Comparison of long-span girder bridges versus extradosed bridges built in balanced cantilever

JUAN SOBRINO, PhD, PE, PEng President PEDELTA www.pedelta.com

IBC 13-39 KEYWORDS: Bridge, Extradosed, Balanced Cantilever, Design, Construction, Concrete ABSTRACT: The paper presents a technical comparison of two different bridge types that can be
competitive for spans ranging from 300 ft to 700 ft. Through different case studies (bridges designed by PEDELTA in Latin-America using the AASTHO LFRD Code), the paper illustrates the different approaches on the design of both bridge types and their main features.

JAVIER JORDAN, MSc, PE Vice-President PEDELTA www.pedelta.com

INTRODUCTION
There is a clear interaction between design and construction of bridges. The selection of the structural type, span arrangement and materials should consider the method of construction at the design stage since the beginning. Intermediate construction stages such as changing structural systems, temporary supports, erection equipment on the structure, movements of form traveler, sequence of posttensioning tendons and stays, among others, might govern the design of the structure. The structural analysis of the bridge should consider the changing structural system during the course of construction, so varying internal efforts and stresses upon completion of the structure and the redistribution of efforts due to long-term effects induced by creep and shrinkage in concrete and steel relaxation of both post-tensioned tendons and stays. Segmental concrete bridges built in balanced cantilever with spans over 300 ft are very

competitive either cast-in-place or with precast segments, depending on the site constraints, project size and construction schedule. This construction technique is generally applied up to 700 ft (world span record over 987 ft). The use of stays working as eccentric external tendons (extradosed bridges) reduces the typical depths of continuous girders as stays provides more stiffness and strength to the system. The amount of materials (concrete and both reinforced and pre-stressing steel) on the deck and substructure can be reduced in extradosed bridges, as well as erection equipments and form traveler load capacities, but the cost increase due to the stays makes this technique not always appropriate nor competitive. The following sections summarize the main features of both concrete continuous girders and extradosed bridges built in balanced cantilever and a comparison of costeffectiveness.

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF GIRDER BRIDGES BUILT IN BALANCED CANTILEVER

Balanced cantilever construction is widely used worldwide being cost-effective for medium and long-span post-tensioned concrete girders (250 to 700 ft). Either cast-in-place or precast construction might be used depending on site conditions. This erection method reduces environmental impact and does not interrupt existing traffic on the infrastructures below, does not required heavy construction equipment (in particular structures cast-in-place) and result in a safe and rapid construction, particularly in areas with difficult access. Typical cross-sections are box girders that provide excellent stiffness to weight ratio. Platforms widths up to 60 ft are designed with single cell box; wider bridges require additional webs to reduce transverse bending in the top flange and shear lag effects. Overhang cantilevers reach 10 to 12 ft and can be supported by struts or ribs for longer lengths. Thickness of both webs and bottom slab are sometimes increased at pier sections. The girder depth is preferably constant along the bridge for span length (L) below 250 ft. The span to depth ratio varies within the limits L/16 to L/22. Spans over 300 ft require variable depth girder, typically with parabolic haunches. Depth ratios of continuous girder bridges built in balanced cantilever bridge ranges from L/16 to L/18 at the piers and from L/30 to L/50 at mid-span. Typical arrangement of a three-span bridge has end spans with 0.5 to 0.7 of the length of the main central span. The maximum the length the minimum uplift is expected at the abutments. For spans over 250 ft, when overall length is below 1500 ft or when access to the site is

difficult, balanced cantilever bridges cast-inplace are advantageous. A minimum of two light form travelers attached to the previously completed structure are required and only materials have to be transported. After the construction of the pier table (segment on pier long enough to accommodate the form travelers, typically 25 to 30 ft in length), the two form travelers are installed and moved outwards in both directions in balanced cantilever supported by the pier to symmetrically build the segments until the center of a span is reached.

Fig. 1 - View of form travelers in La Gazapa Bridge (Colombia), main span 100 m (designed by Pedelta).

The length of the segments lies between 9 and 15 ft to keep its weight below the capacity of the form traveler (for a single cell box, typically around 60t). The process is repeated from the subsequent pier until the bridge is completed. The connection between the different parts is made at the center of the span, pouring the closing segment (with typical length around 6 ft). Each pair of segments is typically built in a 5-day (12 hours per day) cycle. The cycle can be reduced with the use of additives and steam to 3 or 4-day cycle. Pre-camber and alignment corrections are applied in each segment to account construction deflections and the effect of creep in a young concrete. A stage-by-stage structural detailed analysis is required to define pre-camber. End spans longer than 0.5 L require completion of the girder on falsework.

During construction, the girder is subjected to negative bending moments, tensile stresses at the top of the section are offset by the postensioning placed at the top slab. Typically, 2 to 4 post-tension tendons are anchored in each segment and tensioned 24 to 36 hours after casting. After closing, positive bending moment occurs at the center of the girder due to the removal of the form travelers, creep, superimposed dead loads, live loads and positive temperature gradient. To prevent large tensile stresses at the bottom of the section, pos-tensioning cables are installed in this area at the bottom slab. Alternatively, external continuity posttension tendons can be used (except in high seismic zones). A case study, Huasco Bridge (Chile), of a recently built balanced cantilever structure is presented to illustrate some of the design criteria and other remarks of the construction method.

retained to design the bridge and provide technical assistance during construction. The bridge has been designed to be erected by balanced cantilever cast-in-place due to the significant height over the ground profile, up to 80 ft and to meet the site restrictions. The bridge is the first application of this construction technology in Chile.

Fig. 2 - Elevation of Huasco Bridge.

Description
The Huasco Bridge is a typical example of a balanced cantilever bridge. The deck is very wide, 70 ft, and it consists of a post-tensioned concrete single cell box (Figure 3), whose depth varies between 7 6 (L/46.4) at mid span and 20 ft (L/17.4)) at piers. The platform accommodates four road traffic lanes, a central median and two lateral shoulders. The deck is a tapered post tensioned concrete single box cell with inclined webs.

CASE STUDY: HUASCO BRIDGE

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN Huasco Bridge is part of the new concessionary road Ruta Norte 5 in the stretch between Vallenar and Caldera in the North of Chile. The bridge crosses Huasco valley, a semi-arid valley located in Chiles Atacama Region surrounded by the Atacama Desert. This narrow valley is the main agricultural area in the region. Farmers are benefited from irrigation infrastructures in the valley. This is an area of very high seismicity. In 1922, the city was completely destroyed by an earthquake. To minimize the new road impact in the valley, bridge piers should be located outside the irrigation area, not interfering with the existing canals. This led to a continuous girder bridge with an overall length of 656 ft and three spans, 138 + 380 + 138 ft long. Pedelta was

Fig. 3 - Typical cross-section of Huasco Bridge.

The cross-section has constant webs (1 10), thickness of the top slab are also constant along the deck while the bottom slab thickness varies from 10 at the center of the girder to 2 6 at the pier.

The deck is monolithically connected with the two piers, forming a portal frame, and rests on POT bearings at the abutments. The lateral spans are shorter that half of the main span and, to prevent uplift, the deck is anchored to the abutments through vertical tendons. The abutments act as counterweights. The piers reach 80 ft in height and their crosssection is a hollow rectangle with two cells. Piers external dimensions are roughly 12x24 ft. All the foundations are spread footings bearing in a sound rock layer. The girder segments are variable in length. The pier table is 11 ft long to accommodate the two form travelers back to back (Figure 4). The first three cantilever segments are 7 6 long due to their heavier weight, while the other ones are 9 ft long.

Design Criteria
The bridge has been designed in accordance to AASHTO LRFD 2007 Code and AASTHO Recommendations for Segmental bridges [1] considering the HL93 truck. For the structural analysis of the bridge, a global structural model was built using the software RMBridge v8i, specialized in advanced analysis of bridges. The model encompassed substructure and superstructure components, including the counteracting uplift system at the abutment. All erection phases were modeled and adjusted in real time during construction to take into account the actual duration of the stages, which influence concrete timedependent effects, and changes that occur during the construction. Bridge design is an iterative process which interacts with construction. The parametric nature of the model allowed rapid response to the various alternatives and changes common in a project of this nature. The time-dependent concrete effects and changes in the structural model, soil-structure interaction, and other modifications during construction were accounted for. The 3D model uses as step by step integration in time. Regarding the seismic design, foundations were designed by capacity while pier design considered the formation of plastic hinges to dissipate earthquake energy through yielding and limit seismic demand in the structure.

Fig. 4 Pier table.

Structural behavior
The bridge has three different structural schemes during the erection and in service. In the first stage, during construction, the deck is built in balanced cantilevers at both sides of each pier. When the side span cantilevers reach the abutments, they are linked by vertical tendons to the abutments. After this operation, the scheme is unbalanced, with a bigger

The longitudinal post tensioning is composed by 12 and 19 strands tendons for both the construction and in service post-tension. A transverse post tensioning was designed as well in the deck, which consists of a single strand at 6 spacing all along the deck.

cantilever arm at the main span and uplift reaction in the abutments. After pouring the closure segment, the bridge becomes a portal frame. The deck behaves as a three spans continuous beam encased in the piers as a portal frame and simply supported at its ends at abutments. This is the final structural scheme during the service life. These structural scheme modifications produce self weight internal forces variations along the time. Redistribution of the self-weight bending moment due to creep over time is shown in figure 5.

After the construction of the 32 segments of the main span (16 on each side), the closure segment was poured (Figures 6 and 7).

Fig. 5 View of traveler form.

Fig. 5 Typical segment.

ig. 5 Redistribution of the self-weight bending moment.

Even though these time dependant effects can be evaluated in a simplified way, the analysis model, by means of a step-by-step time integration process, gave more accurate information and, moreover, updating the model with the real parameters values and construction schedule, results can be delivered immediately after data is collected and processed.

Fig. 6 Pouring of the closure segment.

Construction process
The construction of the bridge began in April 2010 and was completed in January 2012. The deck segment erection cycle took 5 days in average. The whole deck cross section was poured all at once (Figure 5). This allowed a faster schedule, even though material quantities could have been slightly reduced casting overhangs in a second stage, after pouring the central closure segment.

Fig. 7 Pouring of the closure segment.

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF EXTRADOSED BRIDGES BUILT IN BALANCED CANTILEVER

An extradosed bridge has its deck partially supported by a system of stays which are connected to a pylon of small height. The pylons height measured above the bridge deck level is in between 7 and 13% of the main span length (unlike to the classic cable-stayed bridge where the pylon has a height between 20 to 25% of the span length). Having this geometrical arrangement, extradosed bridge stays have a small inclination with respect to the roadway and therefore provide less vertical stiffness to the deck in comparison to a cablestayed bridge. The stays partially compensate a fraction of the dead load effects (60 to 80% of the dead load) and a small part of the live loads. Due to that, the deck is subjected to significant longitudinal bending. Under traffic loads, stays do not experience large fatigue stresses. Extradosed bridges are suitable for spans between 300 and 820 ft (100-250m) depending on specific site constrains (Figure 8). For medium spans they compete with continuous pre-stressed concrete or steel girders. For larger spans (more than 820 ft) cable-stayed structures are more economical than extradosed bridges depending on site constrains.

A typical arrangement of a three-span extradosed bridge is shown in Figure 9. Side span lengths vary between 0.5 and 0.7 of the main span length (L). Girder depth varies from L/25 to L/30 at the pier and L/50 to L/55 at the 15% to 20% of L and then keeps constant along the rest of the main span.

Fig. 9 Typical arrangement of a 3-span extradosed bridge (O. Patio).

The stays of a cable-stayed bridge can withstand service stresses between 40 to 45% of the maximum tensile steel strength (fpu). In extradosed bridges this limit can be increased up to 60%; this allows making a better use of the stays and implies savings around 30% on stays steel. Anchorages of extradosed bridges have to meet fatigue test which are less demanding than those required for cable-stayed bridges[2, 3]. Stress on stays due to actual traffic loads on cable-stayed bridges varies from 60 to 150 MPa. Live load stress range in extradosed staycables varies from 30 to 100 MPa [2]. Modern codes typically limit the stress variation due to the nominal fatigue live loads to the following limits: Cable-Stayed Bridge: fatigue < 70 MPa Extradosed: fatigue < 50 MPa French recommendations provide a relationship to limit the maximum tensile force in service -as a percentage of the ultimate limit tensile strength on the stays- depending on the stress variation due to frequent live loads. The last version of the Recommendations for Stay Cable Design, Testing and Installation of the PTI 2012 [4], defines strength factors of the stay which depends on the demand due to

Fig. 8 The Triplets in La Paz (Bolivia). Designed by Pedelta.

Live load and Wind actions. For strands with for fs=1860 MPa, when LL+W demand is lower than 0.025 MUTS (47 MPa) the strength factor is =0.75, when demand exceeds 0.075 MUTS (140 MPa) =0.65. A linear interpolation is used between these two limits. Unlike cable-stayed bridges, extradosed bridges do not require back stays to fix the horizontal movement at the top of the pylon caused by traffic loads, since they are resisted primarily by the deck. Thus, extradosed bridges fit well when there are several consecutive spans with stays. Extradosed bridges behave as a continuous girder partially supported on the Stay-Cables. Stays are designed to take only a part of the dead load. This creates bending on the deck. During the cantilever construction, the deck is subjected to negative moments (Figure 10). In service, the bending moment diagram is similar to the one obtained for a continuous girder but with lower values (Figure 11).

Construction
For the construction of the girder of extradosed bridges in balanced cantilever, the first segments are built in the same way as the continuous girders erected with the same method (Figure 12). Internal post-tensioned placed on the top slab offsets tensile stresses induced by the negative bending moment. Segments with stays are typically longer than first segments and have less internal tendons as stays bear a significant part of the segments weight and introduce axial forces.

Fig. 12 - View of one of the Triplets under construction.

COST COMPARISON OF GIRDER BRIDGES VERSUS EXTRADOSED BRIDGES

Fig. 10- Bending moment diagram during construction.

Continuous girder bridges built in balanced cantilever consume more concrete, reinforcing steel and post-tensioning than extradosed bridges built with the same erection process but the cost of the stays and a longer cycle for the erection of a typical segment can offset the savings on the rest of the materials. Also, maintenance and inspection cost should be considered. Figure 13 summarizes the material quantities of 10 balanced cantilever bridges cast-in-place designed with the AASTHO Code (designs made by Pedelta). The values are compared with the limits defined in the Spanish Recommendations for road bridges.

Fig. 11- Bending moment diagram due to dead loads at service.

Fig. 13 Quantities estimate for continuous 3-span girder bridges built in balanced cantilever.

Fig. 15 Comparison of cost per unit are of extradosed and continuous bridges built in balanced cantilever.

Figure 14 summarizes the material quantities of 5 extradosed bridges cast-in-place designed with the AASTHO Code (designs made by Pedelta).
EXTRADOSED BRIDGES - Estimate of Quantities
25

CONCLUSIONS
Balanced cantilever construction is a competitive and efficient construction method for spans ranging from 250 to 600 ft. Balanced cantilever construction minimizes impact over existing traffic below and allows industrialization and rapid construction. Extradosed bridges built in balanced cantilever might be more economical than continuous girders cast in place for spans over 370 ft.

20

Stays- Steel lb/sf PT steel lb/sf

15
Ratio

Concrete cf/sf Reinforcing Steel lb/sf

10

0 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600

Main span, [ft]

Fig. 14 Quantities estimate for continuous 3-span extradosed bridges built in balanced cantilever.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
These projects have been developed by the following engineers of PEDELTA: J. Sobrino, J. Jordn, N. Betancour, O. Patio, R. Ferraz, R. Cabral, D. Sisi, and S. Carratala for the conceptual and detailed design and construction assistance. HUASCO Bridge was built by SACYR, posttensioning and traveler forms were supplied by VSL (Jos Ignacio Menchaca).

Based on the statistics and typical price units (Florida based) it is possible to make costcomparison between both alternatives. Figure 15 illustrates the results of a cost estimate per unit area versus span length. The comparison should be interpreted in a qualitative way, as unit cost depends on site conditions. According to this study, construction cost of extradosed bridges is similar to balanced cantilever bridges for span between 370 and 500 ft and more economical for larger span lengths.

REFERENCES
[1] AASTHO. Guide Specification for Design and Construction of Segmental Concrete Bridges. 2nd Edition 2003. SETRA . Haubans Recommendations de la Commission Interministrielle de la Prcontrainte (in French), 2001. FIB. Acceptance of stay cable systems using prestressing steels. Fib Bulletin n. 30. Lausanne, 2005. PTI. Recommendations for Stay Cable Design, Testing and Installation, 2012.

[2]

[3]

[4]