PSC BRIDGE FAILURES

SPB-2
 Current Scenario & Importance
• Concrete bridges increasing with time
• Advantage of ballasted deck
• Concrete – a heterogeneous material
• Durability depends on many factors
• Affected by environmental factors – relatively
more than steel
• Deterioration Prevention
A Statement - may be controversial
• Concrete structures are inherently durable as
compared to steel as long as they are
rationally designed and constructed

• Deterioration of concrete is but a result of

wrong concrete mix or poor construction work
quality control.
 But…
• Possibility of mistakes to happen during
construction is far greater than the steel
because

• Most of the material of a concrete structure

are supplied and assembled on site.
 Therefore…
• the examples and anomalies and defects on
concrete structure, resulting from poor quality
of construction or material are numerous in
number and kind.
• The possibility for mistakes of the type is even
higher in PSC girders, where additional
processes such as pre-stressing, grouting and
erection of girders are necessary.
 and…
• There are certain phenomenon in concrete
that occur in the inside and some which occur
on the outside and thus some can be seen and
some get manifested in the form of surface
defects over the years.
• The behaviour of those defects is not easily
predictable and analysable.
• Mostly it would be in the form of cracks
 But again…
• The cracks in the concrete surface can be
attended after some time and they are not as
serious as that in steel (factor of safety-high)
• …in which case one small crack in a member’s
surface can seriously affect the strength of the
structure
• But neglected for long concrete may create
issues difficult to solve – A stitch in time saves
nine.
So in concrete it becomes important to
• To find for cracks, which in the initial stages
are not easily noticeable
• To look for other defects
• study them with a view to ascertain their
cause
• Track their growth and movement
• Take corrective action
 The Majestic Palau Bridge
Fig 1
 Collapse of PALAU Bridge
Fig.6
 Salient Features
• Located in Pacific Island nation of Palau
• Year of construction – 1977
• Crossing 30 m deep sea channel with tidal flows
of 3m/sec
• Connecting the islands of Koror and Babelthuap
• So span chosen of 240 m without any pier in the
channel
• Bridge type – Counterbalanced cantilever of 120
m span of each cantilever
Line sketch of the Bridge
Fig 2 and Fig 3
 Pre-stressing Arrangement – Top Slab
• Fig 8
 Problems with the bridge
• Excessive deflections at the centre – 1.20 m due
to excessive creep, shrinkage and pre-stress loss
• Though it is only 1% of the cantilever span, it is
too high
• Bridge inspected by two safety teams –
concluded that the bridge was safe – but would
deflect by another 90 cm in 100 years
• Danger of two tips of cantilever coming in contact
– inducing additional and uncontrolled stresses.
 Problems…& rectification
• It was proposed to do rectification and repair works – to
correct some sag and prevent further deflection
– Removal of central hinge to make it continuous
– Installation of 8 additional external pre-stressing cables
(inside the box section) on the top and coming to the
bottom at the centre (reduce =0.3 by applying force of
39 MN)
– Insertion of flat jacks in place of central hinge duly
grouted making the structure continuous – applying a
longitudinal compressive force of 31 MN
– Replacement of bridge surface throughout and light
weight concrete to reduce the sag for better driving
Pre-stressing Arrangement – Before
Repair and After Repair
Fig 5
 Condition just before the failure
• Fig 7
 Bridge Failed six weeks after
completion of repair
• De-lamination of top flange near main pier
occurred on Babelthuap side
• Large hogging moments over the Babelthuap
main pier beyond permissible causing failure of
the web
• Load of both half cantilevers acted on Koror side
– leading to rotation of the bridge around Koror
side pier causing shear near the pier
• Leading to compressive failure of the bottom slab
of the box (Koror end) causing base of box girder
to crush and failure of top slab in tension
 Probable causes of failure
• It is difficult to reach to the root causes in such
cases particularly when the authorities do not
bring out the issues in open
1. Failure either by distress in top slab or excess
shear on the ‘water side’ of the Babelthuap
main pier
2. Significant increase in the compressive
stresses in the top flange, which buckled
 Structural effects due to repair
strategy
• Moment redistribution as a result of making the
structure continuous
• Longitudinal forces in concrete due to
application, and significant subsequent loss, of
pre-stress from additional tendons
• Loss of additional central jacking forces due to
creep
• Stresses resulting from additional road surface,
including void formers at the central stitch
• Possible increase in shear, at the failure location,
from all of the above features of repair works
 But…
• Detailed analysis showed that these though
had effect on the stresses but were not
significant enough to initiate the collapse as
occurred.
• One thing which was seen after failure was
deep pockmarks on the road surface – result
of over-enthusiastic road breaker while
removing the wearing course
 Thus…
• Amount of material removed probably led to
local stress concentrations, if not the global
effects
• This caused damage to the concrete between
pre-stressing layer and forming plane of
weakness
• Quality of original concrete in the anchorage
area and lack of confining steel
 View of the underside of the top
flange in the initial failure area

Fig 9
 Lessons learnt
• Thus failure not caused by repair but the flaws in
the original design and construction were
exposed during the repair
• Close spacing of steel causing difficulty in the
concreting
• Lack of secondary steel particularly in and around
the anchorage area where local stress
concentrations are high
• Changing the articulation and providing the hinge
making the structure statically indeterminate –
uncertain load distribution
 Issue of L-1 too…
• At times L-1 is the contractor who has made
the biggest mistake…

…in estimating the cost.

Collapse of Mandovi Bridge, Goa
 SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
• Work commenced in 1964
• Completed and commissioned in 1970
• Few cracks in wearing coat reported in 1975
• 2 spans of bridge collapsed in July 1986
• Justice Rege – one man commission appointed
in Aug’86 – Report in Jan’88
• High Level Technical Committee appointed in
Nov’88 – Report in end of 89
Sequence of Failure
The structure and
the cause
 Lessons Learnt
• Corrosion of tendons
• Proper inspection arrangements
• Detailed inspection manual
SOME CASES OF DISTRESS
Curve -3o & SE-140MM

Eccentricity-
435mm
Failure of
cantilever
portion of the
Deck slab
 Bridge No. 256 UP 258UP 264 UP 190UP 195UP

Clear Span 10.85 m 10.8 m 10.80 m 16.12 m 10.89 m

Eccentricity of 385 mm 360 mm 25 mm 385 mm 158 mm

track at one end
Eccentricity of 435 mm 435 mm 55 mm 435 mm 172 mm
track at other end
No. of I-sections 2 2 2 2 2

Spacing between 2.00 m 2.00 m 2.00 m 2.00 m 2.00 m

I-sections
Girder depth at 1.83 m 1.83 m 1.80 m 2.13 m 1.83 m
ends
Girder depth at 1.83 m 1.83 m 1.80 m 2.13 m 1.83 m
centre
Bottom width of 0.64 m 0.64 m 0.62 m 0.65 m 0.62 m
girder
PSC-Girder LDN Ltd. Drg LDN Ltd. Drg LDN Ltd. Drg LDN Ltd. Drg LDN Ltd. Drg
No 132 No 132 No 132 No 132 No 132
Drawing No.
Leaf of RH Girder-12.20m
Leaned by 100 mm
3RD GODAWARI BRIDGE NEAR RAJMUNDRY
(BS-81)
 The structure
• Span 94 m
• Twin Bow string RCC arch connected by precast RC
struts in lateral direction
• 12 pairs of vertical Dina Hangers comprising 49 wires
of 7mm dia
• PSC box tie girder – 16 cables each comprising of 61
wires of 7 mm dia
• 12 cross tie beams in the girder connecting the
columns hanging from Dina hangers
 The problem

• Cracks on the tie beam inside the box girders

connecting the columns carrying the load
from the suspenders
• Maximum width of cracks is 0.06 mm
• All other parameters found OK
• Cracks are not found to be active under train
loads
Singrauli- Chopan section to RDSO for NDT inspection. All these bridges are
having PSC I girders constructed during 1965-66. Br.No.93.

Not very serious

once grouted
and if not live
and active crack

Width of crack <0.4 mm generally with some up to 1.0mm but

majority less than 0.2 mm
Bridge No.73 – Vasai Creek 28 span of
48.5 m
 Problem
• Longitudinal Cracks on the inside of the web of the Box
Girders (9 and 5 on West and East side to 8 and 12 in 2004)
• Width of crack varying from 0.08 mm to 0.40 mm
• Longest crack 19 m long (34.11 m in 2004 by joining of two
cracks)
• Some fine cracks seen on the outside web of the Box Girders
• Diagonal cracks on the end block passing through the vent
hole