and restraint conditions of all of the structural

elements.
Definition at every construction phase of segments and stays to be assembled,

tendons to be stressed, construction loads to be applied, and boundary
conditions to be implemented.
195
Incremental launching basically functions by incrementally pushing the superstructure from the
shore where it is produced over the bridge piers to cross the obstacle. The tip of the cantilever
with the launching nose will consecutively be free cantilevering in the spans and be supported by
the piers. This erection method causes complete stress reversal in the girder, which makes
considerable top and bottom prestressing necessary. If the range of bending moments from this
launching process is depicted along the superstructure, a moment envelope results, which is e.g.
provided by Basse et al. (1985) for the example of the Aichtal Bridge. Reinforcement and
prestressing tendons need to withstand these stresses at the respective locations.
Balanced cantilevering needs to be safe against overturning moments from construction loads as
described in the previous Section 4.3.1 until closure of span. The stresses within the cantilevering
girder do no change their sign, but with advancement of the form travelers to cast a new segment
or placement of a new segment the cantilever stresses will increase. Ways to alleviate danger of
overturning are use of additional temporary towers with vertical prestressing to withstand vertical
compression and tension from unbalanced cantilever arms, and temporarily fixing hinged
bearings that are located on top of the piers. Mathivat (1983) gives an example of vertical
prestressing within the pier table segment to rigidly attach the superstructure to the pier. The
piers need to be designed strong enough to withstand bending moments that might occur from the
most unfavorable combination of actions on the growing cantilever. A brief list of possible
causes for overturning moment is taken from Mathivat (1983, pp159f) and adapted in Table 4-4
for easier reading:
196
Table 4-4: Causes for Cantilever Imbalance

Cause for Imbalance
Non-coincident work progress
Construction inaccuracies
Site temporary loads
Wind loads
Construction accidents
Example
Concreting or segment placement faster on one side
Weight difference between cantilever arms
Material stored on cantilever arm
Gales attacking the structure at an angle
Falling of concreting or placement equipment
Figure 4-10 illustrates some of the aforementioned causes for cantilever imbalance during
construction.
Temporary Loads
Form
Travelers
Segment
Imbalance
Wind
Figure 4-10: Causes for Cantilever Imbalance
Falsework has characteristics very different from the previously presented erection methods. It
provides the structure that is erected on it with approximately continuous elastic support. The
deflection of the formwork and falsework itself as well as settlements of soil on which it is
founded need to be considered in stress and deflection calculation. The superstructure camber
needs to be adjusted accordingly.
4.3.3
Existing Codes and Regulations
A variety of codes and regulations have to be taken into account when designing a bridge. The
following paragraphs give an overview of these codes and regulations.
197
4.3.3.1 American Concrete Institute

The American Concrete Institute (ACI) issues so-called Committee Reports, Guides, Standard
Practices, and Commentaries (ACI 1995, p1) that are developed and updated by expert
committees. Apart from the general building code ACI 318 (ACI 1999), the ACI 343R-95
Analysis and Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Structures (ACI 1995) is of prime
importance for bridge structures. It covers functional requirements, including even a short section
on bridge aesthetics, economics, and erection, materials, basic considerations for construction
works, load cases, design aspects, characteristics of prestressed and precast concrete, substructure
and superstructure, and reinforcement details. Initial sections on requirements for bridges and
construction considerations provide a brief overview of topics related to this study. ACI 343R-95
also gives reference where applicable to other institutions that issue codes and regulations. ACI
345-82 Standard Practice for Concrete Highway Bridge Deck Construction is referenced.
4.3.3.2 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

Another important organization is the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation and Highway Officials (AASHTO). AASHTO issues the Standard Specifications
for Highway Bridges (AASHTO 1996) and Guide Specifications for Design and Construction
of Segmental Concrete Bridges (AASHTO 1998b), along with other manual on construction
practices and specifications for bridge and highway projects (AASHTO 1980), (AASHTO 1985).
Furthermore, AASHTO provides engineers with detailed information on sampling and testing of
materials and their properties for use in transportation projects (AASHTO 1998a). Concrete and
its ingredients, structural steel, steel bolts, metal alloys, reinforcement bars, soil, and timber are
amongst the materials covered. In addition to these topics, testing equipment and procedures are
also described in the comprehensive volume.
In particular, the Guide Specifications for Design and Construction of Segmental Concrete
Bridges (AASHTO 1998b) have been developed with respect to the growing number of
segmental bridges to provide information to bridge engineers. The very first section of this guide
(AASHTO 1998b, p6) states that normally the provisions of the Sixteenth Edition of the
198
AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges (AASHTO 1996) are intended to apply
to the design of segmental concrete bridges.
These Guide Specifications for Design and Construction of Segmental Concrete Bridges
provide information specifically devised for segmental bridge construction. The manual
comprises two main divisions, dealing with design specifications and with construction
specifications.
Section headings of Division IDesign Specifications include general requirements and
materials, analysis, design, detailing, substructure design, and special provisions for bridge types,
specifications, contract drawings, and alternate construction methods (AASHTO 1998b). In
particular, the subsections under these sections briefly deal with analytical methods, provide
loads and applicable load factors, deal with seismic design, provide information on stresses,
prestress losses, flexural strength, shear and torsion, fatigue stress limits, and deal with the
specifics of anchorage zones. Furthermore, constructive details, such as ducts, couplers, concrete
cover and reinforcement spacing, bearings, expansion joints, and cross-sectional dimensions for
box girders are covered.
Subsection headings of Division IIConstruction Specifications include a variety of materials,
such as concrete, mild reinforcement and post-tensioning materials, and guidelines on
construction procedures that are specific to the various methods of segmental bridge
construction, e.g. installation, stressing of post-tensioning tendons and grouting of their ducts,
application of epoxy as a joint sealant, geometry control, shop drawings, bearings, construction
tolerances, and repair of minor defects. The last subsections deal with cast-in-place segmental
construction, precast segmental construction, and incremental launching individually (AASHTO
1998b).
The AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges (AASHTO 1996) is a very
comprehensive compilation that provides information for a wide range of issues pertaining to
design of construction of all kinds of highway bridges. The two main divisions, titled design and
construction, respectively, deal with structural systems of bridges, materials and their properties
and testing as well as with details, such as prestressing tendons and anchorages, bearings, joints,
199
bridge decks, retaining walls, and railings (AASHTO 1996). Seismic design is covered in a
separate section.
In particular, the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges provide information on
the following actions that may affect the structure: Dead load, live load, impact or dynamic effect
of the live load, wind loads, other forces, such as longitudinal forces, centrifugal force, thermal
forces, earth pressure, buoyancy, shrinkage stresses, rib shortening, erection stresses, ice and
current pressure, and earthquake stresses (AASHTO 1996, p19). However, no reference is given
to erection stages in this context. Section 8.15.3 of Division IIConstruction is dealing with
construction loads and states the following (AASHTO 1996, p493):
Light materials and equipment may be carried on bridge decks only after the
concrete has been in place at least 24 hours, providing curing is not interfered
with and the surface texture is not damaged. Vehicles needed for construction
activities and weighing between 1,000 and 4,000 pounds [0.454 and 1.814 metric
tons], and comparable materials and equipment loads, will be allowed on any
span only after the last placed deck has attained a compressive strength of at least
2,400 pounds per square inch [16.55 N/mm2]. Loads in excess of the above shall
not be carried on bridge decks until the deck concrete has reached its specified
strength. In addition, for post-tensioned structures, vehicles weighing over 4,500
pounds [2.041 metric tons], and comparable materials and equipment loads, will
not be allowed on any span until the prestressing steel for that span has been
tensioned.
Finally, the provisions of the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges give actual
information on how to treat erection methods (AASHTO 1996, p493):
Otherwise, loads imposed on existing, new or partially completed portions of
structures due to construction operations shall not exceed the load-carrying
capacity of the structure, or portion of the structure, as determined by the Load
Factor Design methods of AASHTO using Load Group IB. The compressive
strength of concrete (fc) to be used in computing the load-carrying capacity shall
be the smaller of the actual compressive strength at the time of loading or the
specified compressive strength of the concrete.
Table 3.22.1A of Division IDesign provides coefficients for different combinations of loads,
including the aforementioned Load Group IB for both Load Factor Design and Service Load. The
following Table 4-5 gives the values of the aforementioned table particularly applicable for
construction loads, i.e. Load Group IB within Load Factor Design (AASHTO 1996, pp30f):
200
Table 4-5: Coefficients and for Load Factor Design, Group IB

Group
IB
1.3
D
D
(L+I)n
0
(L+I)p
1
CF
1.0
E
E
B
1
SF
1
W
0
WL
0
LF
0
R+S+T
0
EQ
0
ICE
0
(Taken from AASHTO 1996, Table 3.22.1A)
with
= load factor, see Table 3.22.1.A;
LF = longitudinal force from live load;
= coefficient, see Table 3.22.1.A;
CF = centrifugal force;
D = dead load;
R = rib shortening;
L = live load;
S = shrinkage;
I = live load impact;
T = temperature;
E = earth pressure;
EQ = earthquake;
B = buoyancy;
SF = stream flow pressure;
W = wind load on structure;
ICE = ice pressure
WL = wind load on live load100 pounds

per linear foot [1.459 kN/m];
and
(L + I)n - Live load plus impact for AASHTO Highway H or HS loading
(L + I)p - Live load plus impact consistent with the overload criteria of the operation agency
(AASHTO 1996, p30).
201
Values for the coefficient for earth pressure E and the coefficient for dead load D are provided
in the explanations for Table 3.22.1A. Applicable in the case of members in bridge
superstructures would be E = 0.5 to 1.3 for different cases of earth pressure and D = 0.75 to 1.0
For Column Design or D = 1.0 for flexural and tension members, respectively (AASHTO
1996, p30).
4.3.3.3 American Society for Testing and Materials

The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) also provides comprehensive
specifications on the manifold aspects of materials testing and gives information on properties of
construction materials, e.g. structural steel, reinforcement bars, and concrete and its ingredients
(ASTM 1996).
4.3.3.4 American Welding Society

The American Welding Society (AWS) provides standards for welding of reinforcing bars,
including information on material characteristics, limit stresses, splice details, quality of
workmanship and inspections, and on the different welding techniques (AWS 1975).
4.3.3.5 Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute

The Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute (CRSI 1996) gives detailed information on formwork
systems as well as reinforcement bars and welded wire fabric.
202
4.3.3.6 Other Institutions

Other notable institutions are the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the
Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI), the Portland Cement Association (PCA), and the
Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Research Council. They publish manuals
and professional journals on concrete and steel technology that present state-of-the-art design
methods and construction projects.
4.3.3.7 Federal Highway Administration

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is a branch of the U.S. Department of
Transportation and is located in Washington, D.C. with so-called field offices all over the nation.
It is fulfilling its mission of creating and maintaining high-quality transportation systems in
several ways. The following brief summary is based on information provided by the Federal
Highway Administration on its site on the World Wide Web (FHWA 1999).
A main area of FHWA activities is provision of technical expertise for design, construction, and
maintenance of transportation projects through close cooperation with regional and local
authorities. To support this work research projects are undertaken, e.g. in advanced technologies
for supervision of traffic. Secondly, the FHWA supervises federal funding for transportation
projects and sets up regulations for such projects. In case of natural disasters and other major
incidents in the transportation systems the FHWA assists with investigation and repair works.
The FHWA also develops regulations and guidelines for construction projects that are related to
public transportation.
Apart from regulatory work the FHWA is also active in the field of training and educating
professionals in transportation issues, such as safety, economy, and protection of the
environment. An example for training is seismic bridge design, which the FHWA conducted to
improve safety of bridge structure in case of earthquakes. The very large variety of programs that
the FHWA sponsors shows the involvement of this institution in bridge construction.
203
4.3.3.8 Owner Specifications

Finally, the owner of a construction project usually provides detailed information in form of
plans (VDOT 1997b) and specifications (VDOT 1998) that comprise the documents for
advertisement of bidding. For bridge projects the owners will predominantly be the State
Departments of Transportation, e.g. the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT), which issues Metric Road and Bridge Specifications (VDOT 1997c).
These include two major parts, the General Provisions that provide general rules for contractual
issues and the Specifications, which deal with different topics such as materials, roadway
construction, bridges and other structures, incidental construction works, roadside development,
and traffic control devices.
CHAPTER 5: CASE STUDY THE WILSON

CREEK BRIDGE
Chapter 5 comprises a constructability analysis of a real-life bridge project to enhance

understanding of concepts introduced in previous chapters and give an example of how design
and construction are actually carried out. This case study shall provide a link to construction
engineering practice by documenting the sequence of construction phases, the techniques and
resources used, and what structural and managerial considerations contributed to the project
planning and execution.
5.1
PROJECT CONCEPTUALIZATION
The following sections introduce the case study project, the Wilson Creek Bridge. Apart from
giving general information on the nature, location, and construction of the Wilson Creek Bridge,
legal provisions set forth in the contract between owner and contractor and financial provisions
will be presented.
5.1.1
General Project Overview
The bridge project to be used in this case study is located in Montgomery County in the
Commonwealth of Virginia. Montgomery County is located in Salem District, which comprises
twelve counties in the southwestern part of Virginia. The bridge will be crossing Wilson Creek
and Ellett Road (Route 723) in Ellett Valley, which is located between Blacksburg and
Christiansburg. Figure 5-1 shows the location of the project.
204
Chapter 5: Case Study The Wilson Creek Bridge
205
Figure 5-1: Location of the Wilson Creek Bridge (taken from The Roanoke Times 1999a)
5.1.2
Smart Road Project
The route that will run across the bridge is part of Virginias Smart Road project, which in turn is
part of Virginias Smart Travel Program, as information on the Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of Transportation site on the World Wide Web lines out (VDOT 1999). Following
information specifically pertaining to the Smart Road was obtained from this source, unless
otherwise referenced. The Smart Road project is undertaken jointly by the Commonwealth of
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Center for Transportation Research
(CTR) at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Further information from the Center
for Transportation Research site on the World Wide Web (CTR 1999) also mentions
involvement of the Virginia Transportation Research Council and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA).

5.1.3
206
Objective of Smart Road and Overview
The Smart Travel Program is supposed to enhance quality of traveling by use of state-of-the-art
technology, e.g. traveler information services pertaining to current traffic and weather conditions,
and by other research projects. The Smart Road project consists of several phases with an
anticipated overall date of completion of about 2015. It was initiated to do research on safer
highways and vehicles (VDOT 1997a). Finally, the Smart Road will comprise a 9.2-km long
highway from Blacksburg, passing Christiansburg and running to the Southeast towards
Interstate I-81.
This multifunctional research facility provides an instrumented road including several pavement
sections of different composition and alignment equipped with modern fiber optic
communications technology, 72 snow-making towers to simulate different weather conditions,
and variable lighting poles. A control and visitors center is being built to provide the necessary
facilities for preparation and supervision of research being conducted and to present information
on the Smart Road to the public. Construction of the aforementioned bridge with a completion
date in Fall of 2000 is another important phase in the project. A smaller bridge within the project
incorporates Cathodic Protection in its deck to conduct research on means of preventing
corrosion of concrete bridge structures.
According to information from the Center for Transportation Research site on the World Wide
Web (CTR 1999) the 2.7-km long Test Bed in the middle part of the two westbound lanes of the
highway will be constructed and instrumented in stages while the eastbound lanes are prepared to
grade but not paved. The Test Bed will have turnarounds at both ends to accommodate
continuous driving for research purposes. A considerable amount of earthwork including a major
cut through rock is necessary to construct the Test Bed.
In a later stage the westbound lanes will be connected to Blacksburg and Interstate I-81, as well
as the highway parallel to the Test Bed will be constructed as a detour for the through traffic.
Research can continue on the Test Bed after the highway has been opened for through traffic
with one lane in each direction. Finally, construction of the remaining parts of the eastbound
lanes will provide a two-lane divided highway. For these eastbound lanes a bridge similar to the
207
Wilson Creek Bridge would be built (VDOT 1997b). Figure 5-2 schematically shows the Smart
Road project.
Figure 5-2: The Smart Road Project (taken from The Roanoke Times 1999b)
5.1.4
Regional Traffic Infrastructure
Apart from the outlined research determination the second major function of the Smart Road is to
provide a new two-lane divided highway. It will finally serve the growing traffic volume as a
208
better connection than the current Route 460 between the Town of Blacksburg and Interstate I81, which runs through Southwest Virginia following the direction of the scenic Blue Ridge
Mountains. Thus, both research interests and improvement of regional traffic infrastructure are
accommodated in this project. Positive effects on the regional economic development are
anticipated.
5.1.5
Bridge Overview
The bridge to be built is a cast-in-place concrete segmental bridge. Because of being part of the
Smart Road project, the bridge is also colloquially referred to as the Smart Highway Bridge, or
simply the Smart Bridge. It will cross Ellett Valley with five spans that add to a total length of
605.00 m. Three central spans have a length of 144.00 m each, the side spans are 86.50 m wide
(VDOT 1997c), measured center-to-center. The bridge superstructure consists of a single box
girder with cantilevering flanges. It has a varying depth that reaches its maximum at the piers.
The Wilson Creek Bridge is built utilizing Balanced Cantilever Construction, which has been
introduced in Section 4.2.1.3. This special erection method for a major segmental bridge is still
somewhat rare in the U.S. Cantilevering will subsequently be performed about each of the four
piers until midspan is reached with the respective cantilever arms. Piers are hollow cast-in-place
shafts with a vertical taper. They are numbered 1 through 4 between Abutment A on the
northwestern end of the bridge and Abutment B on the southeastern end of the bridge.
The alignment of the bridge is straight without any horizontal curvature. There is, however, a
constant 6% vertical down grade, which leads into a 700 meter vertical sag curve just past the
center of span 3 (Janssen & Spaans 1999a, p1). In the transverse direction the slope of the
bridge deck is constant with 2 % for drainage of the bridge deck. Figure 5-3 shows the overall
elevation of the bridge.
209
Figure 5-3: Overall Elevation of the Wilson Creek Bridge (taken from VDOT 1997c, p1)
5.1.6
Parties Involved
Owner of this bridge structure is the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation

(VDOT). VDOT, represented through its Structure and Bridge Division assigned the task of
bridge design for bidding purposes to Figg Engineers, Inc. of Tallahassee, FL. The shop drawings
for actual project execution were prepared by Janssen & Spaans Engineering, Inc. of
Indianapolis, IN, consulting engineers to the contractor, PCL Civil Constructors, Inc. of Coral
Springs, FL (PCL).
210
Other parties involved in construction of the project were the subcontractors and suppliers. Of
particular interest in this study is the company that manufactured the form travelers for the
Wilson Creek Bridge, AVAR Construction Systems, Inc. of Campbell, CA. More information on
the functioning of these pieces of equipment is provided in Section 5.3.4. Figure 5-4 shows the
major contractual parties involved in the Wilson Creek Bridge project.
OWNER
Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of Transportation
(VDOT)
(Structure and Bridge Division)
CONTRACTOR
PCL Civil Constructors, Inc., FL
Constructed Wilson Creek Bridge
Supplied Site Personnel
ENGINEERING CONSULTANT
Figg Engineers, Inc., FL
Prepared Shop Drawings, Structural
Calculations, Geometry Control Manual
ENGINEERING CONSULTANT
Janssen & Spaans Engineering, Inc., IN
Designed Plan Drawings for Bidding
Reviewed Contractors Submittals
SUBCONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS

e.g. AVAR Construction Systems, Inc., CA
Manufactured Form Travelers for Wilson Creek Bridge
Figure 5-4: Contractual Parties
5.1.7
Contractual Provisions
Comprehensive bidding documents were set up by the owner for the bridge project to be
examined in this study. Submittal of the documents completed by bidders was on February 24,
1998. An interesting prequalification requirement for bidders was submittal of proof of three
211
previously completed concrete segmental bridges including a narrative of related experience and
resumes for each of the bidders individual Project Team members (VDOT 1998, p35).
Low bidder for this project was PCL Civil Constructors, Inc. of Coral Springs, FL. Total bid
value for the project was $ 14,647,120.00. On June 1, 1998 this low bid was accepted and
recommended to the Commonwealth Transportation Board of Virginia, which awarded the
contract to PCL (VDOT 1998).
The contract bears the contract identification number C00016931C02, the project number given
in these documents is (FO) IVHS-060-0101, C502, B603. The abbreviation IVHS stands for
Intelligent Vehicle-Highway System. Overall, this specific part of the Smart Road project
comprises construction of 0.860 km of grade, drain, traffic control devices, asphalt pavement,
and the bridge itself within the framework of the aforementioned Smart Road project. The fixed
end date specified for the whole Design-Bid-Build project is June 1, 2000 (VDOT 1998).
In the contract and on the plans it is stated that construction of the Wilson Creek Bridge and the
surrounding works needs to adhere to the following legal provisions (VDOT 1998):
VDOT Metric Road and Bridge Specifications (January 1997);
VDOT Road and Bridge Standards (January 1994);
Virginia Work Area Protection Manual (January 1996);
Special Provisions and Special Provision Copied Notes (as listed in the contract).
Thus, the General Provisions and the Specifications set forth in the aforementioned documents
effectively become part of the contract. In come cases they are modified by the Special
Provisions that are written specifically for this project. For this reason, special provisions are also
called Project Provisions.
Most of the contract document for the Wilson Creek Bridge thus consists of alterations of parts
of sections from the aforementioned generic legal provisions. Alterations of the General
212
Provisions adjust the contractual relationship between the Contractor PCL and the Owner VDOT
to the specific needs of the project. Alteration of Specification that are provided by the contract
deal with a broad variety of construction materials and supplies, and testing thereof, as well as
with specific construction techniques, control thereof, and requirements to protect the natural
environment. Information on gas, electricity, and communications lines is also given. Finally, the
contract contains e.g. Federal-Aid Construction Provisions pertaining e.g. to payments and Equal
Employment Opportunity (EEO) and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) requirements
(VDOT 1998).
5.1.8
Financial Provisions
A large variety of separate payment items are mentioned in the contract documents for the
Wilson Creek Bridge. A revised schedule of liquidated damages is provided in the contract that
determines the daily charge of liquidated damages for different original contract values; for the
Wilson Creek Bridge with a contract value between $ 8,000,000 and $ 15,000,000, a sum of $
1,100 of liquidated damages per day is determined. The contract documents determine with
respect to payments (VDOT 1998, p69):
Partial payments will be made once each month for the work performed in
accordance with the contract requirements () When the value of the value of
the work completed on critical operations detailed on the earnings schedule is
behind the value of the work planned for these operations by more than 10
percent, the Contractor may be notified that if the next monthly progress estimate
shows a delinquency of more than 10 percent, progress will be considered
unsatisfactory and 5 percent retainage will be withheld for each month the
Contractor is behind by more than 10 percent.
The following compilation gives a brief overview of how individual items are paid for (VDOT
1998):
Lump Sum Items:

Site mobilization works (paid for in two parts), construction surveying, concrete
surface color coating, work bridge across Wilson Creek, equipment for segmental
erection (50 % retainage until completion of first segments).
213
Unit Price Items:

Material for storm water management (SWM) system, pavement, deck drainage,
piles,
tooth
expansion
joints,
conduits,
guardrails,
aggregate
material,
miscellaneous minor items, backfill material.
Monthly Rate Items:

Field office.
Many details are incidental costs to the member in which they are installed. The main
construction materials, i.e. concrete, mild reinforcement, and post-tensioning steel will be paid
for as follows (VDOT 1998):
Concrete and mild reinforcement is both paid for by unit price complete-in-place
(VDOT 1998, p139); with concrete being paid for per cubic meter and epoxy-coated
reinforcement being paid for per kilogram. Labor cost and details related to the concrete
structure, such as blockouts or formwork are incidental to this cost.
Post-tensioning steel tendons are all pair for per kilogram, including equipment and labor
cost for installation operations of the tendons. Ducts and anchorages are incidental cost to
the cost for the tendons themselves.
Mass concrete, as found in the pier tables is a separate payment item, which is paid for by
cubic meter.
Latex-modified concrete for the bridge deck is paid for per cubic meter, its placement is
paid for per square meter.
5.2
214
PROJECT DESIGN
The following sections give a more detailed description of the structural system of the bridge and
information that plans and specifications provide for the bridge project. The main elements of the
bridge, namely foundations, substructure, superstructure, and supplementary works will be
briefly described and their characteristics will be lined out. Special consideration is given to
documents that provide a detailed outline of the steps of the erection sequence and of control
mechanisms.
5.2.1
Member Designation
Cantilevering the box girder spans will begin on both sides of the pier tables in the so-called Up
Station and Down Station directions. Up Station denotes the direction from the pier table towards
Abutment B; the so-called B-segments that are on the Up Station side of every pier thus carry a U
in their identification number. Down Station denotes the direction from the pier table towards
Abutment A; the so-called A-segments that are on the Down Station side of every pier thus carry
a D in their identification number. This notation is not consistent with the overall longitudinal
slope of the bridge and may therefore initially be confusing.
However, the technical explanation for this denotation arises from overall site surveying. As the
project start is located at the northeast end, all counting and naming begins at that location.
Station marks begin with zero at Abutment A, thus determining the Up Station direction towards
the other abutment. Abutment A is followed by Piers 1 through 4 and Abutment B. Spans are
numbered 1 through 5 in the Up Station direction. An example of the segment designation is
All superstructure segments have a unique identifying code that comprises the pier number, the
Up Station or Down Station direction for that particular pier, and the number of the segment in
the respective half span. A segment designation thus could e.g. be P1-U7, i.e. segment number 7
in the cantilever arm in Up Station direction from Pier 1. Shop drawing sheets are numbered
according to this segment designation.
215
Figure 5-5: Segment Designation for Cantilever Arms About Pier 2

(taken from Janssen & Spaans Engineering, Inc. 1998, pS1)
Further special notation is provided for joints between individual segments. Segment joints in the
Down Station cantilever arms are denoted alphabetically by two letters, segment joints in the Up
Station cantilever are denoted alphabetically by one letter only. Tendons are denoted with a twopart code. The first part, B or T and a number tells that the tendon is a bottom slab continuity
tendon or a top slab cantilever tendon in a particular span, the second part is a number giving the
correct order of post-tensioning.
5.2.2
Member Geometry
After having familiarized with the designation of structural members, in particular superstructure
segments, an overview of their dimensions will be given in the following.
5.2.2.1 Foundations
Both abutments rest on footings that are 4.05 m long, 12.00 m wide, and on average 1.30 m deep.
The embankment under Abutment A, which is constructed on a fill, consists of grouted riprap to
stabilize the slope of 1 to 1.5 (VDOT 1997c). This abutment will be founded on a grid of piles,
as the fill itself cannot provide sufficient load-carrying capacity. For Abutment B a simple spread
216
footing is sufficient for the necessary load-carrying capacity, as well as for all pier footings. Pier
footings are massive concrete plates of 14.00 m square and 3.50 m thickness for piers 1 and 4,
and of 12.00 m square and 3.00 m thickness for Piers 2 and 3 (VDOT 1997c).
5.2.2.2 Abutments
Abutments A and B are both normal wing wall abutments and identical in size, except for the
difference in their foundations, as mentioned in the previous paragraph. Overall abutment
dimensions are 12.00 m width and 10.00 m length. The lower wing wall edge has a slope of
67.45 to 100 in Abutment A or 60 to 100 in Abutment B, respectively. Abutment wing walls
extend from the breast walls backward in a 90 angle. Abutment A furthermore incorporates the
overall 6 % longitudinal slope of the bridge alignment (VDOT 1997c).
Bearings for the bridge superstructure will sit on special blocks called concrete riser pads, which
are cast onto the bridge seat. Abutment interiors are accessible for inspection of bearings and
maintenance works. Furthermore, according to the plan drawings drainage aggregate and piping
is to be installed behind the abutment.
5.2.2.3 Pier Shafts

All piers are rectangular hollow cast-in-place boxes with a vertical taper on all sides. The
following Table 5-1 gives an overview of the four piers and their main dimensions, with depth
measure in the longitudinal direction of the bridge superstructure and width in the transverse
direction (VDOT 1997c, pp20f). The Wilson Creek Bridge will be the tallest bridge in the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
The piers are tapered on all sides. This taper is constant 1 to 40 on the faces in the longitudinal
axis of the bridge, and 1 to 50 on the faces in the transverse direction. Pier shaft walls are 0.40 m
thick facing the longitudinal axis and 0.80 in the transverse direction (excluding the depth for the
natural stone inlays). The rectangular shape of the piers is carried higher to about half the height
217
of the box girder that are tapered in the opposite direction, as the box girder has the least width at
its bottom. Detailed plan drawings show this intersection of pier shaft and box girder webs. The
part of the superstructure that is located directly above the pier shaft is called pier table. A view
of Pier 2 is provided in Figure 5-6. The taper and the vertical niches for the natural stone inlays
are clearly visible.
Table 5-1: Pier Dimensions of Wilson Creek Bridge
Dimensions
Pier 1
Height from footing top to girder 24.524 m
bottom
6.000 m
Top width
3.750 m
Top depth
6.982 m
Bottom width
4.978 m
Bottom depth
Pier 2
41.314 m
Pier 3
38.514 m
Pier 4
25.943 m
6.000 m
3.750 m
7.654 m
5.818 m
6.000 m
3.750 m
7.542 m
5.678 m
6.000 m
3.750 m
7.040 m
5.050 m
Figure 5-6: Pier 2 Prior to Construction of Pier Table
218
As mentioned in Section 3.3.5, the bridge piers are architecturally shaped and decorated with
natural stone inlays. Figure 5-7 shows the planned elevation of the top of a bridge pier. The
asymmetry of the pier table is clearly visible. Vertical niches for natural stone inlays have a
constant width of 2.50 m on the pier shaft faces perpendicular to the longitudinal bridge axis and
of 1.50 m width perpendicular to the transverse direction. These inlays end at the lower edge of
the superstructure box girder. For sufficient support of the stone inlay, steel angles and dovetail
anchors that sit in anchor slots cast into the concrete surface are planned.
Figure 5-7: Architectural Shaping of Pier Shaft and Pier Table

(taken from VDOT 1997c, p229)
219
5.2.2.4 Pier Tables

Pier tables are major elements within the structure. As the box girders reach their maximum
depth at this point and form a rigid connection between superstructure spans and the piers below,
the pier tables are considerably large and massive elements. Several single concrete placements
are necessary to construct them. Separate plan drawings provide all dimensions of the pier tables.
They have a depth of 9.50 m; two 1.00-m thick vertical diaphragm walls within the box girder of
the pier tables with a narrow vertical access opening in the middle facilitate transfer of the flow
of forces from the superstructure into the bridge piers (VDOT 1997c). In the area of the pier
tables the box girder webs have additional reinforcement (Janssen & Spaans Engineering, Inc.
1998).
Pier tables are not exactly symmetrical in the Up Station and Down Station direction as seen in
Figure 5-7, but are built with a difference between both sides of half a segment length. This
imposes a certain imbalance in construction of the superstructure. Other causes for imbalances
have been described in Section 4.3.2.
5.2.2.5 Superstructure
The cross-section of the superstructure is a single-cell box girder, consisting of the top slab with
cantilevering flanges, webs, and the bottom slab. The box girder webs have a constant vertical
inclination of 10.61 to 100. Connections between webs and top slab are haunched. At the outside
edge under the cantilevering flanges these haunches are not straight but rounded with a radius of
0.60 m. Thickness of the cantilevering flanges is constant with 0.23 m at the edges. Web
thickness is constant with 0.40 m over the whole length of the superstructure.
Overall width of the top slab is 12.00 m, including the cantilevering flanges of about 2.10 m
width each. The box girder will carry two lanes of traffic that are each 3.60 m wide. The bridge
deck has a transverse slope of 2% for drainage purposes and will carry a Kansas Corral type
railing at its edges.
220
As mentioned above, box girder depth is variable along the span as shown in Figure 5-8. The
maximum value of 9.50 m is reached directly at the pier table. Towards midspan the depth
reduces to 3.70 m in a quasi-parabolic curve. The curvature of the box girder soffit does not
exactly follow a parabola since bottom slabs of individual segments are straight. Due to the
variable depth of the box girder and the inclination of the box girder webs, the width of the
bottom slab is variable (VDOT 1997c).
Figure 5-8: Typical Superstructure Cross-Section with Variable Depth

221
Plans initially foresaw a pier table segment of 6.00 m length with about half a segment length
asymmetry to the pier shaft centerline. Superstructure segments of type I, which are close to the
pier table were planned to be 2.25 m long. All other superstructure segments are called type II
and were planned to be 4.50 m long, with 3.00-m long closure segments at midspan. Type III
segments, being the last few segments directly at the abutments, were planned to have constant
depth. They will be constructed separately on falsework. Originally the end sections with type III
segments were planned to be 12.55 m long at Abutment A and 14.80 m long at Abutment B. The
different originally planned segment types for the example of the cantilever arms about Pier 2 are
Figure 5-9: Originally Planned Segment Dimensions (taken from VDOT 1997c, p27)
The difference in segment length with decreasing segment depth towards midspan supposedly
was planned to level volumes of concrete placements during construction. Bottom slab thickness
was planned to be reduced over the type I segments gradually to 0.25 m in thickness and was
planned to remain constant for all type II segments in the span.
Diaphragms of 1.875 m thickness are situated over the bridge bearings in the last box girder
segment directly adjacent to the abutments. It is heavily reinforced around the approximately
triangular access opening because of the several prestressing tendons ending at it (VDOT 1997c).
222
5.2.2.6 Surrounding and Incidental Works

A variety of works not directly related to the bridge structure are to be performed under the
contract. Detailed information on these works is found in the first part of the plan drawings
(VDOT 1997b), with the second part being plan drawings exclusively dealing with the Wilson
Creek Bridge itself (VDOT 1997c). Most importantly, a drainage system is to be constructed on
the eastern side of Ellett Valley, consisting of a concrete box culvert and a basin adjacent to
Wilson Creek. The storm water management (SWM) basin has a cast-in-place concrete dam of
about 2.00 m height and about 12.00 m width (VDOT 1997b). Standard and custom details for
drainage items of the Wilson Creek Bridge project, e.g. an energy dissipator, concrete pipes,
junction boxes for the box culvert, and the like are provided in the plans. The box culvert
provides a canal that is accessible through manholes, running downhill including two forks in a
part of the valley on the northeastern side of the construction site. It was designed for the
maximum expected flow of water.
Erosion and siltation control on site required installation of perimeter barriers. Furthermore, rock
check dams were to be built along the drainage structure to prevent increased erosion of the
slopes of the valley during excavation works (VDOT 1997b). Re-landscaping of the cut and fill
areas will be carried out according to the seeding plan prepared by VDOT (1997b).
5.2.3
Change in Design
The contract documents for the Wilson Creek Bridge provide the following for Value
Engineering Proposals by the contractor regarding the superstructure segmentation (VDOT 1998,
p36):
The Contractor may propose modifying the length of the Pier Table and/or
individual superstructure segments to facilitate his means and methods
considering the form traveler system that he selects. Modifying the segment
lengths will likely necessitate a change to the cantilever post-tensioning. Any
modification to the cantilever post-tensioning system will be accomplished
without modifying the concrete section dimensions. The Contractor shall request
approval for any modification sufficiently early as to allow review, comments,
223
revisions/re-submittal and subsequent acceptance (or rejection) without affecting

the Contractors schedule.
The contractor demonstrates that any proposed option or modification meets all
aspects of the design criteria.
As mentioned, plans originally foresaw a segment length of 4.50 m with 3.00-m long closure
segments. Pier tables were designed to be 6.00 m long; with four or six type I segments of 2.25 m
length directly adjacent to the pier table. The number of type II segments in the cantilever arms
was planned to be 13 or 12, respectively. Overall, segments lengths in the center spans would
sum up to 144.00 m.
PCL Civil Constructors, Inc., the contractor, made the proposal to change the length of the 13 or
12 segments, respectively, to 5.00 m and have a 4.00-m long closure segment. The pier table
should have a length of 15.00 m, with an asymmetry of 2.50 m, half a segment length. The
overall span length would remain unchanged with 144.00 m. Also, the end sections with type III
segments were changed in length to 15.05 m at Abutment A and to 17.55 m at Abutment B. The
redesigned length of the segments is at the upper end of what is technically common. Shop
drawings and calculations for this major design change were produced by Janssen & Spaans
Engineering, Inc. and approved by the owner (Janssen & Spaans Engineering, Inc. 1998). Figure
5-10 shows the new segment dimensions in the cantilever arms about Pier 2; other spans are
similar in arrangement.
Figure 5-10: Changed Segment Dimensions

224
On the Down Station side of the asymmetric pier table, 13 segments of 5.00 m length are placed
in the cantilever arm, on the Up Station side there will only be 12 segments, as pier tables are
longer by half a segment length in this direction. The so-called leading direction, meaning where
the actual Balanced Cantilever Construction started was Up Station; segment number 1 on the
Down Station side of the pier table is not counted as an actual cantilevered segment. Hence, 12
cycles for segments of the same type have to be completed in each cantilever arm.
This change in segment length required redesign of the form traveler specifications and the data
for segment geometry and results and larger volumes of concrete to be placed per individual
segment. Revised segment dimensions, e.g. the thickness of the box girder bottom slabs at each
joint are provided in separate tables in the shop drawings (Janssen & Spaans Engineering, Inc.
1998). Bottom slab thickness decreases from 1.25 m in the pier table to 0.5 m, 0.4 m, 0.3 m, and
then remains constant with 0.25 m in all further segments in the cantilevering span. However, the
major advantage of working with longer segments of one type only and a longer pier table
element is that the Balanced Cantilever Construction is simplified and that the number of casting
cycles is effectively reduced over the whole span.
5.2.4
Quantities of Construction Materials
The following Table 5-2 gives an overview of the quantities of construction materials in the
different parts of Wilson Creek Bridge (VDOT 1997c, p4), excluding surrounding works, such as
excavation for drainage box culverts, etc.
225
Table 5-2: Quantities of Construction Materials for Wilson Creek Bridge

Part
Superstructure
Abutments A, B
Pier 1
Pier 2
Pier 3
Pier 4
Total
Quantities
6,451 m3 class 55 concrete
710,030 kg epoxy-coated reinforcing steel
308,610 kg longitudinal post-tensioning steel
44,960 kg transverse post-tensioning steel
6,897 m2 latex-modified concrete overlay
22,154 m2 surface coating
24 m tooth expansion joint
1,210 m cast-in-place Kansas Corral type railing
(Each): 2 pot bearings
(Each): 63 m3 class 30 concrete footing, 81 m3 class 30 concrete neat
(A): footing 6,686 kg coated steel, neat 8,190 kg coated steel
(B): footing 6,686 kg coated steel, neat 8,100 kg coated steel
(A): 200 m steel piles (310 mm)
686 m3 class 30 concrete footing, 325 m3 class 55 concrete neat
50,070 kg uncoated steel footing, 140,900 kg uncoated steel neat
667,160 kg uncoated reinforcing steel
739,692 kg epoxy-coated reinforcing steel
353,570 kg post-tensioning steel
10,014 m3 structure excavation
With respect to material properties, the largest amount of the concrete for superstructure and
substructure will have a minimum specified 28-day strength fc of 55 MPa. Concrete for the
Wilson Creek Bridge is low permeability concrete. According to the Project Engineer the
concrete used in the Wilson Creek Bridge has considerable high early strength. The minimum
required compressive strength of 30 MPa for stressing segments is actually reached in less than
24 hours after placement on site, as determined from samples taken during construction (PCL
1999d).
226
The yield strength of the ASTM A615M mild reinforcement fy is 420 MPa. Post-tensioning
tendons are of type ASTM A416, grade 270, with low relaxation and have an ultimate strength
fpu of 1,862 MPa. Post-tensioning tendons in the Wilson Creek Bridge are composed of 19
individual strands that consist of seven 15.24-mm thick wires each (VDOT 1998).
5.2.5
Reinforcement and Related Details
This section shall introduce to the arrangement of mild and prestressing steel in the Wilson Creek
Bridge. The special focus lies on the layout of the post-tensioning tendons.
5.2.5.1 Concrete Cover

For the Wilson Creek Bridge the following values for minimum concrete cover of reinforcement
are specified to provide adequate protection of the reinforcement against detrimental
environmental influences that might cause corrosion (VDOT 1997c, p5):
a.
Superstructure
All external and internal surfaces except top slab
Riding surface where protected by overlay
Bottom of top slab between webs
40mm.
50mm.
25mm.
b.
Substructure
Abutment walls
Ties and spirals
Internal side of hollow pier
70mm
60mm
50mm
5.2.5.2 Prestressing Tendons, Tendon Ducts, and Anchorages

Arrangements of post-tensioning tendons and their sequence of post-tensioning and stressing
forces are provided in the plans (VDOT 1997c) and in more detail in the shop drawings (Janssen
& Spaans Engineering, Inc. 1998). Schemes of the prestressing tendons in plan view and
elevation show the tendon profile and determine stressing and non-stressing ends of the tendons.
227
These profiles are similar for all spans of the Wilson Creek Bridge. Exceptions are the end spans
near the bridge abutments. In those locations, the bottom continuity tendons run towards the
upper slab.
Tendons are anchored surrounded by spiral reinforcement in anchorage blocks, also called
blisters, which are located on the inside bottom slab edges of the box girder in a symmetrical
fashion. Blister weight is to be included in calculations and quantity take-offs. They are
reinforced and furthermore contain spiral reinforcement to better distribute compressive forces
induced in the concrete by the post-tensioning force. Some of the blisters within the hollow box
girder incorporate empty ducts that are provided for inserting additional external post-tensioning
tendons that might become necessary some time in the future because of increased traffic loads.
However, according to the shop drawings no spiral reinforcement is provided for these empty
tendon ducts.
Tendon anchorages for transverse prestressing tendons are located in blockouts in the edge of the
cantilevering flanges that will be filled with non-shrink concrete after post-tensioning. The
arrangement of transverse tendons in the pier table diaphragm is shown in Figure 5-11.
228
Figure 5-11: Arrangement of Transverse Tendons in Pier Table Diaphragm

(taken from Janssen & Spaans Engineering, Inc. 1998, p1-3)
Tendon ducts have to be galvanized corrugated steel ducts for all longitudinal tendons and
corrugated polyethylene or steel flat ducts for transverse tendons (VDOT 1997c). The tendon
229
ducts will be coupled with special duct couplers. So-called grout vent tubes are incorporated in
the tendon ducts to ensure that the ducts will be completely filled with grout after prestressing.
Tendons have a bent at their end that leads them from the slab in which they are located into the
anchorage block. Certain bending radii must be adhered to in arrangement of the tendons to
prevent spalling of the corrosion protection layers around them. Sheet S19 and other sheets of the
shop drawings show how some bars of the transverse mild reinforcement in the bottom slab may
be field bent to accommodate the cable ducts.
Longitudinal cantilever tendons are located in the joint areas of top slab and webs. Naturally,
they will be stressed beginning with the shortest tendons that connect only a few segments. With
growing cantilever more segments need to be connected by inserting and stressing of longitudinal
tendons. Stressing of the tendons will be performed on newly cast segments prior to stripping of
the forms in an alternating manner on the end at which the newly cast segment is located (PCL
1999d). This sequence is expected to generate a more even distribution of prestressing forces,
including losses of prestress, in the superstructure. An example of the arrangement of the
longitudinal cantilever tendons in the top slab is shown in Figure 5-12.
Figure 5-12: Arrangement of Longitudinal Cantilever Tendons

230
The shortest continuity tendons that are located at midspan at the outside edges of the bottom
slab are to be stressed first. Afterwards the longer tendons on the inside of the bottom slab
reaching further towards the piers are stressed.
Several pairs of triplets of prestressing bars are used for vertical prestressing of the abutment
diaphragms instead of tendons. Vertical prestressing tendons are also found in the pairs of
diaphragms within all pier tables of the Wilson Creek Bridge. These tendons are running in a
curve from the top slab through the sides of the pier tables diaphragm to the outside bottom slab
edge on the other side of the bridge, thus intersecting in the lower half of the diaphragms.
5.2.5.3 Segment Reinforcing Schedule

The Segment Reinforcing Schedule provides tables that list all reinforcement for a particular
segment, include the reinforcement tagging code, length, location, amount, and weight. The
reinforcement denotations consist of two letters and four digits. The Segment Reinforcing
Schedule provides updated information from the original Reinforcing Steel Schedules that were
supplied in the plan drawings. Shop drawings provided by the contractors consulting engineers
show the reinforcement with dimensions and bending shapes. Segments in corresponding
locations in the spans at different piers can have similar reinforcing, which is then noted on the
particular Segment Reinforcing Schedule.
5.2.6
Further Construction Details
Three major groups of construction details are identified for the Wilson Creek Bridge. These are
the bearings with which the superstructure rests on the abutments at its very ends, the expansion
joints that are also located at that place, and finally accessory details and finishing works.
231
5.2.6.1 Bearings
The superstructure of Wilson Creek Bridge will rest on a pair of bearings at each abutment;
connections between the intermediate piers and the superstructure are rigid. The plans give
information on the design loads for the bridge bearings. Each bearing will have to carry between
1,850 kN and 4,000 kN vertically and 225 kN horizontally. In addition to this, the bearings must
be able to provide 200 mm of horizontal longitudinal movement in both directions, adding up to
a total of 400 mm, and 0.03 radians of rotation capacity. Bearing types specified in the plan
drawings are guided pot expansion bearings, although differing types of bearings may be used
subject to approval of the owner (VDOT 1997c). Bridge bearings are very sensitive parts of the
structural system and are susceptible to increased wear and tear. Therefore, provisions for
replacement of single bearings by means of lifting the superstructure with hydraulic jacks are also
found in the plans (VDOT 1997c). Hydraulic jacks and bearing plates will be placed next to the
original bearings to lift off the box girder by a maximum of 25 mm for replacement of old
bearings.
5.2.6.2 Expansion Joints

Expansion joints are located at both ends of the superstructure to provide a connection between
bridge deck and abutments. The expansion joints are tooth-type elements (VDOT 1997c). Proper
positioning of the prefabricated elements that are set into the joint gap is important to allow
unrestricted superstructure movements as specified and to guarantee riding comfort for future
traffic. Expansion joint replacement procedures are outlined in the plan drawings (VDOT 1997c).
5.2.6.3 Accessory Details and Finishing

Plans drawings (VDOT 1997c) for the Wilson Creek Bridge give information on the various
details for installations to be built into the bridge superstructure. The interior of the
superstructure box girder will be accessible and requires metal stairs and walkways with railings
232
to pass through the pier tables. Responsibility for final detailing of these items is assigned to the
contractor. Access doors and concrete stairs within the hollow abutment are planned to allow
inspection of the bearings and access to the interior of the box girder, since the bridge piers
themselves will not contain stairwells for access.
Drainage junction boxes with drainage conduits will be installed at the outside edges of the
bridge deck at a maximum spacing of 40 m. Moreover, several multi-ducts and conduits will run
along the inside of the box girder. Threaded inserts and channel inserts are to be cast into the
inside surface to attach the conduits to them. In abutments and pier shafts, several weep holes are
planned to allow drainage of condensation water and prevent corrosion.
Finally, the bridge itself requires finishing works and installations. Approach slabs will be built
at both ends of the bridge. The railing on both sides of the bridge deck will be of the so-called
Kansas Corral type, made from cast-in-place concrete. Guardrails need to be installed. The
detailing of the railings with barrier delineators and curbs is also the contractors responsibility,
as the plans merely provide a copy of the standard detail. The terminal wall of the railing will be
decorated with a natural stone inlay in a manner similar to the bridge piers.
A latex-modified concrete pavement overlay needs to be constructed and pavement marking
needs to be applied. The concrete surface will be sealed. Drip and edge beads will be cast into the
cantilevering flanges of the top slab. Minor cracks and spalling that may have occurred during
construction will be repaired before final approval.
Other work items are installations necessary through the traffic control device plan. Lighting of
the new highway and provision of overhead signs is necessary. Finally, cylindrical special design
bunkers with access manholes and conduits for the Smart Road instrumentation and data
recording devices need to be built as part of the contractual works (VDOT 1997b).

5.2.7
233
Plan Documents, Structural Calculations, and Construction Manuals
In the following paragraphs a brief description of the documents related to construction of the
Wilson Creek Bridge are given, excluding the already mentioned contract documents.
5.2.7.1 Plans
All plan measurements and specifications are provided in the Metric System, however, the
contract documents state the following (VDOT 1998, p25):
The Department [VDOT] recognizes the fact that most materials specified in
metric units and necessary for construction of this project may not be
commercially available at the time they are required for construction. To this end,
the Department has endeavored to convert most dimensions so that existing
English items can be supplied where metric items are not available. Therefore,
imperial items may be substituted for metric units provided these items conform to
the closest English equivalent in size for the specific metric item.
It is further stated that reinforcing steel and high-strength bolts can be substituted directly as
outlined in a table provided in the contract.
In order to support the plan drawings especially of congested reinforcement details in pier tables
and abutment areas, so-called Integrated Detail Drawings with the three-dimensional
appearance of the reinforcement were supplied in electronic format to all bidders through VDOT
(VDOT 1997c, pp42ff). Moreover, electronic files of CADD (Computer Aided Design and
Drafting) plan drawings were made available to the contractor, as stated on Sheet 2A of the plan
drawings.
Shop drawings provide detailed information on all members of the bridge structure. If necessary
they contain revisions of the original plan drawings, as e.g. in case of the change in
superstructure segment length that is explained in Section 5.2.3.
234
5.2.7.2 Structural Calculations

Structural Calculations for the Wilson Creek Bridge comprise two comprehensive volumes that
were produced by the consulting engineers. Special software for structural analysis of bridge
structures was used. The structural calculations comprise calculation of stresses and deflections
of the structure during different stages of construction and under various loading conditions.
Time-dependent properties of construction materials, i.e. creep and shrinkage of concrete and
relaxation of prestressing steel were considered in the calculations. All assumptions that were
used in the calculations are listed separately. Complete printouts of all numerical input and
output data form the body of these two volumes.
5.2.7.3 Geometry Control Manual

The Geometry Control Manual is a reference guide for the engineers on site. It contains
spreadsheets and tables as well as narratives of the erection sequence and control procedures. The
consulting engineers company, Janssen & Spaans Engineering, Inc. produced the Geometry
Control Manual for Wilson Creek Bridge. VDOT states on the plan drawings the responsibility
of the contractor for the construction means and methods (VDOT 1997c, p81):
All information shown is for the Contractors information only, and the
Contractor is responsible for the means and methods used to construct the
structure. The Contractor shall submit to the Engineer calculations of the
influence of the selected erection sequence, loads, and details on the structure, in
accordance with the Project Specifications.
The Geometry Control Manual is a procedural guide for the casting and survey control of the
erection sequence with its 307 steps (Janssen & Spaans Engineering, Inc. 1999a, p1):
The manual describes the theory behind the casting of balanced cantilever
bridges using travelers, the geometrical coordinate system and conventions,
survey and geometrical control, procedures and methods to be used, and the
computer spreadsheet which will provide the erection elevations necessary for
determining the casting set-up values for the traveler. Also included are the
adjusting procedures to be utilized should the structure, as erected, deviate from
235
the required alignment by more than 1/1000 of the span length for either vertical
profile and/or horizontal alignment.
The Geometry Control Manual comprises three parts. Book I contains the aforementioned verbal
descriptions and geometrical data for the box girder. Geometry data is given for uncambered and
cambered elevations, i.e. as final long-term elevations and as elevations increased by a calculated
value for construction loads and construction-related processes. A program called GEOM
(Geometrical Solution of Highway Bridges) calculated the three-dimensional coordinates by first
calculating the elevations along the centerline of the bridge superstructure, and thereafter
determining a radial offset for the edges of the box girder (Janssen & Spaans Engineering, Inc.
1999a). Finally, incorporating the slope in the transverse axis gave the final coordinates. With
this method, the three-dimensional coordinates for any geometric point of the bridge
superstructure were easily determined. Actual measurements will be taken frequently and plotted
against the anticipated values to determine any deviations.
Book II contains information and numerical data for construction of cantilevers around Pier 2,
which is the highest pier, considering of time-dependent effects during construction operations.
Book III contains the same information for all other cantilever spans (Janssen & Spaans
Engineering, Inc. 1999a).
5.2.8
Architectural Considerations
The Wilson Creek Bridge has been designed under consideration of its impact on the surrounding
natural environment. Architectural consideration played a major role in giving shape and color to
the bridge structure. All piers of the bridge have been given an architectural shaping through
implementing a vertical taper on all faces of the rectangular pier shafts. In addition to that, the
piers are decorated with natural stone inlays that provide a distinctive vertical accent to the pier
faces. At the pier table the stone inlays end and the shape of the tapering pier shaft is blended
with the shape of the box girder that tapers in the opposite direction. The overall horizontal lines
of the bridge superstructure of several continuous span thus become more articulated. The
236
slender spans of the superstructure gain additional visual lightness through the varying depth of
the box girder. Figure 5-13 shows a rendering of the completed project of two bridges.
Figure 5-13: Rendering of the Completed Project (taken from The Roanoke Times 1999c)
Apart from the bridge piers, the barrier terminal walls at the approaches will also be decorated
with natural stone inlays. Railings, according to information from the VDOT site on the World
Wide Web (VDOT 1999), were chosen by the Smart Road Citizens Advisory Committee to be
Kansas Corral type cast-in-place railings.
The General Notes of the bridge plan drawings give information on the surface finish that the
Wilson Creek Bridge will have. The color of substructure and superstructure shall be Light
Chamois, similar to Federal Standard Color No. 595-33717 (VDOT 1997c, p5).
5.3
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
Having familiarized with the overall project, with the type and dimensions of the bridge to be
constructed as well as with the contractual provisions and design of the whole undertaking the
following sections are devoted to actual project execution. Descriptions follow the logical order
of the construction schedule, leading from initial preparations and construction of foundations
and substructure to superstructure erection and supplementary works.

5.3.1
237
Site Layout and Subsurface Conditions
The overall site location and layout is shown on the site overview plans provided in the first part
of the plan drawings. Surveying data for the area of the site is provided. A railway route of the
Norfolk-Southern Railroad is running parallel to Ellett Road (Route 723) on the northern end of
the construction site and is crossed by another highway bridge structure near the approach to
Wilson Creek Bridge.
Wilson Creek is located under the span between Piers 2 and 3 of the bridge. Ellett Road (Route
723) runs between Pier 1 and Pier 2. Both Ellett Road and Wilson Creek are located close to Pier
2. From Ellett Road towards Abutment A and from Pier 4 towards Abutment B the valley slopes
more steeply. Access to the main part of the construction site is possible from Ellett Road. Figure
5-14 shows the view from Abutment A to Abutment B with Pier 2 visible on the left. The two
crawler-mounted lattice boom cranes that are used to supply material on site can also be seen.
Figure 5-14: Site Overview from Abutment A
238
Site layout drawings give the exact boundaries of the construction site located under the future
bridge structure. Property rights-of-way for adjacent areas are given. Furthermore, the plans give
a general overview of boundaries of construction cut and fill areas. The overall baseline in the
longitudinal direction of the bridge structure is located between the westbound bridge structure of
the Wilson Creek Bridge and a future extension bridge structure for eastbound lanes.
The last pages of the set of plans give information on subsurface conditions. Boring logs are
depicted with a scale of 1 to 50 and explained. Altogether, information from ten boring logs is
provided. One boring was taken at each abutment of the bridge, as well as two borings per pier
foundation, one of them at the edge of the foundation and the other one vertically under the
centerline of the pier. VDOT puts a disclaimer on furnishing information on subsurface
conditions (VDOT 1997c, pp90ff):
This subsurface information shown on the boring logs in these plans was
obtained with reasonable care and recorded in good faith solely for use by the
Department in establishing design controls for the project. The Department has
no reason to suspect that such information is not reasonably accurate as an
approximate indication of the subsurface conditions at the sites where the borings
were taken. The Department does not have any warrant or guarantee that such
data can be projected as indicative of conditions beyond the limits of the borings
shown; and any such projections by bidders are purely interpretive and altogether
speculative. Further, the Department does not in any way guarantee, either
expressively or by implication, the sufficiency of the information for bid purposes.
The boring logs are made available to bidders in order that they may have access
to subsurface data identical to that which is possessed by the Department, and are
not interpreted as a substitute for personal investigation, interpretation and
judgment by the bidders.
Bedrock for Pier 2 was found in little depth underneath ground level, which allowed a change in
the erection sequence of piers, as outlined in Section 5.3.5.
5.3.2
Site Preparation
A variety of preparation works were to be carried out prior to actual construction operations on
site. The so-called Clear Zone had to be cleared of trees and shrubs and grubbing had to be
239
performed, as the General Notes for the highway project line out (VDOT 1997b). Clearing of cut
and fill areas was also necessary.
A field office with appropriate space and adjacent parking area had to be furnished, set up, and
connected to electricity, water, and communication. Construction office trailers are situated south
of Pier 2, close to the entrance to the site. The contract documents exactly determine the size,
furniture, and other installations for this field office and their maintenance (VDOT 1998). The
whole site needed to be enclosed with fencing.
A temporary construction work bridge was needed to cross Wilson Creek between Piers 2 and 3.
This work bridge had to be planned and furnished by the Contractor and consisted of solid plates
of corrugated sheet metal that rest on girders. It was not allowed to interfere with the flow of the
creek (VDOT 1997b), (VDOT 1998). Close to the work bridge a tent to store the prestressing
material, i.e. tendon ducts, spiral reinforcement, parts of tremie pipes for conveying concrete, the
tendons themselves delivered in large rolls, and anchor plates protected against adverse weather
conditions was erected by the contractor. Reinforcement was stored in tagged bundles nearby.
5.3.3
Foundation Construction, Drainage System, and Earthwork
In order to construct foundations for abutments and piers, excavation was necessary. Since solid
bedrock was found at little depth beneath ground level in the middle of the valley, relatively
small volumes of excavation were necessary for foundations of Pier 2. According to the Project
Engineer (PCL 1999d), drilling and blasting were carried out during excavation for the pier
foundations. After construction of the foundations, a minimum of 1.00 m backfill above top edge
of footings was necessary, as specified in the plan drawings. (VDOT 1997c). Abutment A
required a fill to be constructed, as mentioned in Section 5.2.2.1 and rests on piles that reach
through this fill.
Further earthwork operations were necessary for construction of the drainage system. Blasting
was necessary in parts of the cut for the box culvert. An access road covered with coarse gravel
was constructed to permit haulers removing dirt from the excavation areas. During construction a
240
gap was left in the culvert to allow haulers passing on the temporary haul road. This gap was
closed prior to backfilling of the excavation. For construction of the culvert a gravel bed was
constructed on which the concrete box culvert was erected with two subsequent placements of
concrete. First the bottom slab was cast; secondly walls and top slab were cast between interior
and exterior formwork. Upon completion of one section of the culvert the movable form was
advanced downhill for casting of the next section. Maximum productivity could be achieved on
sections with straight alignment. After backfilling of the box culvert, re-landscaping will be
done.
5.3.4
Substructure Construction
The substructure of a bridge consists of the abutments and the piers. Its purpose is to carry the
bridge superstructure.
5.3.4.1 Abutments
Abutments are large concrete elements that are supposed to withstand vertical and horizontal
forces imposed on the bearings by the bridge superstructure. Due to the large volume of the
abutments, several single concrete placements are necessary for their construction. Locations of
the horizontal construction joint above the footing and of vertical construction joints in the back
wall are determined in detailed plan drawings (VDOT 1997c).
5.3.4.2 Pier Shafts

Pier shafts for the Wilson Creek Bridge are constructed of vertically cast-in-place box segments.
The individual segments have a height of about 6.00 m. According to the Project Engineer (PCL
1999d), the heights actually differ to some extent to have about equal concrete placements over
241
the height of the piers. This is to give the pier erection a more regular cycle pattern with respect
to the work crews assigned.
Actual pier construction on the construction site was characterized by about parallel erection of
the piers. The Project Engineer (PCL 1999d) lined out that for the Wilson Creek Bridge project
erection of the superstructure was anticipated to be time-critical. For this reason, bringing the
piers to full height rapidly to allow beginning with cantilevering operations was of importance.
Especially Pier 2, including the massive pier table at which cantilevering started, needed to be
erected quickly.
Two different sets of formwork were utilized in pier construction. The first set was a starter set
for the base segments, the second one a climbing set that comprised four exterior and eight
interior panels for rapid assembly and dismantling. The formwork had to be adjusted to pier
dimensions at each casting stage because of the vertical taper of the piers. Formwork panels were
kept relatively simple for reasons of economy. They consisted of plywood panels that were
attached to a stabilizing gridwork of lightweight metal studs and walers. Figure 5-15
schematically shows a pier of the Wilson Creek Bridge during construction, Figure 5-16 shows a
real pier for comparison.
Taper
Formwork
Panels
Vertical Niche
for Natural
Stone Inlays
Figure 5-15: Scheme of Pier Erection
242
Figure 5-16: Pier 3 During Construction with Climbing Formwork
5.3.5
Change in Construction
A comprehensive scheme provided in the last part of the bridge plan drawings shows the erection
sequence assumed in designing the superstructure and detailing the mild reinforcement and
prestressing tendons. However, VDOT put a disclaimer on information from these schematics
(VDOT 1997c, pp81ff):
The information shown here conveys the assumptions made by the Designer in
designing the strucutre [sic]. All information shown is for the Contractors
information only, and the Contractor is responsible for the means and methods
used to construct the structure. The Contractor shall submit to the Engineer
calculations of the influence of the selected erection sequence, loads, and details
on the structure, in accordance with the project Specifications.
243
In order to optimize the erection sequence for construction of the Wilson Creek Bridge the
contractor chose to alter the order in which piers were erected and cantilevering from their pier
tables proceeded. The actual order used as approved by the owner was Pier 2 - Pier 3 - Pier 4 Pier 1. The reasoning for this change is described in the following.
Pier 2 with its shaft height of 41.314 m is the highest pier of the bridge. Tackling this pier first
allows beginning cantilevering of one of the main spans of the bridge first and takes it off the
critical path of the schedule for the rest of the project. The change in order of pier construction
was possible through favorable subsurface conditions at the bottom of the valley. Stable bedrock
was found in only little depth beneath ground level at Pier 2.
Construction of Span 1, the northwestern end span of the bridge, is anticipated to provide
challenges in accessibility with the crawler-mounted lattice boom crane that supplies
construction materials and equipment. Working on the other bridge spans first will allow
collection of experience in construction of these and will provide enough time to construct an
access road with suitable slope and level ground close to Pier 1 for the crane.
Changing the order of pier erection also required revision of the structural calculations to
incorporate the changed overall ages of the cantilever arms about the piers and determine the
necessary camber data. Figure 5-17 schematically shows the actual superstructure erection
sequence.
244
Construction Phase 1
Fill
Falsework
Completed Bridge
Ellett
Road
Abutment A
Concrete
Overlay and
Accessories
Abutment B
Wilson
Creek
Falsework
Pier 1
Pier 2
Pier 3
Pier 4
Figure 5-17: Schematic Superstructure Erection Sequence (based on VDOT 1997c)

5.3.6
245
Superstructure Construction
The bridge superstructure provides a continuous deck for vehicle traffic and rests on the
substructure, which in turn is built on the bridge foundations.
5.3.6.1 Pier Tables

In preparation of casting the pier table a frame of metal girders was erected below the future pier
table to serve as falsework. This frame then supported work platforms, the large formwork panels
that give shape to the pier table, and shoring within the box girder for the top slab forms as well
as shoring for the cantilevering top slab flanges. Figure 5-18 shows Pier 3 just prior to erection of
the formwork for the pier table.
Figure 5-18: Pier 3 with Metal Falsework for Pier Table Erection
246
With respect to concrete placement for Pier Table 2 the Project Engineer reported that a changed
sequence of placement operations was used (PCL 1999b). Since the volume of concrete in the
pier tables is quite large, the placement was broken down into more sections. The whole pier
table was cast in four major placements, each consisting of several individual lifts. Construction
joints are located between these placements. Single placements included bottom slab, lower
sections of webs and diaphragms, upper sections of webs and diaphragms, and top slab.
According to the plan drawings so-called Mass Concrete Special Provisions as given in the
contract documents are applicable for pier tables (VDOT 1997c). Figure 5-19 shows Pier Table
2. The asymmetry, explained in Section 5.3.8, is clearly visible.
Figure 5-19: Pier Table 2 After Stripping from Formwork
5.3.6.2 Form Travelers

Form travelers as a specialized type of construction equipment for cast-in-place cantilevering
have been described in Section 4.2.2.1. They consist of a main structural framework that gives
247
the form traveler the typical diamond-shaped appearance. Front and back main trusses connect
these two frames and are braced with horizontal braces.
The form travelers for construction of the Wilson Creek Bridge are very typical in their layout. A
schematic layout of a form traveler can be found in Figure 5-20, an elevation of a form traveler is
shown in Figure 5-21. The form traveler provides work platforms at the top and at the bottom
part of the segment face as well as a platform under the bottom slab at the back of the segment
that is cast. Work platforms also extend along the edges of the cantilevering flanges of the top
slab. Thus, optimal accessibility of the newly cast segment is given from all sides.
Work Platform
Concrete Bucket
Bracing
Main Truss
Tremie
Pipes
Internal
Formwork
Rails
Shoring
Open
Concrete
Surface
Top Slab With

Cantilever Flanges
Web
Work Platform
Figure 5-20: Form Traveler Front View
Bottom Slab
248
Concrete is supplied to this platform with crane buckets, which would not fit in between the
horizontal bracing of the form travelers. Therefore, an additional work platform was set up on top
of both form travelers for the Wilson Creek Bridge. This platform is used to prepare and carry
out concrete placement into all forms from above. The wooden flooring of this platform has
openings through which the concreting crew leads the concrete with so-called tremie pipes.
Work Platform
Safety
Hook
Front
Bogie
Rear
Bogie
Top Slab With
Cantilever Flanges
Main
Front
Truss
Main
Back
Truss
Rollers
Rails
Tie-Downs
Web
Formwork
Work
Platform
Bottom Slab
Figure 5-21: Form Traveler Elevation
249
Long vertical hangers from the transverse trusses are attached to major transverse girders that
carry the complete bottom platform beneath the segment. A gridwork of transverse girders and
longitudinal beams with bracing in between provides stiffness for the bottom platform.
Additionally, the bottom platform is attached to the bottom slab of the previous segment with
rods. Formwork for the bottom slab and webs rests on this bottom platform. Formwork for the
cantilevering flanges with their rounded haunches is suspended from the traveler by means of
hangers.
The interior formwork only consists of wall panels and roof panels, since the top surface of the
bottom slab (despite the slight slope of about 6 %) does not require extra formwork. Suspended
interior form supports are set up in the box girder under the top slab. They resemble the
longitudinal track on the top slab in that the interior wall form supports are also tied to the
previous segment and cantilever into the one that is to be cast. The interior form supports are
needed to support the formwork underneath the top slab of the box girder and for transverse
stiffening of the interior web formwork. Form ties used to keep e.g. web forms from bending
apart under the quasi-hydraulic pressure of the concrete are threaded rods.
The whole form traveler assembly sits on two pairs of tracks, i.e. rails that are tied down to the
segment below with rods. Hollow sleeves are cast into the top slabs of the segments to
accommodate these rods. A separate sheet of shop drawings lines out the positions of the many
rail and traveler tie-downs.
Rail pairs are located directly above the box girder webs for optimum transfer of forces into the
existing bridge superstructure. Three important mechanical elements are necessary for
advancement of the form traveler on the rails. The front bogie assembly includes rollers with
which the main framework rests on the tip of the rail pairs. The rear bogie assembly includes
rollers that grip under the flanges of the rail pairs to tie the form traveler down at its end and
prevent it from tipping over the front edge. Additionally, a pull-down system with a pair of
strong hooks that are clamped under the flanges of the rail pairs provides additional safety
through redundancy of critical elements. No counterweights are used in the form travelers.
250
Vertical hydraulic pistons are used to move the aforementioned two separate rear tie-down
systems to meet the superstructure alignment and to detach the form traveler from its rails
whenever necessary during construction operations. Actual form traveler operations in casting
the box girder segments are described in Section 5.3.7.
For economic reasons only one set of two form travelers is used in construction of the Wilson
Creek Bridge. Hence, this pair of form travelers will be used subsequently on all cantilevering
spans around Piers 1 through 4. For this reason, superstructure construction with balanced
cantilevering is on the critical path of the overall project schedule.
A noteworthy restriction in overall superstructure shape results from the use of form travelers in
construction of the Wilson Creek Bridge. As the formwork panels for the bottom slabs cannot be
bent into a continuously curved shape when being adjusted for each element, the overall
parabolic shape of the bottom edge of the superstructure is actually a polygonal line.
5.3.6.3 Other Construction Equipment

Apart from the aforementioned form travelers with their work platforms, small aluminum
assembly platforms can be lowered from the bridge superstructure to work e.g. on finishing the
concrete surface. Metal scaffolding stairwells were installed next to the piers to provide access to
the top.
Two Manitowoc 4000 W crawler-mounted lattice boom cranes are used for construction
operations. They provide reinforcement, concrete, and any other necessary construction material.
Their crawler mounting provides good traction in difficult terrain, but as with any crane, level
ground is important. Stable wedges of soil had to be built next to the piers in some cases.
Supplying material for construction of the end spans will create a special challenge to the field
crew because of the steep slopes of the valley in these areas.

5.3.7
251
Segment Casting Cycle
The Wilson Creek Bridge is constructed in Balanced Cantilever Construction, using a set of form
travelers for cast-in-place construction. The sequence used by the contractor in the casting cycle
for a typical superstructure segment of the Wilson Creek Bridge will be described in the
following paragraphs. Figure 5-22 shows a schematic representation of the casting cycle based on
the description of the actual construction process (PCL 1999d). A more comprehensive
schematic of the casting cycle employed is found in Appendix B.
Detach form
traveler from rails
Advance and
anchors rails in
new position
Set traveler
on rails
Stress
transverse
tendons in top slab
Stress longitudinal
cantilever tendons
Advance and
anchor form
traveler on rails
in new position
Cure concrete to
achieve strength
and durability
Install rebar in
bottom slab and
webs
Build bulkhead
Place concrete
with tremie pipes
into bottom slab,
webs, top slab
Advance interior
formwork
Install wall ties
Install rebar in top
slab
Install
longitudinal
tendon ducts
and tendons
Install transverse
tendon ducts and
tendons
Figure 5-22: Scheme of the Casting Cycle
After a previously cast segment has cured sufficiently for about two days and reached the
specified minimum compressive concrete strength of 30 MPa a new cycle begins. First,
transverse tendons in the top slab of the segments are stressed. Afterwards the plywood bulkhead
forms are stripped from the segment face. Traveler tie-down rods are released and the
longitudinal cantilever tendons of the segment are stressed, thus attaching it permanently to the
already existing superstructure. Afterwards the form traveler is advanced to the next casting
252
position and brought to alignment. The outside formwork is advanced as well and trimmed to
adjust it to the geometry of the subsequent segment. Formwork panels needs to be of high quality
plywood, as they will have to withstand all casting cycles for the respective span. Figure 5-23
shows Pier 2 at beginning of cantilevering operations. The setup of both form travelers is visible,
as well as the asymmetry by half a segment length to the right.
Figure 5-23: Beginning of Cantilevering Operations about Pier 2
The specific process of form traveler advancement is carried out as follows. After the form
traveler tie-downs have been released the rails on which the traveler rests are launched forward
and anchored in their position cantilevering above the next segment to be cast. After setting
down the traveler on the rails again it is advanced and anchored as well.
On the following day the reinforcement crew begin with installation of reinforcement for the
bottom slab and the webs of the box girder segment. Reinforcement is assembled manually, as
the form traveler framework and bracing do not provide enough space to lift preassembled
253
reinforcement cages into place. A carpenter constructs the bulkheads that will prevent the
concrete from flowing out of the segment face. The interior formwork is already prepared to
match the geometry of the new segment.
The third day of the casting cycle begins with advancement and setting up of the interior forms.
Form ties are installed and installation of the reinforcement for bottom slab and the webs is
concluded.
On the fourth day of the casting cycle the installation of form ties is finished and assembly of the
reinforcement for the top slab begins. In addition to the mild reinforcement the longitudinal and
transverse tendon ducts and their tendon strands are installed, but left unstressed.
Day five consists of final preparations for casting of the segment and the actual casting operation.
Both Project Engineer and Supervisor control the installed reinforcement and the setup of the
formwork prior to casting. Concrete is delivered to site continuously from a nearby batch plant
and supplied to the form traveler by crane in buckets. Crane supply is the limiting factor of the
superstructure casting operation. Both bottom and top slab of the segment are cast in open forms,
as despite their longitudinal and transverse slope, respectively, the concrete has slump small
enough to prevent flowing away. Concrete placement operations will be carried out from the
work platform on top of the form traveler. Openings in its wooden floor allow tremie pipes to be
led into the bottom slab and into the 40-cm wide webs to place the concrete. Flexible pipes of
about 20 cm in diameter are inserted between the reinforcement to prevent free falling of the
concrete that might lead to its desegregation. The concrete is consolidated with internal concrete
vibrators. For construction operations during the Fall and the Winter season it is planned to take
special measures for cold-weather concreting. The top slab of segments will be covered with
heating blankets for proper curing, bottom slab formwork will be equipped with insulation
material, and heaters will be used in the box girder and at the outside faces. A detailed view of
the form traveler is provided by Figure 5-24.
254
Figure 5-24: Form Traveler Detail
Altogether, a five-day cycle is planned for the Wilson Creek Bridge, excluding the time for
proper curing of the newly cast segments. Work is performed on both cantilever arms at the same
time. However, a time lag of about two days exists between the casting cycles for the two
cantilever arms. This allows optimized allocation of work forces, as the crews for formwork
setup, reinforcement installation, and concrete placement can alternate between the two
cantilever arms, thus reducing downtime. Some reduction in duration of the individual work
activities can be expected due to the repetitive nature of the casting cycle and the reduction of
segment dimensions towards midspan.
For the Wilson Creek Bridge an alternating stressing sequence was chosen for the longitudinal
tendon, i.e. they will be always stressed directly from the side on which the respective newly cast
segment is located for more equal prestress distribution. This requires the post-tensioning crew to
also alternate between both cantilever tips. Another means of construction could have been to
carry out all stressing operations from one side only, e.g. from the Up Station cantilever arm.

5.3.8
255
Cantilevering Sequence
Cantilevering of the superstructure of the Wilson Creek Bridge began at Pier Table 2 with casting
one segment in the Down Station direction. All pier tables are asymmetric to the vertical
centerline of their pier by half a segment length. This slight asymmetry in the pier table and the
whole balanced cantilevering process has a simple reason. At any point, due to the
aforementioned alternating placement of segments, the imbalance between both cantilever arms
will be only half a segment weight. In other words, the side with the newly cast segment will be
half a segment longer until another segment is cast on the other cantilever arm, which in turn
makes that side heavier by the weight of half a segment. Thus the overturning moment due to
segment imbalance is kept smaller in the superstructure. A schematic of this concept is provided
in Figure 5-25.
Asymmetry
#3
#1
Pier Table
#2
Adding New Segment Shifts

Imbalance to Other Side
Figure 5-25: Pier Table Asymmetry for Reduction of Overturning Moments
After the cantilever arms about one particular pier are finished, the form travelers will be
disassembled and set up at the next pier table to continue with the superstructure erection.
Finally, the cantilever arms will be connected at midspan by casting closure segments. Necessary
alignment procedures will be performed prior to closure. The erection schemes in the plan
drawings inform that all cantilever arms will be jacked apart prior to closure with a jacking force
of 1000 kN (VDOT 1997c), accounting for moment redistribution. Cantilever arms will be fixed
in the aligned position until the closure concrete has gained sufficient strength (VDOT 1998).

5.3.9
256
Surveying and Construction Tolerances
A comprehensive surveying program was set up for construction of the Wilson Creek Bridge to
ensure that the bridge was built at the planned elevations including camber to account for longterm effects, and at the planned alignment. A fixed baseline for surveying was established on site.
Surveying marks have been set as reference points below the future bridge spans.
Surveying points at the corners of pier segments were used to control that the piers were cast
exactly vertically. Surveying of the superstructure is a more complex process, since about a
dozen points around the circumference of the box girders are measured once cantilevering is
proceeding. According to Book I of the Geometry Control Manual, surveying will be performed
prior to sunrise to avoid deformations due to thermal gradients in the bridge superstructure
(Janssen & Spaans Engineering, Inc. 1999a). Surveying of the actual vertical and horizontal
alignment of the bridge superstructure will be performed after each major step of concrete
placement. Pairs of surveying points on both arms of the cantilever will be measured to
determine overall rotations from pier flexing and shortening, from differential foundation
settlements, and from cantilever deflections. In case the alignment deviates from the planned
geometry more than construction tolerances permit, correction procedures are outlined in the
Geometry Control Manual and supported with an example.
Construction tolerances for the Wilson Creek Bridge are outlined in the contract documents.
According to these, casting of a new segment in the superstructure needs to be done within 3 mm
tolerance for both elevation and horizontal position (VDOT 1998). Tolerances for individual
dimensions of the superstructure segments are provided in the following (VDOT 1998, p146):
Width of Web
Depth of Bottom Slab
Depth of Top Slab
Overall Depth of Segment
Overall Width of Segment
Length of Segment
Diaphragm Dimensions
6 mm
5 mm
5 mm
5 mm
6 mm
10 mm
10 mm

Ends (deviation from a plane
per 6 m or 20 feet width or depth)
6 mm per 6 meters not to exceed 13 mm
Flat Surface (deviation from

a plane at any location)
2 mm per meter not to exceed 6 mm
257
Dimensions from segment to segment shall be adjusted so as to compensate for

any deviations within a single segment so that the overall dimensions of each
completed span and the entire structure will conform to the dimensions shown in
the Plans. The accumulated maximum error should not exceed 1/1000 of the span
length for either vertical profile and/or horizontal alignment. Deviations
exceeding the tolerances listed above which are discovered during the casting
operation shall be identified by after-cast surveys immediately prior to casting the
next segment. Corrections for these deviations shall be submitted to the Engineer
prior to casting the next segment.
The Geometry Control Manual for the Wilson Creek Bridge lines out factors that are considered
in overall structural analysis to come up deflections and determine the necessary camber (Janssen
& Spaans Engineering, Inc. 1999a, p27):
*1. Deflection of the travelers under the weight of wet concrete. This is
dependent upon the stiffness of the particular traveler system, including rod
elongations. For the AVAR traveler, the deflections for the segments are shown on
page 44.
*2. Deflection of the concrete cantilever arms during construction. For each
casting of a segment, the weight of the concrete segment and the corresponding
post-tensioning forces alters the cantilever deflection.
3. Deflections of the various cantilevers after removal of the travelers and before
continuity is achieved.
4. Short and long-term deflections of the continuous structure, including the effect
of superimposed dead loads (barriers, overlay)
5. Short and long-term pier shortenings and foundation settlements.
A similarly detailed set of requirements on which the above manual is based is provided in the
contract documents (VDOT 1998, p142):
Stages for which theoretical positions of control points are to be computed shall
include:
Unloaded formwork in position ready to receive concrete. (May involve

multiple theoretical positions if cast-in-place concrete is placed in a segment
in stages.)
After cast-in-place concrete is placed. (May involve multiple theoretical

positions if concrete placement is staged in a segment.)
After each stage of applying post-tensioning.
258
The theoretical position shall be computed taking into consideration:
Effects of the final profile of the roadway as shown in the Plans.
Effects of structure self-weight along with superimposed construction deal

and live loads.
Deflection of form travelers.
Effects of post-tensioning.
Effects of creep and shrinkage.
Effects of non-linear pier behavior.
The end of construction with time step 305 is planned to be on day 660 of the project, step 306 is
a time step before step 307, which is assumed to be infinity. The day taken for the state of
infinity in structural analysis is day 13,750 of the project (Janssen & Spaans Engineering, Inc.
1999a, pp21ff).
5.4
DISCUSSION OF CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES
In the preceding sections of this chapter the Wilson Creek Bridge project was introduced.
Particular attention was given to the casting cycle and the use of form travelers during this
procedure. Finally, information on the design background of the bridge was provided.
The outlined construction procedures provide a good example of how concepts outlined in the
previous chapters are put into practice. The Geometry Control Manual for the Wilson Creek
Bridge summarizes these concepts and prepares them for application in construction operations
259
on this specific project. Effects of construction loads were taken into consideration in calculation
of both short-term and long-term stresses and deflections for each construction stage.
Assumptions made in these calculations are stated in the contract documents, in the Geometry
Control Manual, and in the printouts of the structural calculations themselves.
The casting cycle used in the Wilson Creek Bridge can be taken as being representative for
bridge construction with Balanced Cantilever Construction. A cycle time of about a week is
typical for use of form travelers. It is determined predominantly by the strength development of
the concrete in the segments and by factors related to equipment utilization such as setting up and
adjusting the form travelers for the geometry of the next segment to be cast, and duration of
reinforcement installation, of concrete placement, and of stressing operations.
Two major changes in bridge design and construction needed to be included in the calculations.
The segment length was changed from 4.50 m to 5.00 m with minor adjustments in pier
geometry and closure segments to come up with a more even segment length over the whole span
length. Secondly, the order of pier erection was altered to erection of the highest pier first. These
changes were implemented to economically optimize the construction operations for
cantilevering.
An interesting feature was implemented in pier and segment composition to keep overturning
moments due to segment imbalance small. The planned casting cycle had to incorporate crew
availability and for this reason had a time lag of about two days between identical work tasks on
the two cantilever arms. In order to alleviate effect of this imbalance in adding new segments the
superstructure segmentation was designed to be asymmetric by the length of half a segment. Thus
at any point in time the two cantilever arms about a particular pier would only be out of balance
by the weight of half of segment. Construction loads were anticipated and dealt with in a very
elegant way. Summarizing, the case study of the Wilson Creek Bridge ideally serves to underline
bridge engineering concepts presented in the theoretical sections of this study.
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION
The following Chapter 6 summarizes the most important issues raised in this study and points out
related areas for future research that may be of value for the engineering community.
6.1
SUMMARY
After introductory remarks on the background, intent, and organization of this study, the
fascinating history of bridge construction is unraveled in this study. This section is supposed to
help putting the profession into to context of its long continuous history and show the remarkable
achievements that were made from the times of the very first bridges to the current days.
Already the earliest recorded times used the same variety of general structural principles to cross
obstacles that are still used in modern bridge building. In particular bridges with stone arches
dominated throughout the Old World and several of them have survived to the present day. The
initially only semicircular stone arch developed into more elaborate shapes of pointed arches and
arches with a greater span-to-rise ratio during medieval times. This development reached its
height in Renaissance times when the visible elements of bridges, i.e. substructures and
superstructures became much more slender and daring. More arch types such as poly-centered
and elliptical arches were used. Improvements were made in putting the bridges on more solid
foundations that were built with cofferdams and caissons. Hence bridge builders gained much
more flexibility in where and how to erect their structures. Even more possibilities in bridge
building were added through the introduction of iron as a completely new material during the
Industrial Revolution. The high tensile and compressive strength of iron made completely new
shapes for structural members and bridge superstructures, e.g. trusses possible. Growing
industrialization also brought along a new source of power in form of the steam engine, which
also required bridges to withstand the heavy dynamic loads of the first locomotives. Further
development of iron and steel contributed to the rise of yet another type of bridges that have
260
Chapter 6: Conclusion
261
remained amongst the largest structures ever built suspension bridges, several of them in the
New World. New methods of superstructure erection were invented. Yet the quick growth of
major bridges also saw some failures, as engineers were still learning how the large structural
systems reacted to environmental influences such as wind load. Suspension bridges incorporated
stiffening trusses or made use of aerodynamic box girders in an attempt to withstand the forces of
nature. Steel structures were built that would not have been possible with conventional iron. In
the meantime advancement had also taken place in bridge construction. Pressurized caissons
were employed to overcome adverse soils and build very deep and solid foundations.
The twentieth century finally saw two major innovations in bridge design and construction.
Reinforced concrete gave the bridge engineers a most versatile construction material at hand that
could be cast into literally any shape, only limited by laws if nature and the imagination of the
designer. Incorporating prestressing steel into the concrete superstructures and making use of
precast or cast-in-place segmental construction contributed much to the overall economy of
concrete bridge spans in comparison with steel structures. With growing span lengths the weight
of concrete superstructures increases very much and steel girders become more economical.
Secondly, the new type of cable-stayed bridges appeared in the second half of the twentieth
century and quickly established itself as a very economical and aesthetically satisfying member
of the bridge family.
It is certain that technological advancement will continue to influence the ways in which bridges
are designed and constructed. Several points are pointed out as to how bridge structures might
develop in coming decades. New structural concepts in connection with improved or newly
engineered materials offer a wide range of possibilities for future bridges.
Bridge engineering is based on concepts that are introduced in Chapter 3. When designing a
bridge it needs to be established what functions it needs to fulfill. The four main functions
structural safety, serviceability, economy and ecology, and aesthetics are introduced and their
interrelationships are explained. Furthermore it is important to realize that the concept of failure
also relates to the four main functions, i.e. a bridge project may be considered an unsuccessful
undertaking if e.g. the bridge is structurally sound but shows excessive deflections that decrease
the riding comfort. Bridge designers need to keep this concept in mind when beginning work on
262
a new project. The design process is usually subdivided into several steps, beginning with
conceptual design. Compiling the requirements for the new bridge and any important
characteristics of its planned site forms the base for any design. The further design process will
comprise many drafts and revisions until a feasible design has been produced. Constructability
issues need to be included from a very early stage on to ensure that the bridge can be built in a
safe and economical manner. In the beginning the dimensions of structural members will be
chosen mostly based on the designers experience, in later stages engineering software is then
employed to compare alternatives and optimize member dimensions. Finally, complete analytical
calculations for all important construction stages and detailed shop drawings will be produced.
As mentioned above, aesthetics is considered one of the four main functions of bridges. Several
so-called aesthetic values of bridge structures are identified. These are character and function,
proportions and harmony, complexity and order, color and texture, and environmental scale. It is
the composition of all of these values together that makes a bridge become accepted by the
general public as an appealing structure. With respect to the bridge site itself, several influencing
factors are identified. Soil conditions, topography, the river crossing, protection of the
environment, and the local climate are the main environmental influences. Furthermore, technical
factors such as bridge type and erection method, labor-related factors, and the particular needs of
the owner need to be considered by the designer.
All aforementioned factors should have been considered in designing the bridge before structural
analysis is begun. Analysis of the structural system generally makes use of a variety of
simplifying assumptions. The four main elements of a structure its geometry and boundary
conditions, structural details such as bearings and expansion joints, material properties, and
actions affecting the structure, i.e. loads or restraints on deformations are modeled
mathematically. An adequate factor of safety will have to be incorporated to account for any
uncertainties on the load and resistance sides of structural equations. Designing with redundancy
against structural failure increases the overall safety of the bridge. Both Ultimate Limit States and
Serviceability Limit States need to be examined during structural analysis. Any numerical results
produced by engineering software need to be checked for consistency and accuracy of results to
263
capture errors or omissions that might have been incurred during the modeling process. Finally,
the results need to be interpreted by the structural engineer to apply them to the real structure.
Issues pertaining to cast-in-place segmental cantilever construction are dealt with in the second
part of Chapter 3. Characteristics of segmental construction, especially for longitudinally
segmented bridge superstructures are pointed out. Cantilevering the bridge superstructure
subsequently with cast-in-place segments requires consideration of different segment ages and
time-dependent material properties. Major points in time for structural analysis are the end of
construction and the state of infinity. Furthermore, the stepwise changes in the overall structural
system until continuity is achieved need to be considered. Interaction between these issues makes
cast-in-place cantilevering a challenging task. Usually newly added segments are stressed to their
predecessors when they have reached only a specific portion of the 28-day compressive strength
of the concrete. Young concrete that is loaded is susceptible to increased time-dependent effects
that depend on ambient conditions, i.e. concrete shrinkage and creep that can cause losses of
prestressing forces in the post-tensioning tendons. Further losses are incurred immediately at the
time of stressing e.g. through elastic shortening of the segment and in the long run through
relaxation of the steel tendons themselves. After continuity is achieved in the structural system
redistribution of bending moments takes place, effectively shifting moments from the supports
more towards midspan. Thus internal forces change and influence the further development of
time-dependent effects. Furthermore, movements or rotations of the bridge substructure can
impose additional forces, which would not have been the case in the statically determinate
cantilever system before continuity was achieved. Structural analysis needs to thoroughly
incorporate the outlined effects and their interactions in modeling of the structural system and its
construction stages. Cambering the superstructure by the anticipated overall deflections will
ensure proper long-term alignment of the bridge.
Cast-in-place cantilever construction is technically feasible for span length up to more than 250
m. Form travelers are employed at the tip of the cantilever to place the concrete. These travelers
remain in place until the concrete has cured sufficiently to achieve minimum strength for posttensioning. Another factor determining the minimum casting cycle time is the speed with which
the form travelers can be adjusted to possibly changing segment geometry, reinforcement can be
264
installed, and concrete can be placed. The aforementioned time-dependent effects in the concrete
segments occur to an increased extent in cast-in-place segments in comparison with prefabricated
segments.
A very common type of concrete bridge superstructures (and also in steel bridges) is the box
girder. Box girders consist of a top slab, usually with cantilevering flanges, webs, and a bottom
slab. They have several distinct advantages when used in medium-span to long-span bridges.
They are extremely versatile and can be adjusted to a great number of different superstructure
alignments as required by the topography of the bridge site. Width can easily be adjusted by
varying the width of the cantilevering flanges of the top slab without affecting the main box
girder itself. Their simple beam-type structural system incorporates all structural load-carrying
elements below the bridge deck and is aesthetically pleasing through its clear, smooth lines. The
box girder can also have variable depth to better withstand the bending moments in long spans
and increase navigation clearance beneath the bridge. For wider bridges an increased number of
boxes and webs may be used in the bridge superstructure. In any case, box girders with their
closed cross-section have a high torsional stiffness that allows relatively long prestressed spans.
Box girders facilitate prestressing operations and maintenance works because elements such as
tendon anchorages are accessible from within the bridge superstructure.
Chapter 4 provides an overview of different modern erection methods for concrete segmental
bridges. Modern concrete segmental bridges are prestressed structures in which the posttensioning tendons provide enough built-in moment resistance to withstand dead loads and live
loads on the long and slender spans. In most cases post-tensioning is employed, i.e. the
prestressing tendons are stressed with hydraulic jacks after the concrete has been placed and
cured. Usually the tendons are located in steel ducts within the concrete and are anchored in
special anchorages.
Cantilevering can be carried out in two different fashions. In case the cantilever system consists
of two arms on both sides of a pier support it is called Balanced Cantilever Construction as the
cantilever arms balance each other with their respective weight in a scales-like fashion. The
second type of cantilevering is the Progressive Placement Method, in which only one cantilever
arm is growing from its pier or abutment. Usually the superstructure is then supported by
265
overhead stay cables that are attached to a temporary tower or by temporary towers under the
superstructure. Cantilevering has the important advantage of being an erection method with
which the valley that is crossed is widely left unobstructed by the construction process. Thus it is
possible to bridge even very inaccessible mountain gorges with this method. The repetitive nature
of segmental construction, either with cast-in-place or as precast segments can be used very
advantageously in cantilevering. Once cantilevering is finished the closure segments are placed
between the cantilever arms to form a continuous superstructure.
Special construction equipment is employed in cast-in-place cantilevering. So-called form
travelers made of steel framework are attached to the cantilever tip where they carry the
formwork in which new segments are cast. After a newly cast segment has gained strength it is
stressed to the already existing part of the superstructure and the form traveler is advanced and
adjusted for the next segment. Maximum segment length achieved with form travelers is about
5.00 m.
A different type of construction equipment is launching girders, which are used to place precast
segments. Launching girders are distinguished by their length and configuration. These
parameters also determine how the placement and advancement sequence for a particular
launching girder can be carried out.
Incremental Launching was developed in the early 1960s. It is characterized by stationary
construction of all superstructure segments in a so-called casting bed. Upon curing the segments
are stressed together like a chain and are launched over the valley in small increments with
hydraulic jacks. Segment lengths are significantly longer than in cantilevering. In order to reduce
the cantilever moments a lightweight launching nose is oftentimes attached to the tip of the
cantilever. This steel launching nose reaches the next support before the concrete girder does and
thus provides early propped support for the concrete superstructure. Certain limitations exist in
alignment of bridges as the stationary casting bed only allows small changes in curvature of the
bridge superstructure.
Falsework was traditionally used to construct bridges, e.g. stone arches of all kinds, and is still a
feasible means of construction. Falsework can be either stationary or traveling, depending on the
266
site conditions and the materials and labor available. A main advantage of falsework is that it
allows construction even of geometrically very complex bridge alignments as in e.g. highway
interchanges. A special kind of falsework is temporary towers, which are often used to provide
additional support to a bridge under construction.
Span-By-Span Erection is an erection method in which prefabricated segments are assembled and
stressed together before this set is lifted into position. Steel trusses are used to support the
segments prior to completion of the spans.
After having dealt with a variety of erection methods the last part of Chapter 4 deals with
construction loads and stresses. Construction loads, understood in a general way as actions as
defined before, often influence structural systems only temporarily. However, they can have
considerable effects due to the following reasons. Construction loads can create higher stresses in
the structure than any loads anticipated for the bridge under service conditions could cause. They
are directly related to the chosen erection method and the sequence in which erection is carried
out. In addition to that, construction loads affect the structure in its weak stages prior to
completion the structural system has not reached continuity and thus additional redundancy due
to being statically indeterminate. Furthermore, materials such as concrete may have reached only
a minimum level of compressive strength that is less than the specified 28-day compressive
strength.
Considering especially Balanced Cantilever Construction, a variety of construction loads needs to
be considered, such as weight of erection equipment, e.g. form travelers with newly cast
segments, imbalance from differences in erection of new segments at the tips of both cantilever
arms, materials being stored on the superstructure, wind, and thermal gradients. Additional
stresses can be induced in the structure through e.g. temporary supports and jacking forces from
alignment corrections. As outlined before, consideration of all construction stages with their
respective geometry and boundary conditions, structural details, time-dependent material
properties, and construction loads is a key factor to adequately analyze the structure and design
against failures. Examples of bridge failures due to improper consideration of construction loads
illustrate the importance of this matter.
267
Codes and regulations from professional organizations that are applicable to bridge construction
are reviewed for their dealing with construction loads. Provisions pertaining to construction loads
are described for ease of accessibility.
Chapter 5 comprises the case study part of this study, dealing with the Wilson Creek Bridge in
the Commonwealth of Virginia. Background information on the location and objective of this
project is provided. The Wilson Creek Bridge, also called Smart Bridge belongs to the so-called
Smart Road research project of the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) and other organizations. The bridge is a 605.00-m long, five-span cast-in-place concrete
segmental bridge built with Balanced Cantilever Construction. The superstructure of the bridge
consists of a single box girder with cantilevering flanges, inclined webs, and variable depth that
will accommodate two lanes of traffic on the 12.00-m wide deck. Issues pertaining to design and
construction of this bridge are discussed. The bridge piers are hollow concrete members with a
vertical taper that are cast continuously to the bridge superstructure. One of the abutments is
founded on piles because of the load-carrying capacity of the fill on which it rests. Major
elements in the bridge superstructure are the four pier tables, each including a pair of diaphragms
to facilitate flow of forces from the superstructure into the piers. Due to their large volume of
concrete the piers are composed of several single placements.
Interestingly, the whole cantilevering arrangement about the pier tables is asymmetric by the
length of half a superstructure segment. This was chosen to reduce overall segment imbalance
due to the alternating sequence of segment casting to only the weight of half a segment at any
given time.
Two important value engineering change proposals were brought forward by the contractor and
approved by the owner. First, the originally planned segment length of mostly 4.50 m was
changed to generally 5.00 m to facilitate a more economical casting operation. Secondly, the
order in which piers were to be erected was changed to Pier 2 - Pier 3 - Pier 4 - Pier 1. This was
done to begin with the highest pier first on the solid bedrock at that location and construct Pier 1
at the sloping edge of the valley, which is more difficult to access at a later stage. In the structural
calculations this change required consideration of the changes ages of the cantilever arms and
their respective camber data. The consulting engineers of the contractor incorporated both
268
changes in their detailed structural analysis and in the shop drawings. The consulting engineers
also produced the so-called Geometry Control Manual as a casting and surveying reference guide
for the engineering personnel on site.
The pier tables are the starting points for cantilevering operations. A set of two form travelers is
used to cast the superstructure segments. The specific casting cycle for the Wilson Creek Bridge,
including use of the form travelers is explained in detail. A discussion of constructability issues
concludes the chapter.
6.2
CONTRIBUTIONS
This study initially arose from several reports on failures of bridge superstructures during the
process of erection. Further investigation showed that several other authors have shown concern
with respect to a certain gap that exists between current education for young Civil Engineers at
the universities and the challenges of bridge engineering practice. Trying to bring more
knowledge and experience from the engineering fieldwork into the classrooms is supposed to
better prepare future engineers for their tasks.
Summarizing, the goal of this study was to provide a comprehensible discussion of the concepts
used by bridge engineers to anticipate and overcome problems in planning and execution of
bridge superstructure erection. This discussion led to the important topic of construction loads. It
is shown how external and internal factors in their combination are considered by bridge
engineers to come up with safe and economical means of building impressive bridge structures.
Clear schemes were developed based on the reviewed literature and were presented to explain
interrelationships of structures and the way in which they are built, i.e. construction loads and
what how they are linked to construction procedures. Provision of a case study enhanced the
concepts outlined in previous parts of this study and gave insight into how these concepts are
applied in real engineering practice. This can ultimately lead to yet safer and economical
construction of bridges to serve the public.
6.3
269
RECOMMENDATIONS
This study has mainly dealt with the Balanced Cantilever Construction as an example of a major
method for erection of bridge superstructures. Future research could include other erection
methods, such as e.g. Incremental Launching and analyze these with respect to constructability
issues. Providing a collection of several different construction methods, each illustrated with
real-life examples would be a valuable source of information in teaching future bridge engineers.
It would then also be possible to better compare advantages and disadvantages of the various
methods and thus generate a more broad view of bridge engineering.
A number of notions regarding the future development of bridge construction have been pointed
out in this study. Linking currently existing construction procedures with these new structural
concepts would contribute to the body of knowledge in that current methods are assessed and
possibly adjusted to future challenges in bridge engineering.
REFERENCES
AASHTO (1980). Construction Manual For Highway Construction. Developed by the Highway
Subcommittee on Construction, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
AASHTO (1985). Guide Specifications For Highway Construction. American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
AASHTO (1996). Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges. Sixteenth Edition, adopted and
published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington, DC.
AASHTO (1998a). Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of
Sampling and Testing: Part I Specifications. Nineteenth Edition, adopted by the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
AASHTO (1998b). Guide Specifications for Design and Construction of Segmental Concrete
Bridges. Second Edition, prepared by the American Segmental Bridge Institute, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
ACI (1995). ACI 343R-95, Analysis and Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Structures.
Reported by ACI Committee 343, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI.
ACI (1999). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-99) and
Commentary (318R-99). Reported by ACI Committee 318, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI.
Addis, W. (1990). Structural Engineering: The Nature of Theory and Design. Ellis Horwood
Limited, Chichester, West Sussex, Great Britain.
270
References
271
Adkins, L., Adkins, R. A. (1994). Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome. Facts On File, an Infobase
Holdings Company, New York, NY.
Anon. (1984). Viaduct. Civil Engineering (New York) 54(7), 34-36.
Anon. (1988). Zilwaukee Bridge. (Excerpt from: The Zilwaukee Bridge: From the
Beginning., published by Michigan Department of Transportation) Concrete
International 10(5), 68-75.
ASTM (1996). ASTM Standards in ACI 301 and 318. Authorized Reprint from the Annual Book
of ASTM Standards, Publication SP-71(95), American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI.
AWS (1975). AWS D12.1-75, Reinforcing Steel Welding Code: Including Metal Inserts and
Connections in Reinforced Concrete Construction. Prepared by AWS Structural Welding
Committee under the Direction of AWS Technical Activities Committee, American
Welding Society, Inc., Miami, FL.
Barker, R. M., Puckett, J. A. (1997): Design of Highway Bridges: Based on AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications. A Wiley-Interscience Publication, John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New York, NY.
Barker, R. M. (1999). Personal Communication with Prof. Richard M. Barker, November 1,
1999, Blacksburg, VA.
Basse, H., Ghler, B., Haumann, J. (1985). Bau der Aichtalbrcke. (In German, translated
title: Construction of Aichtal Bridge.) Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 81(1), 18-24.
Bishara, A. G., Papakonstantinou, N. G. (1990). Analysis of Cast-in-Place Concrete Segmental
Cantilever Bridges. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 116(5), 1247-1268.
Bouwkamp, J. G., Scordelis, A. C., Wasti, S. T. (1971). Structural behavior of a reinforced
concrete box girder bridge in Rockey et al. (1971).
Brown, D. J. (1993). Bridges. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, NY.
References
272
Burke, M. P. (1995). Achieving Excellence in Concrete Bridge Design. Concrete International

17(8), 34-38.
Casas, J. R. (1997). Reliability-Based Partial Safety Factors in Cantilever Construction of
Concrete Bridges. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 123(3), 305-312.
Cassano, R. C. (1987). Building bridges the old way. Civil Engineering (New York) 57(1), 6163.
CII (The Construction Industry Institute) (1986). Constructability: A Primer. Prepared by The
Construction Industry Institute Constructability Task Force, Publication 3-1, Third
Printing April 1990, Bureau of Engineering Research, The University of Texas at Austin,
Austin, TX.
CII (The Construction Industry Institute) (1987a). Guidelines for Implementing a
Constructability Program. Prepared by The Construction Industry Institute
Constructability Task Force, Publication 3-2, Bureau of Engineering Research, The
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
CII (The Construction Industry Institute) (1987b). Constructability Concepts File. Prepared by
The Construction Industry Institute Constructability Task Force, Publication 3-3,
Bureau of Engineering Research, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
CRSI (1996). CRSI Design Handbook. Prepared under the Direction of the CRSI Engineering
Practice Committee, Committee on Concrete Design Aids, Eighth Edition, Concrete
Reinforcing Steel Institute, Chicago, IL.
CTR (Center for Transportation Research at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University)
(1999). October 29, 1999 <http://www.ctr.vt.edu/research_tools/smartroad/>
Fairweather, V. (1987). Twisting in the wind. Civil Engineering (New York) 57(10), 60-62.
FHWA
(Federal
Highway
Administration)
<http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/about.htm>
(1999).
October
29,
1999
References
273
Fletcher, M. S. (1984). In-Situ Free Cantilever Concrete Bridges. Highways and

Transportation 31(11), 6p between 10-18.
Fogler, H. S., LeBlanc, S. E. (1995). Strategies for Creative Problem Solving. Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Upper Saddle River, NJ
Funahashi, M. (1995). Reliable Corrosion Protection for Bridge Stay Cables. Concrete
Garcia, A. M. (1995). Treasures or Trash? Concrete International 17(8), 48-53.
Gibson, M. (1988). Bridge to the 21st Century. Popular Science, 10/1988, 29.
Gies, J. (1963). Bridges and Men. With drawings by Jane Orth Ware, Doubleday & Company,
Inc., Garden City, NY.
Goi, J. J. (1995). The Chesapeake & Delaware Canal Bridge. Concrete International 17(2),
28-32.
Greene, D., trans. (1987). Herodotus: The History. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Harries, K. A. (1995). Concrete Construction in Early Rome. Concrete International 17(1), 5862.
Honshu-Shikoku Bridge Authority (1998). Akashi Kaikyo Bridge. Brochure, First Operation
Bureau, Kobe, Japan.
Janssen & Spaans Engineering, Inc. (1998). Shop Drawings (Smart Bridge Montgomery Co.
Virginia). Project No. 231, Indianapolis, IN.
Janssen & Spaans Engineering, Inc. (1999a). Geometry Control Manual for Smart Highway
Bridge: Book I of III. Virginia Project No. IVHS-060-101, PE101, B603, March 22, 1999,
Revised May 21, 1999, Indianapolis, IN.
References
274
Janssen & Spaans Engineering, Inc. (1999b). Geometry Control Manual for Smart Highway
Bridge: Book II of III. Virginia Project No. IVHS-060-101, PE101, B603, March 22,
1999, Revised May 21, 1999, Indianapolis, IN.
Janssen & Spaans Engineering, Inc. (1999c). Geometry Control Manual for Smart Highway
Bridge: Book III of III. Virginia Project No. IVHS-060-101, PE101, B603, March 22,
1999, Revised May 21, 1999, Indianapolis, IN.
Janssen & Spaans Engineering, Inc. (1999d). Reinforcing Steel Schedule and Segment Bending
Diagrams. Project No. 231, September 1998, Revised March 31, 1999, Indianapolis, IN.
Kranakis, E. (1997). Constructing a Bridge: An Exploration of Engineering Culture, Design, and
Research in Nineteenth-Century France and America. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Lee, D. J. (1971). The selection of box beam arrangements in bridge design. in Rockey et al.
(1971).
Leonhardt, F. (1984). Brcken: sthetik und Gestaltung. (In German and English, translated title:
Bridges: Aesthetics and Design.) The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Levintov, B. (1995). Construction Equipment for Concrete Box Girder Bridges. Concrete
Liebenberg, A. C. (1992). Concrete Bridges: Design and Construction. Longman Scientific &
Technical, Longman Group UK Limited, Burnt Mill, Harlow, Great Britain.
MacGregor, J. G. (1997). Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics and Design. Third Edition,
Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Maestro, M. B., Hernndez D. F.-O., Snchez, C. O. (1995). Aesthetics in the Design of Precast
Prestressed Bridges. Concrete International 17(8), 39-44.
Mathivat, J. (1983). The Cantilever Construction of Prestressed Concrete Bridges. A WileyInterscience Publication, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York, NY.
References
275
Matt, P., Voumard, J.-M., Marti, P., Thrlimann, B. (1988). Main River Span Structure of the
Gateway Bridge. Concrete International 10(5), 34-43.
Melaragno, M. G. (1998). Preliminary Design of Bridges for Architects and Engineers. Marcel
Dekker, Inc., New York, NY.
Menn, C. (1990). Prestressed Concrete Bridges. (Original title: Stahlbetonbrcken.) Birkhuser
Verlag AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Morgan, M. H., trans. (1960). Marcus Vitruvius Pollio: The Ten Books on Architecture. Dover
Publications, Inc., New York, NY.
Muller, J. M., McCallister, L. F. (1988). Esthetics and Concrete Segmental Bridges in the
United States. Concrete International 10(5), 25-33.
Nilson, A. H., Winter, G. (1986). Design of Concrete Structures. Tenth Edition, McGraw-Hill,
Inc., New York, NY.
Normile, D. (1994). Short course in modern bridges. Technology Review 97(8), 52-59.
OConnor, C. (1971). Design of Bridge Superstructures. A Wiley-Interscience Publication, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
OConnor, C. (1993). Roman Bridges. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Great Britain.
Palladio (Andrea Palladio) (1570). The Four Books of Architecture. With a new introduction by
Adolf K. Placzek, Unabridged and unaltered replication of the work first published by
Isaac Ware in 1738, Dover Publications, Inc., Mineola, NY, 1965.
PCL (1999a). Personal Interview with Project Engineer Sean Bush, April 2, 1999,
Christiansburg, VA.
PCL (1999b). Personal Interview with Project Engineer Sean Bush, May 7, 1999, Christiansburg,
VA.
References
276
PCL (1999c). Personal Interview with Project Engineer Sean Bush, July 28, 1999,
Christiansburg, VA.
PCL (1999d). Personal Interview with Project Engineer Sean Bush, September 17, 1999,
Christiansburg, VA.
PCL (1999e). Smart Highway Bridge over Ellett Valley: Cast-In-Place Balanced Cantilever
Construction. Casting scheme and information on Wilson Creek Bridge, October 7, 1999,
PCL Civil Constructors, Inc., Coral Springs, FL.
Petroski, H. (1992). To Engineer is Human: The Role of Failure in Successful Design. Vintage
Books, a division of Random House, Inc., New York, NY.
Petroski, H. (1995). Engineers of Dreams: Great Bridge Builders and the Spanning of America.
Vintage Books, a division of Random House, Inc., New York, NY.
Petroski, H. (1996). Invention by Design: How Engineers Get from Thought to Thing. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Petroski, H. (1997). Remaking the World: Adventures in Engineering. Vintage Books, a division
of Random House, Inc., New York, NY.
Phipps, A. R., Spruill, Q. D. (1990). Biloxi Interstate-110 Viaduct. PCI-Journal, Prestressed
Concrete Institute, 35(1), 120-132.
Podolny, W. (1981). The evolution of concrete cable-stayed bridges. Concrete International
3(8), 34-42.
Podolny, W., Muller, J. M. (1982). Construction and Design of Prestressed Concrete Segmental
Bridges. A Wiley-Interscience Publication, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
Podolny, W. (1998). Technology of the Future. TR News 194, 23-26.
Rives, M. R. (1997). Blue Ridge Parkway: The Story Behind The Scenery. Fifth Printing, KC
Publications, Las Vegas, NV.
References
277
Robison, R. (1993). The French Composite: A Bridge for Normandy. Civil Engineering (New
York) 63(2), 56 59.
Robinson, R. C. (1992). Architectural Precast Concrete - The Complete Color Palette.
Concrete International 14(11), 23-24.
Rockey, K. C., Bannister, J. L., Evans, H. R. (Editors) (1971). Developments in Bridge Design
and Construction. Crosby Lockwood & Son Ltd, London, Great Britain.
Royal Commission (Barber, E. H. E., Bull, F. B., Shirley-Smith, H.) (1971). Report of Royal
Commission into the failure of West Gate Bridge. C. H. Rixon, Government Printer,
Melbourne, Australia.
Schlaich, J. (1995). The Gap Between Quality and Technology. Concrete International 17(8),
58-64.
Shiu, K.-N., Russell, H. G. (1987). Effects of time-dependent concrete properties on prestress
losses. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 14(5), 649-654.
Steinman, D. B., Watson, S. R. (1941). Bridges and Their Builders. G. P. Putnams Sons, New
York, NY.
Swiggum, K. E., Anderson, S. D., Russell, J. S. (1994). Case study of Burlington Cable-Stayed
Bridge. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 120(3), 649-666.
Troitsky, M. S. (1994). Planning and Design of Bridges. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York,
NY.
The Roanoke Times (1999a). October 29, 1999
<http://www.roanoke.com/roatimes/smart/smartroad1.html>
The Roanoke Times (1999b). October 29, 1999
<http://www.roanoke.com/roatimes/smart/buildschedule.html>
References
278
The Roanoke Times (1999c). October 29, 1999

<http://www.roanoke.com/roatimes/smart/elletchange.html>
VDOT (Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation) (1997a). Virginias Smart
Road: Moving Southwest Virginia and travel technology into the future. Brochure,
Richmond, VA.
VDOT (Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation) (1997b). Plan and Profile of
Proposed State Highway, County of Montgomery Test Bed, Fr: 0.189 km W. of Rte 723
To: 0.671 km E. of Rte 723. Plan drawings, Richmond, VA.
VDOT (Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation) (1997c). Proposed Bridge on
Smart Road over Wilson Creek and Route 723 Montgomery County 0.3 km E. of NS
RWY. Project IVHS-060-101, B603. Plan drawings No. 273-71, Structure and Bridge
Division, Richmond, VA.
VDOT (Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation) (1997d). Metric Road and
Bridge Specifications (January 1997). Richmond, VA.
VDOT (Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation) (1998). Proposal of the
Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation. Order No. A81, Contract No.
C00016931C02, Richmond, VA.
VDOT (Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation) (1999). October 29, 1999
<http://www.vdot.state.va.us/ smart/smart.html>
Veranzio, Fausto (Faustus Verantius) (1615). Machinae novae Favsti Verantii siceni: Cvm
declaratione latina, italica, hispanica, gallica et germanica. Facsimile Edition, Heinz
Moos Verlag Mnchen, Germany, 1965.
Wheen, R. J. (1979a). The Rip Bridge - A unique Australian structure. Concrete International
1(11), 12-15.
References
279
Wheen, R. J. (1979b). Structural model for the Rip Bridge. Concrete International 1(11), 1619.
Wiseman, A., Wiseman, P., trans. (1980). Gaius Iulius Caesar: The Battle for Gaul. A new
translation by Anne & Peter Wiseman, Chatto & Windus Ltd, London, Great Britain.
Zuk, W. (1988a). Notable Unbuilt Bridges. Final Report VTRC 88-R28, Virginia
Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, VA.
Zuk, W. (1988b). Bridges of the 21st Century. Final Report VTRC 89-R7, Virginia
Zuk, W. (1993). Smart Technology as Applied to Bridges. Final Report VTRC 94-R8, Virginia
BILBIOGRAPHY
Andres, C. K., Smith, R. C. (1998). Principles and Practices of Heavy Construction. Fifth
Edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Anon. (1986). Can your design be built? Civil Engineering (New York) 56(1), 49-51.
Anon. (1991). Seven minutes to cross the Great Belt. Railway Gazette International 147(2),
88-89.
AVAR Construction Systems, Inc. (1998). Form Traveler Shop Drawings. AVAR Job No. 9860,
Virginia Project No. IVHS-060-101, B603, Revision 0, Campbell, CA.
Barfoot, J. (1986). Fin-back bridge design in Texas. Concrete (London) 20(5), 23-24.
Bilger, W., Steffen, W. (1986). Die Segmentbauart und ihre Anwendung beim Bau der
Sallingsundbrcke. (In German, translated title: Segmental Bridge Construction and
their Application to the Sallingsund Bridge.) Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 81(6), 155-157.
Boyce, W. J. (1994). Design for constructability. Hydrocarbon Processing 73(12), 81-85.
Creazza, G., Mele, M., eds. (1991). Advanced Problems in Bridge Construction. International
Centre for Mechanical Sciences, CISM Courses and Lectures No. 316, Springer-Verlag,
Wien - New York.
Donald, P. T., Knight, R. G. W., Bourne, S. D. (1996). Design and construction of the crossharbour road and rail links, Belfast. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,
Transport 117(1), 28-39.
Gee, A. F. (1989). Constructibility of Bridges A Construction Engineers View. Concrete
280
Bibliography
281
Gee, A. F. (1995). Reinforcement Tolerances in Bridge Construction. Concrete International

17(2), 38-42.
Halpin, D. W., Woodhead, R. W. (1998). Construction Management. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
New York, NY.
Harries, H., Kinkel, H., Petri, H. (1987). Die Rombachtalbrcke Tragswerksplanung und
Bauausfhrung. (In German, translated title: Rombach Valley Bridge: Structural Design
and Execution of Construction Work.) Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 82(7), 179-185.
Hodson, R. C., Kushner, D. D. (1992). Ingredients, Texture, and Integrally-Colored Concrete.
Joint Task Force (Joint Task Force on Load and Resistance Factor Design for Bridges (LRFD) of
ACI Committees 343, Concrete Bridge Design, and 348, Structural Safety) (1988). Load
and Resistance Factor Design for Bridges. Concrete International 10(5), 48-55.
Kosmatka, S. H., Panarese, W. C. (1988). Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures. Thirteenth
Edition, Engineering Bulletin, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL.
Lee, D. J. (1988). Bridging the Artistic Gulf. Concrete International 10(5), 44-47.
Leech, T. G. (1995). Quantifying the Creative Process. Concrete International 17(8), 54-57.
Loper, J. H., Marquis, E. L., Rhomberg, E. J. (1988). Precast Prestressed Long-Span Bridges.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 114(1), 95-103.
Lorenz, P. (1987). Brcken in Segmentbauart und ihre Ausfhrung in Europa. (In German,
translated title: Segmental Bridge Design and Its Construction in Europe.) Beton- und
Stahlbetonbau 82(5), 123-128 and 82(6), 150-154.
McAdam, P. S., Lee, G. (1997). Formwork: A practical guide. E&FN Spon, an imprint of
Chapman & Hall, London, Great Britain.
Bibliography
282
McGee, K. K., Gomez, J. P. (1996). State of the Art of Advanced Materials in Transportation
Structures. Final Report VTRC 97-R8, Virginia Transportation Research Council,
Charlottesville, VA.
Nowak, A. S., Grouni, H., N. (1982). Safety Criteria in Construction of Segmental Bridges.
Ohkubo, S., Dissanayake, P. B. R., Taniwaki, K. (1998). An approach to multicriteria fuzzy
optimization of a prestressed concrete bridge system considering cost and aesthetic
feeling. Structural Optimization 15(2), 132-140.
Pritchard, B. (1992). Bridge design for economy and durability: concepts for new, strengthened
and replacement bridges. Thomas Telford Services Ltd, London, Great Britain.
Pudney, J. (1972). Crossing Londons River: The bridges, ferries and tunnels crossing the
Thames tideway in London. J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, Great Britain.
Roberts, C. L., Breen, J. E., Kreger, M. E. (1993). Measurement Based Revisions For Segmental
Bridge Design And Construction Criteria. Research Report 1234-3F, Center for
Transportation Research, Bureau of Engineering Research, The University of Texas at
Austin, TX.
Rowings, J. E., Kaspar, S. L. (1991). Constructability of Cable-Stayed Bridges. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 117(2), 259-278.
Russell, M. T. (1995). Inspection and Testing for Quality in HPC. Concrete International
17(11), S9-S12.
Sawhney, A., AbouRizk, S. M. (1995). HSM-Simulation-Based Planning Method for
Construction Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE,
121(3), 297-303.
Bibliography
283
Schnell, W., Gross, D., Hauger, W. (1992). Technische Mechanik: Band 2: Elastostatik. (In
German, translated title: Technical Mechanics: Volume 2: Elastostatics.) Fourth Edition,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin / Heidelberg, Germany.
Smith, B. W. (1978). Developing an erection scheme for a large bridge. Computer-Aided
Design 10(4), 263-268.
Thomas, S. J., Redfield, C. M., Hollenbek, R. E. (1984). Load Test of Single-Cell Box Girder
Bridge Cantilever Deck. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 110(8), 1773-1785.
Tonias, D. E. (1995). Bridge Engineering: Design, Rehabilitation, and Maintenance of Modern
Highway Bridges. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY.
Tsay, T., Hadipriono, F. C. and Larew, R. E. (1996). Virtual reality modeling for bridge
construction. Computing in Civil Engineering (1996), 63-69.
VDOT (Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation) (1994). Road and Bridge
Specifications (January 1994). Richmond, VA.
VDOT (Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation) (1996a). Road and Bridge
Standards: Volume I. Richmond, VA.
VDOT (Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation) (1996b). Road and Bridge
Standards: Volume II. Richmond, VA.
Vincentsen, L. J., Henriksen, K. R. (1992). The Great Belt Link - Built to Last. Concrete
Weddell, G. C., Kavanaugh, P. F. (1980). Parrotts Ferry Bridge: pioneer in lightweight, pumped
concrete. Civil Engineering (New York) 50(6), 83.
Zuk, W. (1995). A Rating Index for Bridge Aesthetics. Concrete International 17(8), 45-47.

Means and Methods Analysis of A Cast in Place Balanced Cantilever Segmental Bridge

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

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

Means and Methods Analysis of A Cast in Place Balanced Cantilever Segmental Bridge

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Means and Methods Analysis of a Cast-In-Place Balanced Cantilever

Segmental Bridge: The Wilson Creek Bridge Case Study

Dr. Jess M. de la Garza, Chair

November 30, 1999

Means and Methods Analysis of a Cast-In-Place Balanced Cantilever

There can be little doubt that in many ways the

(taken from Steinman and Watson 1941)

CHAPTER 1:ABOUT THIS STUDY ....................................................................................................................... 1

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................... 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................. 4

RESEARCH SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS............................................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................................. 7

HISTORY OF BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................................................. 7

Ancient Structural Principles ............................................................................................................................ 8

Trial and Error................................................................................................................................................... 9

The Earliest Beginnings .................................................................................................................................... 9

Timber Bridges ............................................................................................................................................... 11

Stone Bridges .................................................................................................................................................. 12

Aqueducts and Viaducts.................................................................................................................................. 13

Religious Symbolism ...................................................................................................................................... 17

Contributions of Ancient Bridge Building ...................................................................................................... 18

The Middle Ages ................................................................................................................................. 18

Preservation of Roman Knowledge................................................................................................................. 19

Bridges in the Middle East and Asia............................................................................................................... 19

Revival of European Bridge Building ............................................................................................................. 19

Construction and History of Old London Bridge............................................................................................ 20

The Pont dAvignon........................................................................................................................................ 22

Further Notable Medieval Bridges.................................................................................................................. 23

Purpose of Medieval Bridges .......................................................................................................................... 27

Contributions of Medieval Bridge Building.................................................................................................... 28

Palladios I Quattro Libri dell'Architettura ..................................................................................................... 30

Veranzios Machinae Novae ........................................................................................................................... 31

The Rialto Bridge............................................................................................................................................ 31

French Renaissance Bridge Building .............................................................................................................. 33

English Renaissance Bridge Building ............................................................................................................. 36

Contributions of Renaissance Bridge Building ............................................................................................... 37

The Industrial Revolution ................................................................................................................... 38

The Ironbridge ................................................................................................................................................ 38

Early Iron Structures ....................................................................................................................................... 40

Early Suspension Bridges ............................................................................................................................... 42

The Menai Strait Bridge.................................................................................................................................. 43

The Britannia Bridge....................................................................................................................................... 44

Railway Bridges .............................................................................................................................................. 47

Failure of the Tay Bridge ................................................................................................................................ 49

Contributions of Bridge Building during the Industrial Revolution ............................................................... 50

The Great Bridges............................................................................................................................... 52

The St. Louis Bridge ....................................................................................................................................... 52

The Brooklyn Bridge....................................................................................................................................... 53

The Forth Rail Bridge ..................................................................................................................................... 54

The George Washington Bridge...................................................................................................................... 56

Failure of the Quebec Bridge .......................................................................................................................... 56

Failure of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge ........................................................................................................... 58

The Severn Bridge .......................................................................................................................................... 59

Contributions of Bridge Building between Nineteenth and Twentieth Century.............................................. 61

The Renaissance ................................................................................................................................. 29

The Era of Concrete Bridges and Beyond .......................................................................................... 61

Early Concrete Structures ............................................................................................................................... 63

Concrete Arch Bridges.................................................................................................................................... 63

Prestressed Concrete Bridges .......................................................................................................................... 64

Concrete Bridges after the Second World War ............................................................................................... 65

Recent Bridge Projects.................................................................................................................................... 73

Contributions of Modern Concrete Bridge Construction ................................................................................ 74

FUTURE CHALLENGES IN BRIDGE ENGINEERING............................................................................................ 75