20 Bridges

D J Lee BScTech, DIC, FEng, FICE,

FIStructE
B Richmond BSc(Eng), PhD, FCGI, FICE
Maunsell Group

Contents
20.1 Plan of work 20/3 20.4 Stress concentrations 20/33
20.4.1 Shear lag due to concentrated loads 20/33
20.2 Economics and choice of structural system 20/3 20.4.2 Changes in thickness and cut-outs 20/33
20.3 Characteristics of bridge structures 20/17 20.5 Concrete deck slabs 20/34
20.3.1 Theory of suspension bridges and arch
bridges 20/17 20.6 Skew and curved bridges 20/35
20.3.2 Bridge girders of open section 20/21 20.6.1 Skew 20/35
20.3.3 More general behaviour of suspension 20.6.2 Curved in plan 20/35
bridges and arches 20/22
20.3.4 Single-cell box girder 20/24 20.7 Dynamic response 20/36
20.3.5 Boxes with discrete diaphragms 20/25
20.8 Appendix: Movable bridges 20/38
20.3.6 Box beams with continuous
diaphragms 20/26 20.9 Items requiring special consideration 20/38
20.3.7 Box girders with cantilevers 20/27
20.3.8 Multiple web girders of open cross- References 20/40
section 20/27
20.3.9 Multiple single-cell box beams 20/29 Bibliography 20/41
20.3.10 Multicellular bridge decks 20/31
20.3.11 Symmetrical loading 20/31
20.3.12 Antisymmetrical loading 20/31
20.3.13 Design curves 20/32

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

20.1 Plan of work where the bridge designer should seek the approval of the client
throughout all the stages of a project for a truly successful
The design of bridges requires the collection of extensive data collaboration.
and from this the selection of possible options. From such a This chapter covers the selection and analysis of bridge
review the choice is narrowed down to a shortlist of potential superstructures and attempts to relate the most frequently used
bridge designs. A sensible work plan should be devised for the bridging materials - steel and concrete.
marshalling and deployment of information throughout the As extensive treatment as possible is given to box girder
project from conception to completion. Such a checklist will analysis, an important aspect of modern bridge construction.
vary from project to project but a typical example might be Information about individual bridges will be found in the
drawn up on the following lines. bibliography. Reference to these specific examples will assist an
understanding of the historical background and the existing
1I) Feasibility phase: state of the art. A good general review of the structural form of
bridges is given by Beckett,' whilst a sensitive aesthetic assess-
(a) data collection; ment is provided by Mock.2
(b) topographical and hydrographical surveys; Masonry arches and steel trusses have not been dealt with but
(c) hydrological information; interesting examples of these types of bridges are contained in
(d) geological and geotechnical information; the reference list.
(e) site investigation requirements for soil and rock evaluation; The principles developed in this chapter for open or closed
(f) Meteorological and aerodynamic data; sections are applicable to trussed structures if suitable modifica-
(g) assembly of basic criteria; tions are made to allow for shear behaviour of the truss system.
(h) likely budget. Thus, the authors hope that there is adequate information in
(2) Assembly of design criteria'. this chapter to make preliminary assessments for most modern
bridge designs by methods which enable the essential natures of
(a) data and properties on the material to be used including structural behaviours to be perceived and which can be de-
steel, concrete, aluminium, timber, masonry, etc.; veloped to detailed analyses without the necessity of revising
(b) foundation considerations; basic principles.
(c) hydraulic considerations, flood, scour;
(d) loading and design criteria;
(e) clearances height and width (such as for navigation, traffic); 20.2 Economics and choice of
(f) criteria for gradients, alignment, etc.; structural system
(g) hazards such as impact, accident;
(h) proximity to other engineering works, etc.; Cost comparisons which would make it possible to arrive at the
(i) functional requirements; most economical choice of material, structural form, span, etc.
(j) transportation and traffic planning; have been sought for many years by bridge engineers, but since
(k) highway and/or railway engineering aspects; the costs of any one bridge depend on the circumstances
(I) drainage requirements; prevailing at that time, the information is always imprecise.
(m) provision for services (water, sewage, power, electricity, Cost data must be up to date and sufficiently detailed to allow
telephone, gas, communications links, etc.); adjustments to be made for changed circumstances. It is the
(n) design life and durability considerations. changes in these factors which lead to new methods of construc-
(3) Design phase: tion and new structural systems; a major change of this kind has
been that involving box girders, plate girders and trusses.
(a) choice of bridge; A very early steel box girder bridge, the Britannia Bridge,3
(b) detailed design of bridge including foundations, substruc- built by Stephenson over the Menai Straits (main spans 14Om,
ture and superstructure; completed in 1850) was very successful and was in regular use
(c) production of drawings and documentation, etc.; for railway trains until it was damaged by fire. Each span was
(d) preparation of quality assurance plan; lifted into place in its entirety by hydraulic jacks. The advan-
(e) estimation of cost and programme. tages of truss construction were, however, sufficient to convince
(4) Construction phase: engineers for the next 100 years that box structures were not
economical, though plated structures were used in the form of I-
(a) contractual matters; beams for smaller spans and lighter loads. The steel box girder
(b) construction methods; re-emerged as a structural system for bridges after the Second
(c) budget and financial control; World War, although short-span multicellular bridges in rein-
(d) quality control; forced concrete had been used for short spans in the 1930s. In
(e) supervision of construction; 1965 a large proportion of structures other than short spans
(f) commissioning; were built as box structures of one form or another. A greater
(g) operating, inspection and maintenance schedules for each degree of selectivity then began to emerge and open cross-
part of the work. sections, even for substantial spans, were again being used
(5) Performance phase: provided no problems of aerodynamic stability arose. The use of
plate girders has been further encouraged by the reaction caused
(a) obligations of owner; by failures of steel box girder bridges but it seems likely that a
(b) management of facility; balanced view of the merits of various forms of construction will
(c) inspection, maintenance and repair; prevail.
(d) rehabilitation and refurbishment requirements (change of Figure 20.14 shows the possible cross-sections for bridge
loading, widening, change of use and durability aspects); structures which can include truss systems if the plane of each
(e) decommissioning and demolition. triangulated panel is represented by either a web or flange
member. The significance of box structures in a more general
Such a project list serves to highlight the various and sometimes sense now becomes clear. It is the open cross-section that is a
conflicting requirements of a bridge project, and those aspects particular, although important, form of construction, whereas
 orthotropic plates

M
Multiple multiple web multiple box
(M-1) (M-2) (M-3) etc

Q
Quadruple quadruple web quadruple box quadruple triple
(Q-1) (Q-2) (Q-3)
T
Triple
triple web triple box triple-triple
(T-1) (T-2) (T-3)
D
Double
double web double box double triple
(D-1) (D-2) (D-3)
S
Single
single web single box single triple single-quadruple multicellular voided slab
(S-D (S-2) (S-3) (S-4) (S-M)

Number of webs in each box

Figure 20.1 Classification of bridge-deck classifications. (After Lee (1971) The selection of box-beam arrangements in bridge design',
Developments in bridge design and construction. (Crosby Lockwood).

the box system is perhaps a misleadingly simple description of Table 20.1 The world's leading suspension bridges
the general range of structures.
The most basic structural dimension for a given span affect- Name oj bridge Year Main Cable Span/
ing both the least-cost and the least-weight methods of measur- span sag sag Location
ing efficiency is the effective lever arm of the structure for (m) (m)
resisting bending moments resulting from the vertically acting
forces from self-weight and imposed loads and vertical compo- Humber 1981 1410 125 11.3 Humber River
nents of the support reactions. In bridges which depend on Verrazano
horizontal reactions from the ground, this distance is the rise of Narrows 1964 1298 117 11.0 New York
an arch above its foundations, or the dip of a suspension cable Harbor
between towers. If the supports are at different levels, the dip or Golden Gate 1937 1280 145 8.8 San Francisco
rise is measured vertically from the chord joining the supports. Mackinac Straits 1957 1158 108 10.76 Michigan
The high strength: weight ratio of steel wire and favourable Minami Bisan-
price:strength ratio results in dip:span ratios of 0.1 being Seto (Road/Rail) u.c.
suitable for even the longest suspension bridges (Table 20.1). (1988) 1100 Inland Sea of
The shallow cable has a higher tension which improves its Japan
capacity for carrying uneven loads without large deflection and 2nd Bosphorus 1988 1090
increases its natural frequency of vibration. The cost of the cable Bosphorus 1973 1074 93.4 11.5 Ortakoy, Turkey
alone is not, however, sufficient to reach conclusions on eco- George
nomics, since the cost of foundations to anchor the cables is Washington 1932 1067 96 11.1 Hudson River,
substantial and varies with the ground conditions. New York state
The lower strength-.weight ratios of steel in compression and Tagus 1966 1013 106 9.5 Lisbon
concrete combined with the destabilizing effect of the compres- Forth 1964 1006 91 11.0 Queensferry
sive force of the thrust lead to the rise:span ratios being Kita Bisan-Seto
considerably higher on average (Tables 20.3 and 20.4). Good (Road/Rail) u.c.
foundations and the requirements of local topography may lead (1988) 990 Inland Sea of
to reduced ratios, and arches - such as at Gladesville,5 which are Japan
in flat country and yet have the roadway running above the arch Severn 1966 988 82 12.0 Beachley, UK
rib - and the requirement for a low rise to minimize the cost of Ohnaruto 876 Naruto, Japan
approach embankments. Tacoma Narrows
The depth between compression and tension flanges is the II 1950 853 87 9.8 Puget Sound,
lever arm of a simply supported beam structure, such as a truss, Washington
plate girder or box girder. If the structure is continuous at both Lions Gate 1938 846 Vancouver
ends, the sum of the depths at the centre span and one of the
supports is the lever arm (Tables 20.6 and 20.7). u.c. = under construction
Table 20.2 Leading cable-stayed bridges
Name Location Year Main span Span Cables Material Function Special notes
length (m) arrange-
ment
Planes Arrangement

Annacis Vancouver, Canada 1986 465 Sym 2 MF St/C Road

Hooghly Calcutta, India u.c. 457 Sym 2 F St/C
Barrios de Luna Sierra Cantabrica,
Spain W 440 Sym 2 F C Road
Hitsuishijima Iwakurojima (two (u.c. 1987)420 Sym 2 MF St Road and Part of Kojma-
bridges) Rail Sokaido
Saint Nazaire Loire estuary, Brittany 1974 404 Sym 2 F St Road
France
St Johns River Jacksonville, Florida, 400 F C
US
Rande Vigo Estuary, Spain 1978 400 Sym 2 F St Road
Luling Mississippi River, 1982 372 Sym 2 F St Road
Louisiana, US
Dusseldorf Flehe W. Germany 1979 368 Ass 1 H side St/C Road Multiple side span
span, anchor piers
MF main
span
Tjorn Askerofjord, Sweden 1981 366 Sym 2 MF St/C Road Replaced steel arch
demolished by ship
collision
Sunshine Skyway Florida, US 1987 366 I C Road
Yamatogawa Osaka, Japan 355 Sym 1 H St Road
Duisberg-Neuenkamp Rhine River, 1970 350 Sym 1 MF St Road
Duisberg-Moers,
W. Germany
Jindo S. Korea 1985 345 Sym 2 F St Road
Westgate Yarra River, 1978 336 Sym 1 DF St/C Road
Melbourne,
Australia
Brazo Largo Guagu, Argentina 1977 330 Sym 2 F St Road and
Rail Connected by long
embankment
Zarate Palmas, Argentina 1977 330 Sym 2 F St Road and
Rail
Posadas-Encarnacion Paraguay, Argentina 330 C Road and
Rail
Kohlbrand Hamburg, W. 1974 325 Sym 2 MF St
Germany
Knie Rhine River, 1969 320 Ass 2 H St Road Multiple side span
Dusseldorf, anchor piers
W. Germany
Brotonne Seine River, Rouen, 1977 320 Sym 1 MF C Road
France
Bratislava Danube River, 1971 316 Ass 1 S side St Road Two unequal spans,
Czechoslovakia span, F backward leaning
main tower
span
Erskine Clyde River, Scotland 1971 305 Sym 1 S St Road
Severins Cologne, W. Germany 1959 302 Ass 2 F St Road
Dnieper Kiev, Soviet Union 1976 300 Ass 2 MF St/C Road Two unequal spans
Pasco Kennewick Washington State, US 1978 299 Sym 2 F C Road
Neiwied Rhine River, 292 Ass 1 MF St Road Two unequal spans
W. Germany with longitudinal
A frame tower
Deggenau Danube River, W. 1975 290 Ass 1 F St Road Two unequal spans
Germany
Coatzacoalcos II Mexico 1984 288 Sym 1 MF C Road
Kurt Schuhmacher Rhine River, 1971 287 Ass 2 F St Road and Two side span
Mannheim Nord, tram- anchor piers
W. Germany way
Table 20.2 (cont)

Name Location Year Main span Span Cables Material Function Special notes
length (m) arrange-
ment
Planes Arrangement

Wadi-el-Kuf Beida, Libya, 1971 282 Sym 2 S C Road Articulated

N. Africa
Lever kusen Rhine River, 1965 281 Sym 1 H St Road
W. Germany
Friedrich-Ebert Rhine River, Bonn 1967 280 Sym 1 MF St Road
Nord, W. Germany
Dolsan S. Korea u.c. 280 Sym 2 F St
Speyer Rhine River, 1975 275 Ass 1 S side St Road
W. Germany span,
F main
span
East Huntingdon Ohio River, US u.c. 274 Ass 2 MF C Road Two unequal spans
Tiel Waal River, Holland 1972 267 Sym 2 F C Road
Theodor Heuss Dusseldorf, 1958 260 Sym 2 H St Road
W. Germany
Oberkassel Dusseldorf, 1976 258 Ass 1 H St Road and Multiple side-span
W. Germany streetcar anchor piers
Rees W. Germany 1967 255 Sym 2 H St Road
Save Belgrade, Yugoslavia 1978 254 Sym 2 MF St Railway
Papineau Montreal, Canada 1969 251 Sym 1 F St Road
Suchiro Tokushima, Japan 1976 250 Sym 1 MF St
Manuel Belgrano Parana River, 1972 245 Sym 2 F C Road Articulated
Corrientes,
Argentina
Kessock Inverness, Scotland 1982 240 Sym 2 H St Road
General Rafael Lake Maracaibo, 1962 235 Sym 2 S C Road Multiple spans.
Urdaneta Venezuela Articulated
Wye Beachley, Wales 1966 235 Sym 1 S St Road
Penang Crossing Malaysia 1980 225 Sym 2 H C Road
Luangwa Zambia 223
Rokko Island Kobe, Japan 1977 220 Sym 2 MF St Road
Double-decked
Hawkshaw New Brunswick, 1969 217
Canada
Toyosato Yodo River, Osaka, 1970 216 Sym 1 MF St Road
Japan
Onomichi Hiroshima Pref., 1968 215 Sym 2 F St Road
Japan
Polcevera Creek Genoa, Italy 1967 210 Sym 2 S C Road Multiple spans.
Articulated
Albert Canal Godsheide, Belgium 1977 210 Sym 2 MF St Road
Batman Tamar River, 1968 206 Ass 2 S side St Road Two unequal spans.
Tasmania span, Forward leaning
F main tower
span
Arno Florence, Italy 1977 206 Sym 2 S side Road Towers lean
span, backwards
F main
span
Stromsund Sweden 1955 183 Sym 2 DF St/C Road
Adhamiyah Baghdad, Iraq 1984 182 Ass 1 H St/C Road Two side-span
anchor piers
New Galecopper Rhine Canal, 1971 180 Sym 1 S St Road Twin bridges skew
Amsterdam, spans
Holland
Maxau Rhine River, 1967 175 Ass 1 MF St Road Two unequal spans
W. Germany
Ganter Simplon Pass, Valais, 1980 174 Sym 2 S C Road Cables enclosed in
Switzerland web extensions.
Curved side spans
Table 20.2 (cont)

Name Location Year Main span Span Cables Material Function Special notes
length (m) arrange-
ment
Planes Arrangement

North Elbe Hamburg, 1962 172 Sym 1 ST St Road

W. Germany
Daikoku Yokohama, Japan 1974 165 Ass 2 MF St
Massena Paris, France 1971 162 Sym 1 MF St Road
Steyregger Donau Linz, Austria 1979 161 Ass 2 S St/C Road Two unequal spans
Kamatsugawa Japan 1971 160 Sym 1 H St
Ishikara-Kako Hokkaido, Japan 1975 160 Sym 2 F St Road
Arakawa Tokyo, Japan 1970 160 Sym 1 H St Road
George Street River Usk, Newport, 1964 152 Sym 2 H St/C Road
Wales
Sancho el Major Rio Ebro, Castejon, 146 MF C
Spain
Metten Danube River, 145 1 S C
W. Germany
Magliana Tiber River, Rome, 1967 145 Ass 2 S C Road Curved in plan. Two
Italy unequal spans.
Backward leaning
towers
Dnieper Kiev, Soviet Union 1964 144 Sym 2 F C Road
Maya Kobe, Japan 1966 139 Ass 1 MF St Two unequal spans
Ludwigshafen W. Germany 1968 138 Eq 2 F St Road Four-leg A-frame
tower
Sitka Harbour Alaska, US 1972 137 Sym 2 S St/C Road
Danube Canal Vienna, Austria 1975 119 Sym 2 S C
Second Main Bridge Frankfurt, 1972 148 Ass 2 H C Road and Articulated main
W. Germany rail span connects to
fin back. Three
anchored side
spans
Tarano Alba, Italy 1983 114 Ass 1 S side St Road Two unequal spans.
span, Backward sloping
F main towers
span
Harm sen Rotterdam, Holland 1968 108
Bridge of the Isles Montreal, Canada 1967 105 Eq 2 S St/C Road and
rail
St Florent River Loire, France 1969 104 Eq 2 F St/C
Julicherstrasse Dusseldorf, 1963 99 Sym 1 S St Road
W. Germany

Ass - asymmetric; C - concrete; DF - double fan; Eq - two equal; F - multiple fan; H - harp; MF - modified fan; S - single; St - steel;
ST - star; St/C - composite steel and concrete; Sym - symmetric; u.c. - under construction
Table 20.3 The world's leading steel arch bridges RiodasAntas 180 28.0 0.156 1953 Brazil
Traneberg 178 26.2 0.147 1934 Stockholm,
Name of bridge Span Rise Rise Sweden
(m) (m) span Year Location Plougastel
(Albert Louppe) 173 33 0.190 1930 Elorn River,
River Gorge 518 1977 West Virginia, France
US Selah Creek 168 1971 Yakima,
Bayonne 504 81 0.161 1931 New York, New Washington, US
York, US Bobbejaans 165 1983 Cape Province,
Sydney Harbour 503 107 0.212 1932 Sydney, Australia South Africa
Fremont* 383 u.c. Portland, La Roche-Guyonl61 23.0 0.143 1934 France
Oregon, US Cowlitz River
Port Mann* 366 76 0.208 1964 Vancouver, Bridge 158 Mossyrock,
Canada Washington, US
Thatcherf 344 1962 Balboa, Panama Caracas-
Laviolettef 335 1967 Trois Rivieres, La Guaira 152 39.0 0.257 1952 Caracas,
Canada Venezuela
Zd'akov 330 42.5 0.129 1967 Lake Orlik, Puddefjord 145 1956 Norway
Czechoslovakia Podolska 145 1942 Czechoslovakia
Runcorn-Widnes 330 66.4 0.202 1961 Mersey River,
England Other concrete arch bridges of interest
Birchenough 329 65.8 0.200 1935 Sabi River,
Rhodesia Revin-Orzy 120 10.0 0.083 Meuse River,
Glen Canyon 313 1959 Arizona, US France
Lewiston- Glemstal 114 27.1 0.238 Stuttgart,
Queenston 305 48.4 0.159 1962 Niagara River, W. Germany
N. America Slangsboda 111 12.0 0.108 1961 Stockholm,
Hell Gate 298 1917 New York, New Sweden
York, US
Other steel arch bridges of interest u.c. = under construction

Rainbow 289 45.7 0.158 1941 Niagara Falls, N. Table 20.5 The world's leading truss bridges
America
Fehmarnsund* 249 43.6 0.175 1963 Fehmarnsund, Name of bridge Span (m) Year Location
W. Germany
Adomi (Volta) 245 57.4 0.234 1957 Adomi, Ghana Quebec Railway 549 1918 Quebec, Canada
Kaiserlei* 220 1964 Frankfurt-am- Forth Railway 2 x 5 2 1 1890 Queensferry, Scotland
Main, Minato 510 1974 Japan
W. Germany Delaware River 501 Chester, Penn-Bridgeport,
New Jersey, US
u.c. = under construction Greater New
*Tied arch tCantilever arch Orleans 480 1958 New Orleans, Louisiana, US
Howrah 457 1943 Calcutta, India
Table 20.4 The world's leading concrete arch bridges Transbay 427 1936 San Francisco, California,
US
Name of bridge Span Rise Rise Baton Rouge 376 1968 Baton Rouge, Louisiana, US
(m) (m) span Year Location Tappan Zee 369 1955 Tarrytown, New York, US
Longview 366 1930 Columbia River,
Krk II 390 1980 Adria, Washington, US
Yugoslavia Queensboro 360 1909 New York, US
Gladesville 305 40.8 0.134 1964 Sydney, Australia I Carquinez
Rio Parana 290 53.0 0.183 1965 Parana River, Strait 2x335 1927 San Francisco, California,
Brazil-Paraguay US
Bloukrans 272 1983 Cape Province, II Carquinez
South Africa Strait 2x335 1958 San Francisco, California,
Arrabida 270 51.9 0.192 1963 Portugal US
Sando 264 40.0 0.151 1943 Angerman River, Second Narrows 335 1960 Vancouver, Canada
Sweden Jacques Cartier 334 1930 Montreal, Canada
Shibenik 246 1967 Krka River, Isaiah D. Hart 332 1967 Jacksonville, Florida, US
Yugoslavia Richmond-San
Fiumarella 231 66.1 0.286 1961 Catanzaro, Italy Rafael 2 x 326 1956 San Pablo Bay, California,
Novi Sad 211 1961 Danube River, US
Yugoslavia Grace Memorial 320 1929 Cooper River, South
Linenau 210 1967 Bregenz, Austria Carolina, US
Van Stadens 200 1971 Van Stadens Newburgh- 305 1963 Hudson River, New York,
Gorge, S. Africa Beacon US
EsIa 192 1942 EsIa River, Spain Auckland
Groot River 189 1983 Cape Province, Harbour 244 1959 Auckland, New Zealand
South Africa
Table 20.6 Some of the world's leading steel girder bridges
Name of bridge Span (m) Depth (d) at Depth (d2) d,+d2 Year Type Location
midspan (m) at pier (m) Span

Niteroi 300 7.4 12.9 0.068 1974 B Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Sava I 261 4.6 9.8 0.055 1956 P Belgrade, Yugoslavia
Zoo 259 4.5 10.0 0.056 1966 B Cologne, W. Germany
Sava II 250 1969 B Belgrade, Yugoslavia
Koblenz 235 B Rhine River, W. Germany
Foyle 234 1984 B Londonderry, N. Ireland
San Mateo-Hayward 228 4.6 9.2 0.060 1967 B California, US
Hochbriicke 'Radar 221 5 9.5 0.066 P Nord-Ost see Canal,
InseK W. Germany
Moselle 219 B Moselle Valley, W. Germany
Milford Haven 213 5.9 5.9 0.055 B Pembroke Dock, Wales
Fourth Danube 210 1970 B Vienna, Austria
Martigues 210 1976 Portal B France
Diisseldorf-Neuss 206 3.3 7.8 0.054 1951 B Diisseldorf, W. Germany
Wiesbaden-Schierstein 205 4.4 7.4 0.057 P Rhine River, W. Germany
Europa 198 7.7 7.7 0.078 1964 B Sill Valley, Austria
Koln-Deutz 185 1948 B Rhine River, W. Germany
Poplar Street 183 6.2 7.6 0.070 1967 B St Louis, Mississippi, US
Italia 175 8.5 8.5 1969 B Lao River, Italy
Avonmouth 174 2.6 7.6 0.059 1974 B Gloucestershire, England
Friarton 174 2.7 7.5 0.059 1978 B Perth, Scotland
Gemersheim 165 9.1 5.4 0.058 1971 B Rhine River, W. Germany
Speyer 163 3.4 6.40 0.060 1956 B Rhine River, W. Germany
Concordia 160 4.9 4.9 0.060 1967 B Montreal, Canada
New Temerloh 151 3.7 5.9 0.064 1974 B Temerloh, Malaysia

Other steel girder bridges of interest

Calcasieu River 137 2.1 7.0 0.078 1963 P Louisiana, US

St Alban 135 2.8 9.3 0.062 1955 P Basel, Switzerland
Amara 82 3.7 12.1 0.087 1958 B Tigris River, Iraq

u,c. = under construction

Bridge type: B box girder, P plate girder

Table 20.7 Some of the world's leading concrete girder bridges

Name of bridge Span (m) Depth (d) at Depth (d 2 ) d, + d 2 Year Type Location
midspan (m) at pier (m) Span

Gateway 260 4.0 14.0 0.069 1986 C Brisbane, Australia

Hikoshima 236 C
Urato 230 4.0 12.5 0.072 1972 C Shikoku, Japan
Three Sisters 229 u.c. C Potomac River, Washington,
DC, US
Bendorf 208 4.4 10.4 0.071 1965 C Bendorf, W. Germany
Orwell 190 C Ipswich, England
Manazuru 185 3.1 10.0 u.c. C Japan
Brisbane Water 183 c+ss New South Wales, Australia
Gardens Point 183 C Brisbane Australia
Redheugh 160 Newcastle upon Tyne,
England
Amakusa Nakana 160 3.0 10.0 Japan
Medway 152 2.2 10.8 0.086 1963 c+ss Rochester, England
Neckarsulm 151 4.2 7.4 0.078 1968 C Neckarsulm, W. Germany
Moscow River 148 1957 CG Soviet Union
Amakusa 146 1966 C Japan
Kingston 143 2.4 10.0 0.087 1970 C Glasgow, Scotland
Victoria 142 1970 c+ss Brisbane, Australia
Tocantins 142 1961 C Tocantins River, Brazil
Bettingen 140 3.0 7.0 0.089 C Main River, W. Germany
Don 139 1964 C Rostow, Soviet Union
Table 20.7 (cont.)

Name of bridge Span (m) Depth (d) at Depth (d2) d, + d 2 Year Type Location
midspan (m) at pier (m) Span

Pine Valley 137 u.c. CG California, US

Alno 134 1964 C Alnosund, Sweden
Oland 130 1972 C Kalmar Sound, Sweden

Other concrete girder bridges of interest

Worms 114 2.5 6.5 0.079 1952 C Rhine River, W. Germany

Koblenz 114 2.7 7.2 0.087 1954 C Moselle River, W. Germany
Notesund 110 2.2 5.7 0.072 1966 C Orust, Sweden
Siegtal 105 5.8 5.8 0.110 1969 CG Eiserfeld, W. Germany
Chillon Viaduct 104 2.2 5.6 0.072 1973 CG Chillon, Switzerland
Narrows 97 2.2 4.2 0.068 1959 C + SS Perth, Australia
Benjamin Sheares 84 1981 C + SS Singapore
Oleron 79 2.5 4.5 0.089 1966 CG Rochefort, France

u.c. = under construction

C - concrete; C + SS - concrete with suspended span; CG - continuous girder

The cable-supported bridge can be seen as either a suspension

bridge or a continuous beam with the effective depth at the
supports equal to the height of the tower. Figure 20.2 shows the
various arrangements of cables that are used, and various
finished bridges are shown in Figures 20.3 to 20.9.
The choice of span depends on the foundations, depth of
water and height of the deck but, in many cases, other require-
ments - such as navigation clearances - dictate the minimum
span. It is usually only shorter spans where, proportionately at
any rate, there is considerable variation possible. It has been
claimed in the past that at the most economic span of a
multispan structure, the cost of foundations equals the cost of
the superstructure less the basic deck structure costs. The
assumptions necessary for this to be valid are that the cost of
superstructure per unit length should increase linearly with span
and that that of the substructure should vary inversely with
span. The slopes of the respective cost-span curves are then
equal and opposite at the point of intersection of the curves
provided any constant costs in both foundations and super-
structure are first subtracted. If the cost of the superstructure is
assumed to increase proportionately to the square root of the
span, however, the same approach requires that half the super-
structure cost should equal the foundation cost. In modern
structures it is difficult to separate the costs of the basic deck
system from the total of the multispan structure.
The well-known rule - that for maximum economy the total
area of the flanges of a beam should equal the area of the web -
is a more useful guide. Table 20.8 shows that for a given web
thickness and a total area of cross-section of 1 .Qt the maximum
section modulus is at a depth of 0.75 where the total flange area
is one-third the web area, but at a depth of 0.5 where the flange
and web areas are equal the section modulus is only 11 % lower.
A shallower beam is usually more economical because a simpler
web is then possible provided the shear force can be carried.
Fabrication, transportation and erection are also less costly.
Table 20.9 shows the types of standardized precast concrete
beams that are appropriate to various parts of the short-span
range. Apart from the cost advantages of standardization and
factory production, which may be offset by higher overheads
and transport costs, there are the following advantages.
(1) Estimates of cost more reliable.
(2) Speed of construction.
Figure 20.2 Examples of different cable systems (scale:
approximately 1/10000). (a) Fan (Stromsiind); (b) modified fan
(3) No temporary staging required. (Duisberg-Neuenkamp); (c) harp (Theodor Heuss); (d) single
(4) Sample beams can be tested to demonstrate level of prestress cable (Erskine); (e) star (Norderelbe); (f) asymmetric systems
and ultimate strength. (Batman); (g) Bratislava). (Courtesy: Polensky and ZoIIner)
Figure 20.3 Concrete girder bridge, Bettingen, Frankfurt-am-Main

Figure 20.4 Steel girder bridge, Rio-Niteroi, Brazil. (Courtesy: Redpath Dorman Long and the
Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Co. Ltd)

Figure 20.5 Concrete cable-stayed bridge, Tempul Aqueduct, Spain. (Courtesy: Torroja Institute,
Madrid)
 Table 20.8
Depth 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.75 0.8
Af 0.25/ 0.2/ 0.15/ 0.125/ 0.1/
Section modulus Z 0.167/ 0.180/ 0.187/ 0.1875/ 0.187/

Af = bf x tp
(t,tc, tb are small)

Af - bbx tb

Note: Total cross-section throughout = 1.0/

Figure 20.6 Steel trussed cable-stayed bridge. Batman Bridge, Figure 20.7 Concrete-arched bridge, Gladesville, Sydney.
Tasmania. (Courtesy: Maunsell and Partners) (Courtesy: G. Maunsell and Partners)
Figure 20.8 Number suspension bridge. (Courtesy: Freeman Fox and Partners)

Figure 20.9 Annacis cable-stayed bridge, Vancouver. (Courtesy: Buckfand and Taylor Ltd)

support the structures with complex plan forms that are now
In simple right spans, the system chosen, apart from span, common.
depends on construction depth limitations, difficulties of access The standard concrete beams are essentially a series of
and, of course, prevailing prices. For example, the top hat beam elements that can be placed across the complete span, requiring
system6 is suitable for restricted access and small construction only simple shuttering to support the transversely spanning top
depths. The U-beam system7 is suitable for similar conditions slab. Diaphragm beams at the supports are required and
but requires an increased depth. At the greater depth it is more occasionally intermediate diaphragms may be provided.
economical. An advantage of torsionally stiff structures of this Steel beams can be used as an alternative form of construction
type, particularly when they are designed to be spaced apart in in the same span range. Either a series of !-sections or small box
the transverse direction, is that they can readily be fanned out to girders can be used.
Table 20.9 Precast concrete bridge beams
Type of beam Name of beam Classification Span (m) Beam section
(as Figure 20.1)

I C&CA M-I 12-36

!-section
beam

Inverted T C&CA Orthotropic 7-16 m

inverted slab
T-beam for
spans from
7-16 m

Inverted T MoT/C & CA (a) T-beam 15-29

(M range) prestressed M-I
inverted (b) Pseudo box
T-beam for S-M
spans from
15 to 29m

Box C & CA box S-M 12-36

section beam

U U-beam M-2 15-36

Section through part Remarks
of typical deck

Surfacing
Structural slab
20 standard sections
01-120)
Holes for transverse
reinforcement provided at
30-50 mm centres

Transverse
diaphragm

Surfacing
7 standard sections
/n situ concrete (Tl-TT)

Reinforced concrete topping

In situ reinforced 10 standard
concrete infill sections
(Ml-MlO)

(a) T-beam (b) Pseudo box

Ini situ concrete 17 standard

sections
Surfacing (Bl-B 17)
Transverse
prestress used to
give optimum
load distribution

Surfacing
In situ topping 12 standard
sections
(Ul-U 12)

Permanent soffit shuttering

Table 20.10 Longitudinal stiffeners for orthotropic decks
Type of Classification Remarks
stiffener (as Figure 18.1)

Flat M-I, etc. Torsionally weak.

Easily spliced.
Poor transverse load distribution.
Earliest form.

Bulb flat M-I Torsionally weak.

Easily spliced.
Poor transverse load distribution.
Bulb flats difficult to obtain.
Out of date.

Trapezoidal M-2, etc. Torsionally stiff.

trough Fabrication difficult through cross-frames.
Relatively popular.

V-trough M-2 Torsionally stiff.

Fabrication difficult through cross-frames.
Small effective lower flange area.
Popular but less efficient than trapezoidal
trough

Wineglass M-2 Torsionally stiff.

Very complicated fabrication.
Expensive.

(cut from M-I Easily spliced.

universal Requires large cutout in cross-frame.
beam) Torsionally weak.
Inefficient.
 Total
tension

L= distance between anchorages

Figure 20.10 Suspension-bridge notation

Precast or prefabricated elements can be made as transverse 20.3.1.1 Suspension bridges with external anchorages
rather than longitudinal elements and then joined together on The dead load of the cable and stiffening girder is supported by
site by prestressing in concrete structures or welding or bolting the force per unit length of span produced by the horizontal
in steel structures. This approach, sometimes known as segmen- component of the cable force and the rate of change of slope of
tal construction, was used for the structures of Figure 20.1 l(d), the cable:
(e), (f), (h), (i), (j) and (k). It was also used for the steel structures
of Figure 20.11 (1) and (m). The remaining steel structures #,y(*) + * = 0 (20.1)
shown in Figure 20.11(n) to (r) were constructed by a similar
process but with the subdivision taken a stage further. Each where y, etc. are shown in Figure 20.10.
transverse slice was built up on the end of the cantilevering
structure from several stiffened panels. For a parabolic shape of cable corresponding to constant
In situ concrete, reinforced or prestressed, can be used to form intensity of load across the span /, y"(x) = - 8///2 and:
complete spans in one operation or else the cantilevering
approach can be used. In the latter case, the speed of construc- Hg=glW (20.2)
tion is limited by the time required for the concrete to reach a
cube strength adequate for the degree of prestress necessary to The cable tension increases under live load p(x) to:
support the next section of the cantilever and the erection
equipment. Segmental methods of construction8 avoid such H=HK + Hp (20.3)
delays. In shorter spans, provided that the restrictions on
construction depth are not too severe, in situ concrete structures The increase in support from the cable is — [Hv" (x) + H^(X)]
can be built economically using the cross-section of Figure where v(x) is the vertical deflection of the cable and stiffening
20.1 l(c). The simple cross-section9 was developed to suit the use girder. The stiffening girder contributes a supporting reaction
of formwork which, after supporting a complete span, could be per unit length of [EIv"(x)]" and adding the cable and stiffening
moved rapidly to the next span. The resulting machine is only girder contributions and equating them to the intensity of the
economical for multispan structures. applied load gives:
The stiffened steel plates (Table 20.10) are used for deck
systems of long-span, and movable, bridges in order to reduce [EIv"(x)]" - Hv"(x) =p(x) + Hfy" (20.4)
the self-weight of the structure.
The term H^y" is added to the live load in order to show that the
equation can be represented physically by the substitute struc-
ture of Figure 20.12. y" is — 8///2 and therefore represents a
20.3 Characteristics of bridge force in the opposite direction to the live load.
Hp depends on the change in length of the cable and if A&x is
structures the horizontal projection of the change in length of an element
The following theories have been chosen and developed for their ds then for fixed anchorages:
value in demonstrating the principal characteristics of various
types of bridge structure. Other methods of calculation, based JjJdX = O (20.5)
on finite elements, for example, may be more accurate and more
economical in certain circumstances. The theories are, however, Integrating along the cable and allowing for a change in
linked to the main structural properties of the bridge types temperature of A T gives:
considered and are meant to assist the process of synthesis
necessary before detailed calculations begin. The concepts des- fcW*-*Pl^ iMJV^fr-Wfc-O (20.6)
cribed are also useful for idealizing structures when using
computer programs and for interpreting and checking the Approximate values of Lk and L7 are (see Figure 20.13):
computer output.
2
L^
* (l+8-£
\ /2 + ^tan
2 V°/
0 ) + -^-+
COS2V1 ~4-
COS2V2
20.3.1 Theory of suspension bridges and arch bridges
(20.7)
The basic theory of arch and suspension bridges is the same and
the equation derived below for suspension bridges is applicable
to arches if a change in sign of H and y is made. L 1 ^(I + ^ + tan 2 V 0 ) + J j U JL.