Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
CRAIGJ . MILLER
DP~(I~/IT
(<f'Ci~,il
I ~ I I /Et~gi~~ceritig,
C(I.>C>
We.~/crt7Rc,.\~r~,c
U t ~ i ~ ~ ( ~Ct ~l ~. \~i /~~~, ~ OH44106,
l(it1~1, U.S.A.
AND
JUAREZACCIOLY
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Curtin University on 07/05/16
For personal use only.
Introduction
The trend in highway bridge structures has been
toward longer spans. Reasons for the trend include
traffic, safety, and aesthetic considerations. The prestressed concrete box-girder is currently thought t o be
an economical solutioll for spans over 150 ft (46 m),
because its high torsional stiffness provides excellent
transverse load distribution. In the United States,
cast-in-place box girders have been widely used in
California for spans in the 160 ft (49 m) range. The
precast, segmental box-girder bridge has been used
extensively in Europe for about 15 years. Spans range
from 150-350 ft (46-107 m) or more. Largely due to
the organization of the U.S. constructioll industry,
the precast, segmental technique has been slow to
take hold. In recent years, a number of these bridges
have been built, starting with a 200 ft (61 m) main
span structure over the Intracoastal Waterway near
Corpus Christi, Texas. Excellent sunlnlaries of the
state of the art in segmental bridge design and construction are available in papers by Muller (1975),
Libby (1976), and Breen (1976).
Decisions made during the preliminary design
phase of a segmental box-girder design regarding
such things as girder depth, segment length, and web
and flange thicknesses will have a significant illfluellce
on the final cost of the structure. F o r this reason, it is
important that careful attention be given to costs
during the prelimil~arydesign. To assist the designer
with that task, a computer program was written t o
optimize the cross section of a segmental box-girder
bridge using a ~ l o n l i ~ l e mathematical
ar
programming
technique. Based on simplified a~lalysesand a simplified set of design criteria, a preliminary cross-sectional
shape and steel areas are calculated t o minimize the
cost of the bridge superstructure.
There have been some previous attempts to produce such a program. The two that are specifically
03 15- 1468/79/0l0120-09S01.00I0
@ 1979 National Research Council of CanadalConseil national de recherches du Canada
MILLER A N D ACCIOLY
L /2
- - L/2
I
whereas the rest are either fixed by other considerations, such as the total width of the bridge, or are
dependent on the design variables, such as the w ~ d t h
between inner webs in the double-box case. For the
bridge of two single-cell boxes, there a r e a total of 14
variables determined by the program, whereas there
are 12 in the case of the single-cell box. The web
thickness is included as a design variable at the
option of the designer. Most often t h e thickness of
the webs is determined by the amount of room
needed t o fit in the prestressing tendons and still
leave enough cover t o adequately protect them. If
the designer feels that would be t h e case in his
problem, he can fix the web thickness as an input
quantity. Otherwise, the program will determine it.
T h e objective function is the total cost per unit
length of the bridge superstructure. This is coinputed
Problem Description
The bridges considered in this paper are precast,
segmental box-girder bridges such as that shown in
Fig. 1. The bridge comprises three spans the lengths
of which are always in the proportions 1 : 2 : 1. T h e
reason for this is that the bridge is assumed t o be
erected using the balanced cantilever technique for
which these span ratios are ideal. The depth of the
bridge is assumed t o be constant throughout its
length. Current thinking (Breen 1976) is that the
constant depth structure will be the most econon~ical
solution for main spans in the 125-300 ft (38-81 m)
range. The only change in cross-sectional properties
is a change in the thickness of the bottom slab over
the supports t o provide additional conlpressive
resistance. The bottom slab tapers from a n~aximum
to the typical bottom flange thickness over some
length that is a variable in the optimization scheme.
Two different cross sections are considered, singlecell box and two single-cell boxes joined by a cast-inplace longitudinal joint.
The cross sections are shown in Fig. 2 ; Fig. 3 shows
a side view of the structure indicating the profile of
negative and positive moment cables and of the
bottom flange. In Figs. 2 and 3, the circled dimensions are those that are determined by the program,
L
I
I
mJ
8
I
1.
pier '
at midspan
(a)
122
FIG.3. Bridge superstructure longitudinal configuration: (a) cantilever constri~ctionstage; (b) colnpleted s~lperstructure
configuration.
MILLER A N D ACCIOLY
123
Optimization Scheme
The mathematical programming problem to be
solved can be stated as follows:
minimize.f(X),
subject to gi(X) = 0, i = 1, ..., 111,
ti 5 X i 5 ui,i = I, ..., n,
X = vector of design variables,
f(X) = objective function, in the case a t hand the
cost/ft of tlie superstriicture,
li, Lri = lower and upper bounds o n X i ,
11 = number of design variables,
IJI = number of constraints,
nz < 17.
124
TABLE
1. Example problem data
Segment iength
Example
problem
Centre
span
(ft (m))
Side
spans
(ft (m))
Number
of
boxes
Bridge
width
(ft (m))
At pier
(ft (ni))
At
cantilever
(ft (ni))
No. of
segments
for one
cantilever
Width of
longitudinal
joint
(ft (m))
Number
of
traffic
lanes
T A ~ L2.EGeometric data
Thickness of slabs
Deck
slabs
(ft (mni))
Webs
(ft (mni))
Bottom
flanges
(ft (nim))
Depth of
girder
(ft (nl))
0.5
(152)
1.0
(305)
0.5
(152)
5.0
(1.5)
Slope of
bottom
flange
Width
of curb
(ft (mm))
--
Minimum
I .O
(305)
MILLER A N D ACCIOLY
TABLE
3 Material properties and allowable stresses
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(I)
f,'
center span
side span
(0.30)L/2
(0.40)L/2 from pier
anchorage points
bendup points
(2.5)cl
(2.5)rl from anchorage
where L/2 and d a r e one half of the center span and the depth of the g~rder,respect~vely
Concrete compressive strength
f,' = 6 ksi (41.4 kPa)
Allowable stress at service load
Compression
(0 4)L' = 2.4 ksi (16.6 kPa)
N o tension
Allowable con~pressivestress
(0.4)fe' = 2.4 ksi (16.6 kPa)
M ~ X I ~ Iallowable
L I I ~ shear stress
13 f l =1 ksi (6.9 kPa)
Modular ratlos
Strength con~putations
6
Deflect~oncon~putations
8
1 5 ~ n (38
. mm)
Concrete cover for reinforcement and p~estressingcables
TABLE
4. Loads and deflections limits
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e) M a x i n ~ u ndeflection
~
due to dead load plus prestressing at
the end of cantilever
(f) Maximum live load plus impact deflection at midspan for
continuous girder
Example
problem
'Depth
(ft (m))
Boxes
b2(b,)*
(ft (nl))
Cost
(Vft ($/nl))
Figure 5 shows the optirnum cross sections obtained is greater than 24.3, the figure shows t h a t the slope of
for various span-depth ratios for example problem I. the webs becomes nlore nearly vertical and the
The optimum span-depth ratio in this case is 24.3. bottom flange becomes wider and thicker. For the
When the depth is forced t o be smaller, so that L / d largest L / d shown, the slope of the webs has actually
126
-= -. -.
E
b4 b4
-TOTAL COST
CONCRETE COST
---- CABLE COST
-.-.-
300
I::.
::
.. .
15
20
25
30
35
SPAN / DEPTH
Canclusions
A program to find a minimum cost design of a
precast, prestressed segmental box-girder bridge has
been presented. Because of simplifications made in
the analysis and design, the resulting design is intended to be used as a starting point from which
detailed design can be carried out. The program
produces designs that appear realistic compared to
those used in practice, although the results appear t o
L/d
COST = $572.23/ft
= 33.33
COST = $544.55/ft
($1877/m)
(Sl786/m)
COST = $495.21 / f t
($1625 / m )
(b)
As3=0.043 f t 2 ( 4 0 c m 2 )
~ s ~ = 0 . 0 4 7 f t ~ cm2)
(44
L / d = 22.20
COST = $ 499.08/ft
COST = $524.27 / f t
($1637 / m )
COST = $539.10 / f t
($1720 /m)
0 1769 /m)
FIG.5. Cross-sectional configurations for example problem I: (a) configuration for Lid = 24.30 to 36.40; (6) configuration for L/d = 16.70 to 22.20.
TABLE
6. Effect of changing cable profile
Example
problem
*From Fig. 3.
a2 *
CI*
62
(ft (m))
d
(ft (m))
(ft2 (cm2))
cost
(Sift ($im))
0 . 4 (L/2)
0 . 5 (L/2)
22
10.59
(3.23)
8.21
(2.50)
0.191
(1 77)
384.80
(1262.50)
A,
128
LACEY,
G. B., and BREEN,J . E. 1975. The design and optimization of segmentally precast prestressetl box-girder. bridges.
Center for Highway Research. The University of Texas at
Austin, Austin, TX, Research Report 121-3.
LASDON.L. S., Fox, R. L., and RATNEK,M. W. 1974. Nonlinear optimization using the generalized [reduced gradient
method. Revue Fr~uisaisecl'Autoniatiq~~e.Inforni;~liqueet
Recherche 0per;ltionnelle. 3, pp. 73- 104.
L I B B YJ., R. 1976. Segmental box-girder bridge supe~.struct~~re
clesign. Journal of the A~neric;tnConcrete Institute. 73, pp.
279-290.
LO, N. S.. and SCOKDEL.IS,
A. C. 1969. Finite segment analysis
of folded plates. ASCE J o ~ ~ r nof
a l the S t r ~ ~ c t ~ lDivision,
rill
95.
pp. 83 1-852.
MULLER,
J. 1975. Ten yehrsofesperience in precast, segmental
A c c r o ~ u ,J. 1976. Optimization of segmental precast, preconstruction. Journal of the Prestressed Concrete Institute,
stressed concrete box-girdel- bridges. Department of Civil
20, pp. 28-61.
Engineering, Case Weste1.n Reserve University, Cleveland.
PRESTRESSED
CONCRE-!.EINSTII.UT'EB R I D G ECOMMITTEE.
OH, Report No. 76-2.
A M E R I C AASSOCI;\I-ION
N
OF STATEH I G H W A,\KD
Y TRANSPOR- 1975. Tentative design and construction specifications for
precast. segmental box-girder bridges. Journal of the PreTA'rION OFFICIAL.^. 1973. Stantl>irclspecifickitions for highway
stressed Concrete Institute, 20, pp. 34-42.
bridges. I Ith ed. AASHTO, Washington, DC.
L.AV.,
. and POWELL.C. H. 1974. MSBOX-a
A ~ I E R I C ACN
O N C R E I IEN S . I . I . ~ U I1971.
~ E . Building code 1.e- R A M A K R I S H N
coniputel. program for automated design of prestressed conquirements for reinfol-ced concrete. Detroit, MI. ACI 318-71.
crete box-girder bridges. Universityofcaliforniaat Berkeley,
BRE~N
J . .E. 1976. Design of segmental bridges. Federal HighBerkeley, CA, Report No. UCSESM 74-18.94 p.
way Administration Bridge Meeting, Pennsylvania State UniSCORDELIS,
A. C. 1966. Analysisof simply supported box-girder
versity, University kirk, PA.
bridges. University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
BROWN,R. C . , and BURNS.N. H. 1975. Computer analysis of
a l the S ~ ~ L I C ~ L Report
I I . ~ ~No. UC SESM 66-17.
segmentally erected bridges. ASCE J o ~ ~ r nof
1967. Analysis of continuous box-girder bridges. UniDivision, 101. pp. 761-778.
versity of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. Report No.
Fox, R. L. 1973. Optimization methods for engineering design.
UC SESM 67-25.
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc., Reading, MA.