OPTIMIZATION OF SPAN-TO-DEPTH RATIOS IN HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE GIRDER BRIDGES Sandy Shuk-Yan Poon A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Applied Science Graduate Department of Civil Engineering University of Toronto © Copyright by Sandy Shuk-Yan Poon (2009)Optimization of Span-to-Depth Ratios in High-Strength Concrete Girder Bridges Sandy Shuk-Yan Poon Master of Applied Science Graduate Department of Civil Engineering University of Toronto 2009 ABSTRACT Span-to-depth ratio is an important bridge design parameter that affects structural behaviour, construction costs and aesthetics. A study of 86 constant-depth girders indicates that conventional ratios have not changed significantly since 1958, These conventional ratios are now questionable, because recently developed high-strength concrete has enhanced mechanical properties that allow for slenderer sections. Based on material consumption, cost, and aesthetics comparisons, the thesis determines optimal ratios of an 8-span highway viaduct constructed with high-strength concrete, Three bridge types are investigated: cast-in-place on falsework box-girder and solid slabs, and precast segmental span-by- span box-girder, Results demonstrate that total construction cost is relatively insensitive to span-to- depth ratio over the following rang of ratios: 10-35, 30-45, and 15-25 for the three bridge types respectively. This finding leads to greater freedom for aesthetic expressions because, compared to ed conventional values (ie. 18-23, 22-39, and 16-19), higher ranges of ratios can now be sel without significant cost premiums. iiACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my dee est gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Paul Gauvreau, whose encouragement, guidance, and support enabled me to complete this thesis. Lam also indebted to my research colleagues for t ir insightful advice and assistance throughout my graduate studies: Cathy Chen, Billy Cheung, Davis Doan, Negar Elhami Khorasani, Eileen Li, Kris Mermigas, Jason Salonga, Jimmy Susetyo, Brent Visscher, and Ivan Wu. Lastly, | would like to thank my family for their support and encouragement over these past two years. iliTABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Acknowledgements, iti Table of Contents, iv List of Figures. viii List of Tables... “ - so snnnnsnnnnnnnnnnnnnsne Xt List of Symbols xiii 1 Introduction. 1 1.1 The Significance of Optimizing Span-to-Depth Ratio. 1 1.2 Objectives and Scope 5 1.3. Thesis Structure... 6 2 Typical Span-to-Depth Ratios of Existing Bridges 7 2A Castin-Place BOX-Gitder....unsnmmnninnnnunnnninnnnnnnsnnnnnnmnnnnnsie T 2.2 Castin-Place Slab... sn sosnnnnnes 12 23 Precast Segmental Box-Girder. 16 24 — Concluding Remarks.. AB 3 Analysis Overview. 19 3.1 Analysis Model 19 3.2. Materials. 21 3.2.1 Prestressing Tendons a 3.22 Concrete Covers nnmnninnnnnninnnnninnnmnnninnnminnnnnnnnnn 2 33 Loads. 2 3.3.1 Load Combinations and Load Factors 2 3.3.2 Live Loads, 23 3.4 Design Requirements 24 3.4.1 Ultimate Limit States Design Requirements “ snnnnnnne 2 3.4.1.1 Flexural Strength, 4 3.4.12 Shear Strength.... 25 3.4.2 Serviceability Limit States Design Requirements, 26 3A21 Stress. 26 3.4.2.2 Vibtation .. snnunnninnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnne 26 34.23. Deflection. 273.5. Other Preliminary Analysis Assumptions.. 27 4 Analysis of Cast-in-Place on Falsework Bridges. 28 4.1 Cast-in-Place on Falsework Construction.. 28 4.2 Castin-Place on Falsework Box-Girder 28 42.1 Model 28 4211 Cross-SeetiOn nnnnninnnnnnnn sn sennnernee 29 42.12. Prestressing Tendon Layout. 30 4.2.2 Analysis Results 31 4.2.2.1 Structural Behaviour and Dimensioning. sesnenee 31 4.2.22 Vibration Limits. 32 4.2.23 Deflections... 33 4.2.2.4 Material Consumption 34 4.2.2.5 Limiting Factors of Span-to-Depth Rati0 ...s.mnunnmnnsnnnnninnnnnnsnne 36 4.3. Castin-Place on Falsework Solid Slab 38 43.1 Model 39 43.1.1 Cross-Section 39 43.1.2. Prestressing Tendon Layout. 39 4.3.2 Strip Method versus Beam Model. 40 43.3. Analysis ResUltS....sonnunnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnninnnnnnnnnnnnnnnne 42 433.1 Structural Behaviour and Dimensioning, a 43.3.2. Maximum Reinforcement Critetion....snnnnmnnnnsninnnnnninnnnanne 4S 43.3.3. Vibration Limits 44 43.3.4 Deflections 45 4.3.3.5. Material Consumption 46 43.3.6 Limiting Factors of Span-to-Depth Ratios. 4 5 Analysis of Precast Segmental Span-by-Span Box-Girder......0cssnnnnnnnnnnne 5.1 Precast Segmental Span-by-Span Construction 48 5.2 Model 49 5.2.1 Cross-Section 50 5.2.2 Elevation and Prestressing Tendon Layout 50 5.3. Longitudinal Bending Moments st 53.1 Construction Moments. 51 5.3.2 Moments due to Thermal Gradient ....000sunnnnnnnnnnnn sone SA5.4 Loss of Prestress.. 54.1 Friction Losses 54.2 Creep and Shrinkage Losses 5.43 Losses due to Relaxation of Prestressing Steel 5A4 Total Prestress Losses 5.5 Behaviour of Unbonded Tendons at Ultimate Limit States ....sessmnnnnrnnn 5.6 Analysis Results 5.6.1 Structural Behaviour and Dimensioning. 5.6.2 Vibration Limits 5.6.3 Deflections 5.6.4 Material Consumption. 5.6.5 Limiting Factors of Span-to-Depth Ratios. 6 Cost Comparisons....... 6.1 Material Costs 6.1.1 Material Unit Prices 6.1.1.1 Concrete Material Unit Price .. 6.1.1.2 Castein-Place versus Precast Conerete 6.1.1.3 Falsework versus Erection Truss. 61.14 Formwork... 6.1.1.5 Prestressing Tendons. 6.12 Material Cost Comparisons 6.1.2.1 Concrete Cost Comparison 6.1.2.2. Prestressing Cost Comparison 6.1.2.3 Reinforcing Steel Cost Comparison... 6.1.24 Total Superstructure Cost. 6.2 Overall Construction Costs 62.1 Construction Cost Breakdown 6.2.2 Total Construction Cost Comparison 6.3 Other Cost Factors... 64 Sensitivity Analysis. 6.4.1 Sensitivity with Respect to Changes in Material Unit Prices.. 642 Sensitivity with Respect to Changes in Construction Cost Breakdown, 65 Concluding Remarks 57 37 58 59 59 60 61 61 61 2 63 64 65 65 65 65 66 0 61 61 67 68 70 B 16 16 1 78 7” ” 83 857 Aesthetics Comparisons...... 7.1 Visual Impact of Span-to-Depth Ratio. 71.1 Effects of Viewing Points. 7.1.2 Other Factors that Affect Visual Slenderness 7.2 Bvolution of the Visually Optimal Span-to-Depth Ratio. 7.3 Concluding Remarks 8 Conclusions. 8.1 Conventional Span-to-Depth Ratios... 8.2 Maximum Span-to-Depth Ratios... 8.3 Material Consumption Comparisons. 8.4 Total Construction Cost Comparisons w..nsumnnnsnsn 85 Acsthe Comparisons. 8.6 Optimal Span-to-Depth Ratios... Reference. Appendix A: Chapter 2 Supplementary Information... A.1_ Cast-in-Place on Falsework Box-Girder A2 Castein-Place on Falsework Solid Slab A3. Precast Segmental Span-by-Span Box-Girder, Appendix B: Supporting Calculations B.1_ Flexural Strength for Bonded Tendons at ULS ....sn B.2_ Shear Strength at ULS. B.3. Thermal Gradient Moments. B4 External Tendon Force... B.S Total Construction Cost. Appendix C: Summary of Results Cul Cast-in-Place on Falsework BOX-Girdet...snnrnnnnn C2. Castin-Place on Falsework Solid Slab C3. Precast Segmental Span-by-Span Box-Girder C4 Sensitivity with Respect to Changes in Construction Cost Breakdown vii 86 86 92. 94 7 102 103 103, 103 104 104 10s 105 107 ML 112 116 118. 126 127 128, 129 130LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Figure 1-2 Figure 1-3 Figure 2-1 Figure 2-2. Figure 233. Figure 2-4. Figure 2-5. Figure 2-6. Figure 2-7. Figure 3-1 Figure 3-2. Figure 353 Figure 3-4. Figure 3-5. d) conerete forces... Figure 3-6. Figure 3-7 Figure 4-1 Figure 4-2. Figure 453, Figure 4-4. Figure 4-5. Figure 4-6. Figure 4-7 Figure 48. Figure 4-9 Figure 4-10. Figure 4-11 Figure 4-12. Figure 4-13. Figure 4-14. Recommended ratios for cast-in-place box-girder Recommended ratios for cast-in-place slab Recommended ratios for precast segmental box-girder Span-to-depth ratios of cast-in-place box-girders, Span-to-depth ratios of cast-in-place box-girders, Span-to-depth ratios of cast-in-place slabs. Span-to-depth ratios of cast-in-place slabs. Span-to-depth ratios of precast segmental box-girders Span-to-depth ratios of precast segmental box-girders.... ‘Span-to-depth ratios for all bridge types ‘Typical plan and elevation nnn Typical deck arrangement ‘Summary of analysis cases. Live loads: CL.-625 truck load (top); CL-625 lane load (bottom)... Flexural resistance: a) cross-section, b) concrete stains, ¢) equivalent concrete stresses, Construction cost economy from inereasing the number of stirrup spacing Deflection limits for highway bridge superstructure vibration (CHBDC 2006) Moment comparison of bridges with constant and reduced end span length. Typical eross section for cast-in-place on falsework box-girder Typical reinforcing steel layout. Typical tendon profile Changes in sectional modulus and cross-sectional depth Deflection for superstructure vibration limitation Deflections: a) dead load, b) long-term, c) short-term Material consumptions for cast-in-place on falsework box-girder.... Tendon arrangement that limits further increase in span-to-depth ratio. Interior box cavity limitation. Height of access diminishes as span-to-depth ratio increases... Concrete reduction due to increase in L/h ratio for solid slab and box-girder Voided slab. Typical cross-section for cast-in-place on falsework solid slab... 24 28 26 29 29 30 30 32 33 33 35 36 37 37 38 38 39Figure 4-15. Figure 4-16. Typical reinforcing stee! layout Transverse distribution of longitudinal bending moment in slabs. 39 4 Figure 4-17, Maximum reinforcement criterion: a) concrete stains, b) equivalent concrete stresses, ©) concrete forces Figure 4-18. Figure 4-19. Figure 4-20. Figure 5-1 Figure 5-2. Figure 5-3 Figure $4. Figure 5-5. Figure 5-6, Figure 5-7, Figure 5-8. Figure 5-9. Figure 5-10. Figure 5-11. Figure 5-12. Figure 5-13. Figure 5-14. Figure 5-15. Figure 5-16. Figure 5-17. Figure 5-18. Figure 6-1 Figure 6-2. Figure 63 Figure 6-4. Figure 6-5. Figure 6-6. Figure 6-7, Figure 6-8. Figure 69. Dell ‘ion for superstructure vibration limitation. Deflections: a) dead load, b) long-term, ¢) shorter .nsnnnsnnnnen Material consumptions for cast-in-place on falsework solid slab Precast segmental span-by-span construction method Span-by-span erection girder: a) overhead truss, b) underslung girder... ‘Typical cross-section for precast segmental span-by-span box-girder. ‘Typical reinforcing stee! layout... Typical tendon profile Construction moments for segmental span-by-span method, Redistribution of dead load moments due to creep ... Redistribution of dead load and prestress moments due to oi Thermal gradient effects, Moments due to thermal gradient. Intentional angle changes Long-term loss of prestress due to relaxation (Men 1990)....scssnnnnnsnnn Compatibility conditions for bonded and unbonded tendons Deflection for superstructure vibration limitation... Deflections: a) dead load, b) long-term, c) short-term ‘Material consumptions for precast span-by-span box-gitder 00. Access limited by height of interior box €aVitY..ueunsonnnsnn Access limited by height of interior box cavity and external tendons. Concrete material unit price... Concrete material cost comparison Total concrete cost comparison. Prestressing tendon cost comparison, Cost comparison of stirrups and minimum reinforcing steel Cost distribution of stirrups and minimum reinforcing steel... Total reinforcing steel cost comparison ... Total superstructure material cost comparison. Total superstructure cost comparison (including cost of concrete placement). “4 “4 45 4a 49 49 50 50 sl 52 54 54 38 56 37 59 60 62 2 68 64 64 66 68 68 69 n 72 B "4 1SFigure 6-10. Figure 6-11 Figure 6-12 Figure 6-13. Figure 6-14 Figure 6-15 Figure 6-16. Figure 6-17. Figure 7-1 Figure 7-2. Figure 7-3, Figure 7-4. Figure 7-5, Figure 7-6 Figure 7-7. Figure 7-8 Figure 7-9. Figure 7-10. Figure 7-11 Figure 7-12 Figure 7-13. Figure 7-14. Figure 7-15. Figure 7-16. Figure 7-17. Figure 7-18, Figure 7-19. Figure 7-20. Figure 7-21. Figure 7-22. Figure C-1 Figure C-2. Figure C3. Total construction cost comparison... Total construction cost comparison (+50% concrete unit price) Total construction cost comparison (-50% concrete unit price) Total construction cost comparison (+50% prestressing tendon unit price). Total construction cost comparison (-50% prestressing tendon unit price) Total construction cost comparison (+50% reinforcing steel unit price) Total construction cost comparison (-50% reinforcing steel unit price) Total construction costs under changes in construction cost breakdown Cast-in-place on falsework box-girder with L=50m.. Cast-in-place on falsework solid slab with L=30m Precast segmental span-by-span box-gitder with L=S0m v.00 Visual effects of increasing span-to-depth ratios from 10 to 35, Effect of increasing span length (box-girder with h=2.5m) Viewed from 300m. Viewed from 150m. Viewed from 75m. Effects of pier width-to-height ratio and span-to-depth ratio Effect of span-to-depth ratio as viewing angle becomes less oblique. Effect of bridge height on perceived superstructure slendemeSs ..nnreinnn Effect of pier configuration on perceived superstructure slendemess. Effect of deck cantilever length on perceived superstructure slendemess.. Glenfinnan Viaduct, 1901 (Cortright 1997) Slender bridges by Maillatt 00m Waterloo Bridge over the Thames (Darger 2002) ..nusnnnsne Changis-sur-Mame Bridge, 1948 (Mossot 2007), Sketches to evaluate aesthetic impact of span-to-depth ratios (O'Connor 1991)... ‘Neckar Valley Viaduct, 1977 (Leonhardt 1982) Kocher Valley Viaduct, 1979 (Leonhardt 1982). Pregorda Bridge, 1974 (Ment)... Felsenau Bridge, 1974 (Menn). Cast-in-place on falsework box-girder with L=S0t...snessn Cast place on falsework solid slab with L=25m.. Precast segmental span-by-span box-girder with L=40m. TB 80 80 81 81 82 84 87 88 89 90 100 100 101 101 130 130 130LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1 Table 2-1 Table 2-2. Table 2-3. Table 3-1 Table 3-2. Table 3-3. Table 3-4 Table 3-5, Table 3-6 Table 3-7. Table 3-8 Table 3-9, Table 4-1 girder Table 4-2. Table 4-3. Table 44, slab Table 4-5, Table 4-6 Table 5-1 Table 5-2. Table 5-3. Table 5-4 Table 5-5. Table 5-6. Table 5-7. Table 6-1, Table 6-2. Table 6-3. Table 6-4 Description of recommended ratios. Summary of cast-in-place box-girders. 7 Summary of east-in-place slabs (continued) ...nnnnrnnnninnnnennesnnnns 1 Summary of precast segmental box-girders 16 Material properties. a Material resistance factors (CSA 2006) .u.ssnsnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnns 2 Prestressing tendon properties (CSA 1982) 2 Corrugated metal duct properties (DSI 2008), a Conerete cover requirements (CSA 2006) oon 2 Load combination 2 Load fat0f8 ssnnnnnnnnnnnninnnnnsnnnnninnnnnnnnnnnnnnnennn 2 DLA factor (CSA 2006) 2B Multi-lane loading modification factor (CSA 2006) ...unennmnnnnnsnnnns 23 Summary of structural response and dimensioning of cast-in-place on falsework box- 31 Summary of material consumptions for cast-in-place on falsework box-gitGEt. no. 34 Results from beam model and strip method 2 Summary of structural response and dimensioning of cast-in-place on falsework solid AB Conerete strengths required to satisfy maximum reinforcement criterion. 44 Summary of material consumption for cast-in-place on falsework Solid Slab... 46 Prestress losses due to friction 58 Prestress losses due to anchorage set 58 Prestress losses due to creep and shrinkage... snnnnnnne SP Effective prestress afterall losses. 59 Prestress at ULS... 61 Summary of structural response of precast span-by-span DOX-Bitdet...numnnnnsnes 61 Summary of material consumption for precast span-by-span box-girder. 6 Material unit prices 65 Concrete material unit price. 66 ‘Comparison of changes in cross-sectional depth and prestressing demand, 70 Total superstructure cost variations 76Table 6-5. Table 6-6. Table 6-7. Table 6-8, Table C-1 Table C-2 Table C-3, Construetion cost breakdown (Menn 1990)... Material unit price changes. Summary of material unit price sensitivity analysis, Summary of cost study Summary of results of cast-in-place on falsework box-girder analysis ‘Summary of results of east-in-place on falsework solid slab analysis... ‘Summary of results of precast segmental span-by-span box-girder analysis. 77 9 83 85 127 128 129LIST OF SYMBOLS PPP Gross cross-sectional arca Area of concrete Area of prestressing steel Area of reinforcing steel Stinrup area Compressive force Depth of compression region Eccentricity of tendon at location x Concrete elastic modulus Prestressing tendon elastic modulus Reinforcing stcel clastic modulus Concrete compressive strength Concrete tensile strength Pre essing tendon ultimate strength Prestressing tendon yield stress Free stress due to temperature gradient Reinforcing steel yield stress Girder depth Moment of inertia Moment of inertia of gross uncracked concrete section Span length Span-to-depth ratio Are length of tendon between anchors Moment when q, is applied to prestressing band Moment when q, is applied to slab Flexural resistance Restraint moment SLS moment demand Self-equilibrating moment in strip method ULS moment demand Distance from base of cross-section to neutral axis (Section 5.3.2); E,/Fe (Section 5.42)a(x) a AP Aa Aoipet ea () fa 9) oa ot) % % Prestressing force Jacking force Axial restraint force Prestressing deviation force Sectional modulus Stirrup spacing Tensile force Moment lever arm, ‘Sum of angle changes of tendon between stressing locations and point x Thermal coefficient of concrete Dead load factor Prestress load factor Intentional angle change of tendon Deflection Loss of prestress force Unintentional angle change of tendon Prestress loss due to relaxation of steel Final strain Conerete strain Time-varying shrinkage strain ‘Uhtimate strain for concrete Free strain due to temperature gradient Thermal differential Coefficient of friction Jacking stress Effective prestress after all losses Creep coefficient Conerete resistance factor Prestressing tendon resistance factor Reinforcing steel resistance factor Final curvature of bending xiv1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Significance of Optimizing Span-to-Depth Ratio Span-to-depth ratio, also known as slenderness ratio (L/h), is an important bridge design parameter that relates a bridge’s span length to its girder depth. In the industry, this ratio is usually used to establish the superstructure depth and is chosen during the conceptual design phase before detailed calculations are performed. Selecting the ratio at an early stage of the design process, permits approximate dimensional proportioning which is needed for preliminary analysis to evaluate the feasibility, cost-efficiency, and aesthetic merits of the design in comparison with alternative design concepts (ACIASCE 1988). The ratio is commonly chosen based on experience and typical values used in previously constructed bridges with satisfactory performance in order to ensure that the design does not deviate drastically from past successful practice. The ratio can also be determined by optimizing the combination of span length and superstructure depth to create a cost-efficient and aesthetically-pleasing structure, but this generally involves an iterative process. ‘Therefore, instead of optimizing the span-to-depth ratio for every design concept, it is more common to select ratios from a range of conventional values. ‘The choice of slendemess ratio is particularly critical in the design of girder-type bridges, because it directly affects the cost of materials and construction of the superstructure. For instance, using a high ratio (ie. slender girder) reduces the concrete volume, increases the prestressing, requirement, and simplifies the construction due to a lighter superstructure. Moreover, slendemness ratio has significant aesthetic impact, because the overall appearance of a girder-type bridge is highly dependent on the proportion of the superstructure (Leonhardt 1982), As stated previously, despite the significance of span-to-depth ratio, the industry has generally relied on the same proven range of ratios over the past decades. Figures 1-1 tol-3 show the recommended ranges of slendemness ratios outlined in different publications for three types of prestressed concrete constant-depth girders: cast-in-place box-girder, cast-in-place slab, and precast segmental box-girder. A brief description of the recommendations from each publication is given in Table 1-1,Spano depo Figure 1-1. Spanto- eps Figure 1-2. Spano depo tio . Pe | lana wh oo oii aria rt 19751981985 1890 gg, 1995 200020052010 ‘Recommended ratios for cas-insplace box-ginder 50 « eraser 1908 20 CMP BIE ayaa 2008 omar 179 0 0 19751980885 2990 19952000005 2010 ‘Recommended ratios for castin-pace slab 2s 2» 18 10 5 0 1975 1985851980, 199520002005. 2010 ‘Recommended ratios for precast segmental box-girderrable 1-1, Description of recommended ratios “Author Year Description Leonhardt 1979 ACLASCE 1988 Menn 1980 AASHTO 1998 cohn& 1994 Louris AASHTO. 1997 PcrAsal Duanetal, 1999 Fritz Leonhardt, a Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Stuttgart, suggests ratios ‘based on values from previously constructed prestressed concrete bridges with good performance. For cast-in-place single-cell box girder, a ratio of 21is recommended. The suggested ratio is lowered to around 12 to 16 when incremental launching method is used due to the large negative construction moments associated with this construction method. For cast- Invplace slab, he suggests values from 18 to 36, with the higher values used for longer spans and for bridges with lighter traffic ‘The American Concrete insttute-American Saciety of Cull Engineers (ACI-ASCE) Commitee 343, ‘on Concrete Bridge Design defines span-to-depti ratio recommendations for commen bridge types based on typical values, These recommendations are intended to provide general {uldelines for preliminary design. For castn-place, post-tensioned mutiple-cel bot girder, [ACLASCE recommends ratios fram 25 to 33. The recommended ratio for precast multiple-cell continuous box irder is around 22, These ratios are higher than the ones for single-cell box Airder, because a multiple-cel box ection has more webs to accommadate tendons compared t02 single-cell ection with similar width. The recommended range of ratios is between 24 and 40 forcast inplace, post-tensioned slab Chistian Menn sa Professor of Structural Engineering at the Institute of Structural Engineering in Zurich, His suggestions are based on existing bridges with satisfactory performance in terms of structural behaviour, aesthetics, and economics. He recommends ratios between 17 and 22 for castin-place box girders, because girders with ratios below 17 would appeer too heavy. On the other hand, girders with ratios above 22 have substantial cost increase due tothe significantly higher longitudinal prestressing demand. Menn also suggests a maximum practical limit of 25 fr solid sab and a maximum cost-effective slab depth of 0.8m, The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Ofiials (AASHTO) defines ‘optional criteria for span-to depth ratios in C1.2.5.2.6.3 ofthe LAFD Bridge Design Specifications. These values are based on tractional maximum ratios of constant-depth continuous highway bridges with adequate vibration and deflection response. To ensure proper vibration and deflection behaviours, the maximum ratios are determined to be 25 for castin-place box girder and 37 for cast-in-place sab, Mz. Cohn s@ Professor of Civil Engineering a the University of Waterloo and the span-to- depth ratios suggested in this paper are part ofthe results ofa Ph.D. thesis prepared by Z Louris. These ratios are established from a systematic, mult-ievel optimization approach that determines the idea cross-sectional dimensions, span layouts and superstructure system based ‘on cost, material consumption, and aesthetics. For castin-place single-cell box-grder, the ‘optimum ratio is found to range from 12 to 20. The ratio increases with span length and decreases with bridge with (eg. 2 ratio of 12 corresponds toa span of 20m and a width of {16m while a ratio of 20 corresponds to a span of SOm and a width of &m). Ths range of ratioss slightly lower relative to the ones from other publications, because this study investigates 2 simply-supported system while the ratios from other publications are mostiy based on continuous systems. A simaly-supported girder tends to be deeper since it experiences great ‘moments at midspan compared to a continuous structure, Cohn & Lounis also suggest the range of optimum ratios for voided and solid slabs are 22 to 29 and 28 to 33 respectively The American Segmental Bridge Institute (ASB!) has established various standard precast sections for segmental construction to enhance uniformity and simplicity for forming and production methods. Using these standard sections generally ead to practical ane cost- effective solutions. The ranges of span-to-depth ratios obtained from these standard sections are 17 0 18 fer span-by-span method and 17 to 20 for balanced cantilever method LUan Duan is a Senior Bridge Engineer withthe California Department of Transpartation and a Professor of Structural Engineering at Taiyuan University of Technology in China. A span-to- depth ratio of 25 is recommended for cast-in-place multipe-cel box girder based on typical values from existing bridges. A range of ratios from 12.5 to 20 is recommended for precast segmental box-girder. This range is based on frequently used standard precast sections from Federal Highway Administration (FHWA,abl Description of recommended ratios (continued) ‘Author Year Deseription Hewson 2003 Nigel Hewson is a recognized expert inthe design and construction of prestressed bridges and Isan Associate Lecturer atthe University of Surrey on this subject. He suggested a span to depth ratio of 20 for castin-place single-cell box girder and a maximum ratio of 20 for castin- place voided slab. Both of these recommendations are based on typical values Gauvreau 2006 Aspan-to-depth ratio of 17 is recommended for precast segmental span-by-span constructed boxgirder. This value corresponds to tne lower limit of span length usec for this construction ‘method (30m) and the minimum height requirement of a box section to provide sufficient access space within the box (1.8m). The recommended ratio is lower than the one for cast place box girder, because a larger depth is needed to compensate for the reduced tendon eccentricity due to the use of external unbonded tendons. As shown in the previous graphs, there has been no significant increase in the recommended span-to-depth ratio since 1979 despite the advancement in material strengths and construction technologies. Recent developments have resulted in high-strength materials which theoretically should lead to more slender structural components and longer span lengths. In particular, high- strength concrete with compressive strength of 40 to 140 MPa has been achieved by lowering the ‘water-to-cement ratio and incorporating chemical admixtures (Kosmatka et al. 2002). Because of their enhanced mechanical properties like higher ultimate strengths and modulus of elasticity, high- strength concrete structures can resist the same level of loads using slenderer sections, resulting in lightweight structures, The reduction in self-weight is especially critical in long-span bridges, because the dead load consumes approximately 75% of the load-bearing capacity in long-span bridges constructed with normal-strength concrete (TRB 1990). High-strength concrete lowers the dead load contribution by using thinner sections and improves the load-bearing capacity by increasing strength, thus slenderer bridges with longer spans can be attained, High-strength concrete has been applied to various types of structures. For instance, concrete with compressive strength of 60 MPa is commonly used for large bridges in Europe (Muller 1999) while the building industry has been using concrete with strengths of over 100 MPa for years (Hassanain 2002), However, most short- and medium-span bridges are being constructed with concrete strengths of less than 50 MPa, because high-strength concrete is more expensive, especially ifthe designer still uses the typical span-to-depth ratios as defined decades ago based on normal-strength conerete (Hassanain 2002). For instance, the unit price of concrete rises by about 68% when the compressive strength changes from 30 MPa to 60 MPa (Dufferin Conerete 2009). This indicates a substantial material cost increase if the same guidelines for superstructure proportioning of normal-strength concrete bridges are applied to high-strength concrete bridges, causing the application of high-strength conerete in bridges to be economically unfeasible. Therefore, with the advent of high-strength materials, recommended span-to-depth ratios need to beupdated to match the improvement in material strength and stiffness and to provide an economic incentive for the application of these materials in bridges. 1.2 Objectives and Scope ‘The purpose of this thesis is to determine the ideal range of span-to-depth ratios for post- tensioned girder bridges constructed with current high-strength materials based on aesthetic comparisons and optimization parameters such as material consumption and total construction cost. ‘The three bridge types considered in this study are cast-in-place on falsework box-girder and solid slab, and precast segmental span-by-span box-girder. The objectives of this study are summarized as follows: * Provide a study on the evolution of span-to-depth ratios in concrete girder bridges constructed over the past 50 years and establish a range of conventional ratios. * Determine the amount of prestressing and the concrete strength needed to satisfy safety and serviceability requirements as a function of span-to-depth ratio for the three types of bridge considered. + Compare the material consumptions and total construction costs for bridges with different slendemess ratios and determine the most cost-effective ratios + Investigate the sensitivity of the construction cost results with respect to changes in material unit cost and construction cost breakdown. + Examine the visual impact of different span-to-depth ratios and especially evaluate the aesthetic influence of using the cost-effective ratios instead of conventional ones. + Update the recommendations for span-to-depth ratios based on economic and aesthetic considerations The results of this research are expected either to confirm that the conventional ratios are already optimal for new high-strength materials or to demonstrate that more slender sections can be attained. The study focuses on the superstructure only while the prestressing and concrete strength demands for the substructure are not explicitly accounted for. Also, only bridges with typical span lengths are analyzed in this study: 35m to 75m for cast-in-place box-girder, 20m to 35m for cast-in- place solid slab, and 30m to S0m for precast segmental box-girder.6 1.3. Thesis Structure The thesis is organized in eight chapters: Chapter 1 provides the background and motivation of optimizing span-to-depth ratio. Chapter 2 examines the span-to-depth ratios of existing bridges and discusses their changes over the past 50 years, This information along with the span-to-depth ratio recommendations described. in Chapter I leads to values for conventional slendemess ratios. These conventional ratios serve as a basis for cost and aesthetic comparisons in the later chapters. Chapter 3 outlines the general analysis model and method used for all three bridge types. It also provides a breakdown on all the analysis cases that need to be considered and discusses specific design criteria that must be satisfied. The sp analysis models and analysis results for cast-in-place on falsework box-girder and solid slab, and precast segmental span-by-span box-girder are described in Chapter 4 and 5 respectively. Analysis results include structural responses, material consumptions, and factors that limit further increase in stendemess ratio. The construction method and design issues unique to each bridge type are also discussed. Chapter 6 compares the material costs and total construction costs for bridges with varying span-to-depth ratios for the three bridge types. Optimal ratios with the lowest costs are determined and in particular, cost savings associated with using the optimal ratios instead of conventional ones are examined. Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis is performed to demonstrate the effects of changing unit costs and total construction cost breakdown on the analysis results. Chapter 7 explores the aesthetic impacts of varying span-toxdepth ratios and discusses the public perception on visually optimal ratios. Chapter 8 provides a conclusion for this study by summarizing the optimal span-to-depth ratios. for the three bridge types as well as their improvement over conventional ratios in terms of material consumptions, construction costs, and aesthetics. These optimal ratios lead to updated span-to-depth ratio recommendations for bridges constructed with current high-strength materials,2 TYPICAL SPAN-TO-DEPTH RATIOS OF EXISTING BRIDGES This chapter describes a study of 86 existing constant-depth girder bridges and presents a compilation of their span-to-depth ratios. Specifically, the study determines the range of ratios typically used in the industry and examines its variations over the past 50 years. Three bridge types are considered: cast-in-place box-girder, cast-in-place slab, and precast box-girder. A majority of these bridges has span-to-depth ratios within the suggested ranges discussed in Chapter 1, indicating that a representative sample of bridges has been used 21 Cas First, the study investigates 44 constant-depth cast-in-place box-girders. Table 2-1 provides the -Place Box-Girder basic information as well as a cross-sectional drawing for each bridge. Additional information, including the span arrangement, girder dimensions, designer and references, is given in Appendix A.1, Figure 2-1 shows the span-to-depth ratios with respect to the span lengths and compares these ratios with the recommended values described in Section 1.1. Figure 2-2 plots the ratios with respect to the completion years in order to illustrate the trend in slendemess ratio over time. Table 2-1. Summary of cast-inplace box-gieders BS Name a ro. deponrava method ‘ 1 GroneBrdgest ase Steeiand 177 NUR herent 2 Sercanstrdee Boum 0 rem NA Wevemanrais— Gatsadand A a fer Swtsetand 389 4 Gambou USA 730. Pontaework ses [onmnrien Ce 7 Pregorda Bridge Switzerland 222 ‘Spanby-span on ee fan falsework gay Nowevasuct® — seared ‘Condove Viaduct ay 182 cantilever 10 Grwvnviadut ayaa)‘Table 2-1, Summary of cast-n-place box-girders (continued) Ba Nae Tmaton SIO CMRRUEEON ag ta depthraio method u Borgone Viaduct Italy 182 Balanced 12 Qundnwiaidge ——Swtretand 200 ShaMBYSFANO 13 Aer Vinict—Sweotand 286 NA a Reuse Swtzeland 12.7 Pontasework 5 Balanced 15 caehra Vier tay agg Race 6 wey ans Raced beances 17 conaeaevnduct tay ass Band re FevovaloOvermass yy ogy screen 18 Aebbacloiee Germany owas ee 20 shatalanb Orde ae ne hewmen 24 Ancona Viaduct ay 207 Smet Fea rage acetan Seanoyssanon 2 (approaches) Swmtzeriand 16.0 falsework 23 aMoletavaduct tay «208 Segmental Fox Capi a fon Wey 208 Segment Stiocrsrase 2s Swtzetand 295 mn Bridge we eto ©tosto Vast ounces Grosevadit, tay 200 we rosa aay Sots 25 DemnyCreekVaduet “USA 203 NA no WeON RT pty gaye wa svisee launching‘Table 2-1. Summary of east-in-place box-girders (continued) BEE Name tocavon Sant, Gor Cross setion 31 Valnthoviadet ay anounced 32 Gatlonevacuct tay 200 Bence esances 38 Venassvaduct mayan ed 34 PassepueiViadict tay 200 Segmental 35 srunetaViuct tay «200 Semel 36 PatravetaVaduct ay 200 Semen 37 bevesVadic ay 200 Segmental 38 Gye Lake Viaduct Swtzefand 351 Spampspan ert 95 Bridge solmees 39 owriimestuer USA gael wa (sppracres) 10 tsnansrage Swtseland 181 NA 1 Sevneilre ns vent a ne ty 5 Seema farang ty 193A a3 ‘Weinland Bridge Switzerland 22.6 ‘Span-by-span on faework a4 Kocher Valley Bridge Germany sae,Bridge No 15 200 3040 a8 “ TTC mn 8 2stuaneral aasive, 2o ew 20 spanso rareet17%022) 2 0 © 20 100 220 0 160 Span length (i) Figure 2-1. Span-to-depth ratios of east-in-place box-girders Figure 2-1 demonstrates that all 44 cast-in-place box-girders have span lengths between 35.4m and 138m as well as span-to-depth ratios that range from 11.4 to 29.5. The frequency plot on the top shows that 42 out of 44 bridges (95%) investigated have span lengths from 35m to 75m which is the typical range for constant-depth box-girders as suggested by Hewson (2003). Above the frequency plot are bridge numbers that relate each data point to its corresponding bridge in Table 2-1. The frequency plot on the right shows a large concentration of bridges that have span-to-depth ratios of values between 17.7 and 22.6, In fact, 33 out of 44 bridges (75%) have ratios within the rang recommended by Menn (17 to 22) and Hewson (20) which are based on existing bridges with satisfactory performance, indicating that the study sample is representative of typical bridges. Most bridges have ratios below 25 which is the traditional maximum value that ensures adequate vibration and deflection responses in cast-in-place box-girders according to American design standards (AASHTO 1994). Only 2 bridges (Le. bridge no, 18 and 25), one with a multiple- cell box-girder and the other with twin parallel box-girders, have ratios above 25. These two bridges, however, are within the range of ratios recommended by ACI-ASCE (1988) for post-tensioned cast- in-place multiple-cell box-girders (25 to 33). Higher ratios are expected for these types of cross- sections, because additional webs can help accommodate the large amount of prestressing tendons associated with slender girders without sacrificing the efficiency of the tendon layout (i.e. lowering. the tendon eccentricity by placing tendons in vertical layers within the webs). Also, the decrease in spacing between webs causes considerable reduction in transverse bending for wide cross-sections, thus lowering the transverse prestressing requirement.Furthermore, 6 bridges have ratios of less than 15. Out of these 6 bridges, 4 are constructed with incremental launching which generally requires a deeper cross-section to resist the large negative moments during construction, They have ratios between 12 and 16 which is the typical range for incrementally launched single-cell box-girders recommended by Leonhardt (1979). The other two are railway bridges which also need a larger depth due to the greater live loads and more stringent serviceability requirements. For instance, ACT-ASCE (1988) suggested a typical span-to- depth ratio of approximately 16 for cast-in-place multiple-cell box-girders that carry railroads. Figure 2-2 describes the variation in span-to-depth ratios over time. Only 37 out of the 44 bridges investigated are included in this graph due to the lack of data on completion year. These 37 bridges were completed between 1958 and 2002, and no significant variation in span-to-depth ratios is observed within this time span. The slenderness ratios commonly used by the industry have not increased over time despite the improvements in material strengths and advancements in construction technologies. As stated previously, 75% of these bridges follow the same guid recommended by Menn in 1986 and Hewson in 2003. 8 20 . novasee 20 + _— 2ohewsor) range (171022) Figure 2-2, Span-to-depth ratios of cast-n-place box-girders2.2 Cast-in-Place Slab In addition to cast-in-place box-girders, 28 cast-in-place constant-depth slab bridges are also investigated. Table 2-2 provides basic information as well as a cross-sectional drawing for each bridge and the detailed bridge information is given in Appendix A.2, Figure 2-3 and 2-4 relate the span-to-depth ratios to the span lengths and to the completion dates. Table 2-2, Summary of castin-place slabs 45 Rhandesar rie iis 203ONA Wa as SpadinaAve Bridge, HAY Canady 22.2 Pon fasewore Spain hv. ridge #188 Hoy oS canass 22 Penfasewore ae SMITE BMEEEMIES HY aay 222 Pon faework S a9 Beira Ave BHBEEMS HY say 222 Pon fatework so SBMITAAe-BHGEEHZIA HWY aay 222 cP onfatework sy Buna Ae BOHEEHZIB HY agg 222—_Ponfatework = 52 Sindtingen Fost Germany 557 NA 53 La ovepssratsemnm ——_Gemmany wa NA St binge Footie ermany wa wn 55 Mako Bridge ‘Senegal Bs Incremental N/A * ve launching. " 56 teaches Brge Germany 193MM wn 57 SnFancico Ripon Viadut -USA 192 NIA wn 5 S.Vincemsveetoverpess Cann —«356 =P onfaework a 59 idgescroslanwelle-Pits_ Germany 25 wa wn o 7 canada 386 CP onfaswore a M1 canada 386 IP onfaswore a = Canada 386 Pen faewore © sedeangearruspnten Germany 20 wa wn A Bricge #20 at Hwy 403/427 Canada a7 CIP on falsework inereange Spacine hv. ridge, hy s canasa 350. Penfasewore ce SNA BHBEEMILHY Coy ag cop ontosewore i‘Table 2-2, Summary of eat-in-place slabs (continued) Bree Constrton Bree Name location consi Cross-section oe “HY cada 308 Pon fasework Spadin Av. Bridge #23, Hoy ‘ oe canada 322 Pon fasework 69 Hundschipfen Britge switzerland 405 NA NA jn Spadina Ave Bridge #26, Hwy Ga, . spon losewore = sm canada 33, “ 7 ne Canada 387 {iP on fasewore tem ota ut 0 spanso- | 08g 3s a5 TOL = “ne e955, 1968 1989 305 ct Lown “tio 30 oo forego) wo, voi orld a 2 | a foet 2DlHemon or Ueooho ange 81038) ° ° 10 20 “0 so ea Span engin) Figure 23. Span-to-depth ratios ofcastineplace slabs As shown in Figure 2-3, the 28 bridges have span lengths between 13.2m and 47.Sm and span- to-depth ratios from 19.2 to 55.7. The sample consists of 14 solid slabs and 14 voided slabs. Out of the 14 solid slabs, 7 that were mostly built in the 1960s have span lengths greater than 20m which is the current maximum economic span length for this type of slab (Gauvreau 2006). All voided slabs, except for bridge no, 72, have spans of less than the maximum typical span length of 46m as suggested by ACILASCE (1988). Also, most of the bridgs (79%) have span-to-depth ratios that are within Leonhardt’s recommended range of 18 to 36 and are below AASIITO’s maximum value foradequate deflection and vibration behaviour. Since the majority of the sample has span-to-depth ratios within Leonhardt’s suggested range and spans similar to conventional values, the sample is fairly representative of typical slab bridges p spansos |_* sr1aasir0) Z ‘emg = vy ‘ota . tiem one wy 7 . 20 (Hewson for Lento rane (8036) 0 1960 2970 990 ae? 2000 2010 Figure 2-4. Span-to-depth ratios of cast-in-place slabs As shown in Figures 2-3 and 2-4, most of the bridges have span-to-depth ratios that cluster around two ranges: 13 bridges (46%) have ratios between 19 and 25 while 13 bridges have ratios between 30 and 40.5. The first range is composed of 7 solid slabs built in the 1960s and 6 voided slabs built after 1970. The latter range consists of 6 solid slabs and 7 voided slabs which are all constructed in the 1960s except for bridge no. 69. The remaining two bridges (bridge no. 52 and 54) with higher ratios of 42.5 and $5.7 are both pedestrian bridges which can be more slender due to the lower live load requirements. Therefore, there is a noticeable variation in the typical range of span- to-depth ratios depending on the construction year and funetion of the bridge. Figure 2-4 clearly illustrates the changes in typical span-to-depth ratios with respect to construction year. Out of the 19 bridges completed prior to 1975, 12 (63%) have slenderness ratios greater than 30 and 12 (63%) are solid slabs. Newer bridges are mainly voided slabs with lower slendemess ratios at around 20 due to the stricter code requirements in recent years. For instance, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) sets the minimum non-prestressed reinforcement clear cover to be 70:20 for the top surface of voided slabs in the MTO Structural Manual (2003) while the value is only 50#20 in the Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code (OHBDC 1983), Likewise, the MTO Structural Manual limits the maximum span-to-depth ratio to 28 for all post- tensioned slabs while no such provisions existed prior to 1975 (Scollard and Bartlett 2004). As shown in Figure 2-4, the first generation post-tensioned voided slabs constructed in the 1960s havespan-to-depth ratios of over 30 which required large amount of longitudinal prestressing. This resulted in the formation of longitudinal cracks above the voids due to the large concentrated post- tensioning forces near the abutments, which created transverse splitting stresses, and due to the restraint of transverse concrete shrinkage imposed by the steel void forms. To solve this cracking problem, MTO recommended the addition of transverse prestressing to prevent shrinkage cracking and a decrease in span-to-depth ratio in 1975 in order to reduce the required prestressing force, which eventually led to the current maximum span-to-depth ratio limit of 28 (Scollard and Barlett 2004). As a result, in this study, 6 out of the 9 bridges built after 1975 have span-to-depth ratios below 28; the remaining 3 bridges are pedestrian bridges or European bridges. As stated before, the typical span-to-depth ratios for slab bridges vary considerably with time and bridge function, The impact of slab type (i.e. solid or voided), on the other hand, is not as significant. According to the literature dis sussed in Chapter I, the conventional span-to-depth ratios, for solid slab are expected to be higher than the ones for voided slab, because voided slabs are commonly used to reduce self-weight for longer spans that require slabs thicker than 800mm (Menn, 1990). In fact, the study by Cohn and Lounis (1994) suggested that the optimum depth for voided slab is 12% to 20% thicker than the one for solid slab, resulting in optimum ratios of approximately 30.5 for solid slab and 25 for voided slab. The sample in this study indicates a small difference in span-to-depth ratios between the two slab types. Voided slabs have ratios that range from 19 to 35, while the range is from 22 to 39 for solid slabs (excluding the pedestrian bridges). These results are ction between a solid slab reasonable, because a voided slab is theoretically an intermediate cross- and a box-gitder and its range of ratios is expected to be in between the ones from solid slab and bbox-girder (i.e. 17 to 22 as determined in Section 2.1). The typical ratios of the voided slab might be closer to those of the solid slab or of the box-girder depending on its component dimensions. For instance, if the void diameter is less than 60% of the total slab depth, the longitudinal behaviour would resemble a solid slab (O'Brien and Keogh 1999). In this sample, the mean ratio for solid slab is 30 which is only slightly higher than the 27 for voided slab if all the bridges from 1960 to 2000 are considered. If only recently constructed bridges are considered (i.e. built after 1990), the conventional ratio for voided slab would decrease to around 20 which is the same as Hewson’s, suggested value. There is no data for recently constructed solid slabs, but the conventional ratio for solid slab is expected to follow the same trend when the entire sample is considered and be only slightly higher than the value for voided slab.16 2.3. Precast Segmental Box-Girder In this section, 14 precast segmental box-girders are examined. Table 2-3 provides basic information as well as a cross-sectional drawing for each bridge and the detailed bridge information is given in Appendix A.3, Figures 2-5 and 2-6 relate the span-to-depth ratios to the span lengths and the completion dates. Table24. Summary of pecs semen boxers a BARTIOBMEUNT gece agg SBME pay ‘System 801. "eas span ” Wiscasset Bridge SA 1758 ‘Segmental with N/A we ¥ launching eer a 75 Chovoovade = tay Semen 716 caleasine Vatu’ tay eget 77 ametoVacut = tay 17 Segment 78 SanteoroVidut tay 17 Segment $0 GadamanoVuet tay 167 andere arta tay 167 ocd 82° MaborbetoVadict tay «161——_—dbnen cree 4 rama tay 8 acedeatver iS ‘Neon Shuen Chau ‘ina Balanced cantilever as Nees cme aa eo 6 Sutong Bridge APPFOSCY Cig 188 Balanced cantilever (Nanton side). sien 8 om mh ee view . im soe ms : stat ee om ° cpt) 5. Span-to-depth ratios of precast segmental bon-girders 6 + a ses 7 isneveaut as | . spanto- epe ‘allo yo *shaded repon = are om Duonetat fnst020) ° 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005, 2010 Figre 24, Spada is fps seen apes According to Figure 2-5, all 14 bridges have slendemess ratios between 15.7 and 18.8 which are within the range of frequently used ratios suggested by Duan etal. (1999). Also, 13 bridges have spans between 30m and 60m which is a feasible and cost-effective span range for precast segmental constructed constant-depth girders recommended by ASBI (1997). Since most of the bridges in this study sample have span-to-depth ratios and span lengths within standard ranges, these bridges are assumed to be representative of typical precast segmental box-girders.Moreover, out of the 14 bridges, 10 bridges (71%) have ratios within 5% from 17 which is the recommended value for precast segmental span-by-span construction from Gauvreau (2006). The lowest ratio is 15.7 for bridge no. 70 which is a railway bridge that requires a deeper girder to satisfy the more stringent serviceability requirements. Also, Figure 2-6 indicates that the typical span-to-depth ratios did not vary significantly from 1981 to 2007. 2.4 Concluding Remarks This study examines the span-to-depth ratios of 86 constant-depth girder bridges in order to determine the range of ratios typically used by the industry over the past 50 years, The slenderness ratios with respect to span lengths for all of these bridges arc illustrated in Figure 2-7. The average span-to-depth ratio and the typical span lengths for each bridge type are also indicated on the graph. 70 “Tye span enti: 3510 75m (CP boxed eral) sate Som (east « 15t049 (crs) so Spanto . x» a Span erat igure 2-7. Span-to-depth ratios forall bridge types torerder ones ate so(ersoissas) 27 (cP aces) tors) ‘The primary findings of this investigation are summarized in Table 2-4. Average ratios within the typical ranges are considered as the conventional ratios and are used as a basis of comparison in this thesis. Table 24, Summary of convestional span-to-depth ratios Bridge wpe Range of span- Number af bridges Average Notes to-depth ratios _withinthis range ratio ‘Castinplace bocgirdar 17.7t022.6 32 outof 4475) 20 Range varies tle between 1558 and 2002 Ccostinplace voided slab 191035 sBoutof 14 (92%) 27 Conventional ratio i laser to 20 for bridges completed after 1990 Ccastinplace soidslab 221038 s2out of 14(86%) 30 Used mainly from 1961 to 1975 Precast segmental box- 5.710188 — s4outof 14(100%) 17 Range varies litle between 1981 sider and 20073 ANALYSIS OVERVIEW This purpose of this analysis is to compute the amount of prestressing and the conerete strength needed to satisfy design requirements for bridges with varying span lengths and span-to-depth ratios. These material consumption results are then used to compute construction cost as a function of span-to-depth ratio. By examining the variations in construction cost and aesthetic impacts, the study determines the most cost-optimal ratios for different bridge types. The three post-ensioned bridge types considered are cast-in-place on falsework box-gitder, cast-in-place on falsework solid slab, and precast segmental span-by-span box-girder. This chapter describes the analysis model, material properties, applied loads, ultimate and serviceability limit states design requirements, as well as some preliminary analysis assumptions. The analysis is performed using the program SAP2000 and spreadsheet calculations. 3.1 Analysis Model The analysis model is an 8-span highway vieduet with a straight profile. Typical plan and elevation are shown in Figures 3-1 + | ce and elevation Figure 3-1. Typical pl Two types of constant-depth cross-sections are investigated: single-cell box-girder and solid slab. Both types have 0.5m wide barriers, 90mm thick wearing surface and 3.5m wide design lanes as shown in Figure 3-2. Proportions of other cross-sectional components vary for different construction methods and are discussed in greater details in Sections 4.2.1.1, 4.3.1.1, and 5.2.1 UZ rmerunes | cose — | ootnanes | /"oateines XE Figure 3-2. Typical deck arrangement ae § somm thekweaing sitaceIn the analysis, the span length and span-to-depth ratio are varied in the model to generate the analysis cases illustrated in Figure 3-3, It should be noted that for cast-in-place on falsework box- girders, cases with spans of 75m are included in the study mainly for comparison purposes. In the industry, however, such long spans are generally constructed with cantilever method in regions m= 10,15,20,25, 50m 10,15, 20,25 30 Castinplace on falsework Ey boraider om Lm 10,15, 20,25, 30,35, te L=75m Uh = 10,15, 20,25 30,35 20m n= 30,35, 40,45 L=25m Un =30,35, 40,45 Paes Castinlace on faework ann "olds j = 30m Un 30,35, 40, 65,50 n= 30,35, 40, 45,50 L=30m Uh 15,20,25 Precast segmental span-by- L=4om ‘spanboxerser hacrneneaed Leasm \Un= 15, 20,25 30 where high labour costs deter the extensive use of falsework. 2, Leger: Le span length Un spantocepth ratio Figure 3-3. Summary of analysis cases 203.2 Materials Table: ai 1 and 3-2 summarize the material properties and resistance factors used in the analysis. To illustrate the effects of high-strength materials on span-to-depth ratios, a concrete compressive strength of 50 MPa is used in the analysis, because this value is the minimum strength requirement of high performance concrete as defined by MTO (OPSS 2007), ‘Table 3-1. Material properties ‘Material Property Conerel Compressive strength Tensile strength Elastic modulus Prestressing tendons? Ultimate strength Yield stress Effective prestress after al losses Elastic modulus Reinforcing steel bars? Yield stress Elastic modulus Va F.=50MPa fo=2.8MPa=O4JT (CSA2006) E=28100 MPa x = 000+ 690)(2 (€sa2006) fu 1860 MPa Foy =0.9fyy = 1670 MP2 y= 06f,, = 1120 MPa = 200000 MPa 4 E 400 MPa ,90000MP = For solid sab analysis, higher concrete srengths (Le. po 80 MPa are used for slender eases. 2for pestessing tendons aod reinforcing steel bars, abiinearstrest-sran relationships sed ‘Table 3-2. Matetal resistance factors ( Material pty Sly Rest SA 2006) “Water Resistance factor Concrete Prestressng strands $2075 ,=095 Reinforcing steel bars and wires 1 Prestressing Tendons 2050 All analysis cases utilize size 15 seven-wire low-relaxation strands as prestressing tendons and standard size corrugated metal ducts with properties summarized in Tables 3-3 and 3-4 Table 3-3. Prestressing tendon properties (CSA 1982) Property Value ‘Nominal dam 15.28 mm Nominal Area 1140 mm" Mass 1.109 kg/m Table 3-4. Comugated metal duct properties (DSI 2008) Hairands Outer dameter (mm) 7 ‘4 15 7 9 106.3 27 wa 37 1384 Minimum blockout diameter (mm) 1 sion length (A) 254 508 279 S75 305 640 303 702 407 83022 ‘The minimum clear distance between adjacent ducts is 40mm according to the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC) (CSA 2006). A horizontal spacing of about the duct diameter is used between tendons to provide sufficient space for concrete placement and vibration. 3.22 Concrete Covers Conerete cover requirements and tolerances from CHBDC are used (Table 3-5). The bridge is assumed to be exposed to the most severe environmental category (i.e. de-icing chemicals, spray or surface runoff containing de-icing chemicals, marine spray). ‘Table 35. Concrete cover requirements (CSA 2006) Component Reinforcement orsteelducts Concrete covers [nm Costinplace Precast Mom sap Reinforcing steel 40210 ‘402 10 Ton surface of bottom slab pat tensioning ducts 60410 60410 ‘Top surface of top slab Post-tensioning ducts 130215 120210 tottop and bottom stabs Reinforcing steel so410 45410 Sofft of top and bettom slabs ost. tensioning steel 70#10 65410 Vertical surfaces Reinforcing steal 70210 60210 Post-tensioning duets 90210 802 10 3.3 Loads Dead loads, live loads (truck and lane), and prestress loads based on CIIBDC are used in the analysis. Thermal gradient effects are considered only in the precast segmental box-girder analysis because they are more critical for precast girders which do not have continuous bonded steel 1 Load Combinations and Load Factors The load combinations and load factors used in the analysis under ultimate and serviceability limit states are summarized in Table 3-6 and Table 3-7 (CSA 2006). Fatigue limit state is not considered in the analysis, because the concrete is kept uncracked at service and the steel does not experience large stress cycles. Table 346, Load combination Vable 3-7. Load Permanent loads Transitoryloads Dead lead Toad factor Loads ° P L K___ “Precast concrete 110 “Ulimateimitstates————S~CSCSCSCS*~SSCS~SSSS~SCa place corte 120 ust 1.70 Barrens 120 uis2 a esr surtaces 4150 Serviceabilit limit states sist 100 100 0900.80 _Prestress load Load fact sts ° 0 090-0 Secondary prestvess 095 S1s3, 1001000 0 __efects Legend D=deadload —_L=liveload P =secondary prestress effects Ks effects of strains due to temperature diferentil‘As shown in Table 3-6, load combinations ULS2 and SLS3 only consider permanent loads, Without live loads, longitudinal tendons push the bridge upward while there might not be enough dead load to weigh the bridge down. Therefore, this load combination must be checked to ensure ULS and SLS requirements are satisfied when the bridge is hogging. This is particularly critical for slender bridges since they have large prestressing forces and small dead loads. On the other hand, oad combination SLS2 considers pure live loads when the bridge is loaded with only one CHBDC CL-625 truck; this combination is used for superstructure vibration check 3.3.2 Live Loads The live loads considered in the analysis comprise of CL-625 truck and CL-625 lane loads as illustrated in Figure 3-4 \Unfomly dietrbitedlosd tm Figure 3-4, Live loads: C1625 ruck load (1p); CL-625 lan load (bottom) The CL.-625 truck load is increased by a dynamic load allowance (DLA) factor for SLS1 and ULS load combinations as shown in Table 3-8 (CSA 2006, Cl. 3.8.4.5.3). This DLA factor accounts for the load increase due to impact from truck vibrations and it depends on the number of axles that are loaded to produce the maximum force effect. The more the axles, the lower is the DLA factor, because the probability of all of the axles being in phase is low. Furthermore, the model is under multi-lane loading and the traffic load moments are modified according to the number of design 9. These modification factors lanes loaded to produce maximum force effects as shown in Table account for the probability of simultaneously loading more than one lane, Table 3-8. DLA factor (CSA 2006) Table 39. Mult-lane loading modification factor (CSA 2006) Wotavles loaded DLATactor— Wefioaded design anes Modification actor 7 740 7 00 2 130 2 a0 3.or more 125 3 0.80 a 070 5 oa 6.0r more 0524 3.4 Design Requirements All analysis cases are designed to satisfy CHBDC ULS and SI S requirements by increasing the amount of prestressing tendons and stirrups. Also, for the solid slab analysis, concrete strengths are inereased (up to 80 MPa) in order to reduce the prestressing demands in slender cases since the dimensions of such cases cannot accommodate the large amount of tendons required to satisfy ULS. The ULS check consists of flexural and shear strength requirements while the SLS check includes stress, vibration and deflection limitations. In the analysi such design checks only consider longitudinal behaviour and ignore transverse behaviour based on the assumption that transverse reinforcement demands remain constant for analysis cases with the same span lengths and bridge type. This assumption is valid, bec se transverse behaviour depends highly on live loads which are the same for cases with the same span lengths. Although dead loads vary for these analysis cases, they contribute very little to the transverse calculations due to the small influence lengths. This assumption does not affect the results of this comparative study in which comparisons are made between bridges with the same span length but different span-to-depth ratios, and the relative values of material consumptions and construction costs are more important than the actual values. 3.4.1 Ultimate Limit States Design Requirements This section describes the ultimate limit states design requirements which include flexural and shear strength checks. 3.4.1.1 Flexural Strength In ULS, the flexural resistance (M,) is a pure couple between compression in the concrete and tension in the longitudinal prestressing tendons. The analysis assumes that other non-prestressed reinforcements do not contribute to flexural strength and that cracked concrete has no tensile strength. Also, an equivalent rectangular concrete stress distribution is used as shown in Figure 3-5. 4 1-4, Figure 3-S. Flexurol resistance: a) cross-section, b) concrete stains, c) equivalent concrete stresses, d) concrete forces ‘Therefore, M,=T-z= yfy,A,z for cases with bonded tendons in which the changes in tendon strain are assumed to be equal to the changes in strain of the surrounding concrete, A sample calculation is shown in Appendix B.1, For cases with unbonded tendons (i.e. span-by-span box- girders), this assumption is no longer valid and a different approach is used (refer to Section 5.5).25 Furthermore, since the analysis model isa statically indeterminate system, negative bending, ‘moments exist around the supports. In such regions, the bottom slab thickness of the box-girder is proportioned such that the compressive depth ¢ is within the bottom flange. Other flexural requirements that are considered include minimum and maximum reinforcement requirements. The first requirement states that the flexural resistance must be greater than 1.2 times the cracking moment (M,) or 1.33 times the moment demand at ULS, whichever value is smaller (CSA 2006, Cl. 8.8.4.3). The second requirement states that e/d should be less than 0.5 (refer to Figure 3-5) (CSA 2006, Cl. 8.8.4.5). This requirement ensures that the steel has yielded when the concrete crushes at a strain of 0.0035 at the extreme compression fibre and that significant plastic deformation has developed prior to failure. 3.4.1.2 Shear Strength ‘The CHBDC sectional design model is used to compute shear strengths and a sample shear calculation is shown in Appendix B.2, Shear resistance (V,) comprises of three components: concrete, prestressing tendons, and stirrups. Concrete shear resistance depends on the cross-section while the prestressing shear resistance depends on the vertical component of prestressing force which is determined by flexural requirements. Therefore, the only independent variable that can increase shear strength is the amount of stirrups. In the analysis, the stirrups are at least 20M and the ‘minimum spacing of stirrups is 300mm as required by CHBDC to support longitudinal tendon duets. and this spacing is reduced if it does not provide sufficient shear resistance (CSA 2006, Cl. 8.14.6). Each analysis case uses at most two different stirrup spacing since further discretization yields little changes in the final results as shown in Figure 3-6, sas) $2290 gas gaat s2a70 2.000 costper F880 toot cost aes gy) (sim 8 sco total construction cost 30 Number of stirup spacing Figure 3-6. Construction cost economy from increasing the aumber of stirrup spacing Figure 3-6 compares the cost results of for an analysis case when the number of stirrup spacing increases from one to four. The graph is obtained by computing the material consumption and total construction cost for a span-by-span constructed, precast segmental box-girder with a span length of 40m and span-to-depth ratio of 20. As the number of stirrup spacing increases, the amount of26 stirrups needed decreases, because the stirrup layout is further refined to match the shear demand. This trend is illustrated in the graph, but the graph also indicates that the savings in steel diminishes as the number of stirrup spacing increases beyond two, For instance, the steel cost decreases by 6% when two spacing instead of one spacing are used. On the other hand, the steel cost decreases by only 1% when the number of spacing ine es fiom two to four. Therefore, only two different stirrup spacing are used in the analysis. 3.4.2 Serviceability Limit States Design Requirements This section describes the serviceability limit states design requirements which comprise of stress, vibration and deflection limitations. 3.4.2.1 Stress For SLS stress checks, CHBDC poses crack width limitations ifthe stress exceeds concrete cracking stress. This study, however, uses a more conservative approach in which cracking is not permitted during service in order to minimize durability issues. The concrete stress needs to be less than the tensile strength of concrete in order to avoid cracking Mss? Ba Mes Peg, Gu ‘where $= sectional modulus Po prectressing ferce ‘A= gross crossesectional area 3.4.2.2 Vibration Vibration limitations are checked according to CHBDC (CSA 2006, C1.3.4.4) which states that the deflections under load combination SLS2 must be less than the value described in Figure 3-7. All analysis cases are assumed to experience frequent pedestrian use which requires the most stringent vibration criterion. Figure 3-7. Deflection limits fr highway bridge superstructure vibration (CHBDC 2006)27 3.4.2.3 Deflection ‘The CHBDC does not have actual deflection restrictions and the limits used in American codes are optional, because deflections in highway bridges generally do not pose a severe serviceability problem as in railway bridges. However, excessive deflections affect rider confidence and cause durability issues such as ponding (MacGregor and Bartlett 2000). ‘The analysis considers both long-term and short-term deflections due to permanent loads. Long- term deflection Ainge Should not exceed 1/750 of the span length (Menn 1990). Any deflection that exceeds the limit needs to be balanced by camber imposed during construction such that long- term deflection reduces to zero (Chen and Duan 1999). Long-term deflection accounts for the minimum upward deflection due to prestress afterall losses and the maximum downward deflection due to creep: Song aaa + Acresp (3-2) Arsenic = Ade toad + Dpto ster alt ses Beroop = 0 * Bete where & = creep coefficient 2.0 for CIP = {15 tor precast On the other hand, short-term deflection accounts for the maximum upward deflection due to prestress before losses and the minimum downward deflection due to instantaneous dead load: crore term = Aprestess buore losses + Ainsamtanonus ded lu [33] This check is particularly critical for cases with slender cross-sections in which large prestress forces can cause the bridge to hog when there is no live load. Excessive camber poses a problem and cracking might occur at regions that are originally designed to resist compression, Live load deflections are considered under the vibration requirement. The actual live load defi tions have less impact on rider comfort compared to the acceleration of motion that riders feel on the bridge. 3.5 Other Preliminary Analysis Assumpt Other analysis assumptions include: + Tendon eccentricity in duct is neglected. Th centre of gravity of tendons is assumed to be at the centroid of the duct, * The increase in concrete to accommodate intermediate tendon anchors and deviators is assumed to be negligible compared to the concrete volume of the entire superstructure. + Every span is assumed to have the same number of prestressing tendons, The amount of prest sssing does not vary to suit the demand for each span + Substructure design is not considered in the analysis4 ANALYSIS OF CAST-IN-PLACE ON FALSEWORK BRIDGES, This chapter discusses the analysis of cast-in-place on falsework box-gitder and solid slab. First, Section 4.1 examines this construction method. The subsequent sections describe the analysis models for the two bridge types by considering the cross-sections as well as the prestressing tendon layouts. Lastly, this chapter summarizes the analysis results including structural behaviours, vibration limits, deflections, material consumptions, and the factors that restrict further increase of slenderess ratios. 41 Cas In cast-in-place on falsework construction, falsework for the entire bridge is assembled first. -Place on Falsework Construction The falsework needs to support concrete formwork as well as the full dead load of the bridge during construction. After concrete is placed, longitudinal internal tendons are installed into ducts and grout is placed inside the ducts such that tendons become bonded to the concrete, When the concrete gains suffi jent strength, tendons are stressed and as a result, the girder hogs and is, released from the formwork. The formwork and falsework are then removed. This isa labour- intensive and slow method because it requires not only falsework erection but also on-site placement of reinforcing steel and concrete. Falsework is also expensive and it can disrupt traffic below the bridge. Moreover, cast-in-place concrete is subjected to on-site temperature and humidity changes, so greater effort is needed to ensure good quality compared to precast concrete which is manufactured in a controlled environment Despite these disadvantages, the cast place on falsework method is still used today, exp ally in regions where labour is inexpensive, primarily due to its simplicity (Gauvreau 2006). This flexible construction method can also be applied to bridges with tight curves and complex. geometry (Hewson 2003). Furthermore, it provides opportunities for aesthetic expression since it can readily accommodate different geometries, 42 Cas -Place on Falsework Box-Girder 42.1 Model Analysis is performed on 21 cases with interior span lengths of 35m, 50m, 60m, and 75m and span-to-depth ratios of 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35. This set of span lengths is chosen because cast-i place on falsework box-girders are economical for spans up to about 80m according to Menn (1990) and bridges with longer span lengths need to be haunched in order to reduce dead loads. The end spans are made 10m shorter than interior spans to balance moments along the entire bridge and to simplify the treatment of prestressing in the study. Ifthe same span length is used throughout the 2829 bridge, the end spans have greater moments than interior spans. A comparison of the moments obtained from the two span arrangements is shown in Figure 4-1 Moment Distance (kN) (on) 100 200 Constant span length 300 Reduced span length a end spans Figure 4-1. Moment comparison of bridges with constant spa length and reduced end span length ‘Typical span-to-depth ratios for this type of bridge range from 12 to 35 (Menn 1990). Therefore, a similar range is used in the analysis. According to Menn (1990), the most economical ratio is 15, but if both economic and aesthetic impacts are considered, the most optimal range becomes 17 to 22. 4.2.1.1 Cross-Section A typical cross-section used in the analysis is shown in Figure 4-2. Dimensions for the box components are based on values suggested by Gauvreau (2006). The deck is 15m wide and supports four 3.5m wide design lanes and two 0.5m wide barriers. A minimum thickness of 225mm is used for the top slab, This thickness is assumed to be sufficient to accommodate transverse tendons and. to resist punching shears from wheel loads. The top slab thickness increases to 375mm near the webs such that the deck slab cantilever has enough strength and stiffness to resist transverse bending. The intersection of the top slab and web occurs at the quarter point of the deck slab in order to reduce transverse bending in the web. The web width is 450mm in order to accommodate reinforcing bars, internal bonded tendons, concrete clear covers and the spacing required to facilitate concrete placement and vibration. This width remains constant along the entite girder. On. the other hand, the bottom slab thickness varies from @ minimum of 200mm at midspan to the depth of the compressive stress zone created by negative moments at the supports. Mur canscacpems at cueonst | Hae canssacelaps ar psoas Figure 4-2. ‘Typical cross-section for castin-place on falsework box-girder30 ‘The reinforcement arrangement illustrated in Figure 4-3 is used and is assumed to be adequate in resisting transverse bending moments for all analysis cases. The stirrup spacing varies based on shear requirements; the remaining reinforcing stee! is defined as “minimum reinforcing steel” in this study and the layout is the same for all analysis cases. \ ¢ IX 184 © 300 \ \ ae \ Figure 4-3. ‘Typical reinforcing stel layout 4.21.2 Prestressing Tendon Lavout ‘The parabolic tendon layout used for this type of bridge is shown in Figure 44, The tendon is at the highest possible location at the supports and the lowest possible location at midspan as allowed by clear cover requirements of the webs. At the abutments, however, the tendon is located at the centroidal axis of the cross-section in order to eliminate unbalanced prestress moments. Ideally, the tendon layout should be parabolic between adjacent supports to provide maximum upward deviation forces, but this layout results in abrupt comers over the supports. For practical purposes, the tendon profile needs to be concave downward at the supports and the inflection point occurs at one-fifteenth of the span length (L/15), : i Figure 4-4. ‘Typical tendon profile In this study, the tendon is assumed to extend from one end of the bridge to another and be stressed in one operation in order to simulate non-segmental construction, However, this layout is generally not feasible in actual construction, because the installation is difficult and the prestress loss due to friction is excessive for long bridges. Ina real situation, segmented construction with staged prestressing is required. This results in a more practical tendon layout in which adjacent ‘tendons would overlap at intermediate anchors. For the purpose of estimating loss of prestress, the ‘more practical layout is used and the tendon is assumed to extend over one span only. Theoverlapping of tendons between adjacent spans is not considered, Based on this layout, the effective prestress after all losses is estimated to be 60% fy, (1120MPa). 4.2.2 Analysis Results This section summarizes the analysis results wt h include the structural response under ULS and SLS, the material consumptions, and the factors that limit further increase of slenderness ratios. 4.2.2.1 Structural Behaviour and Dimensioning Table 4-1 describes the ULS strength and SLS stress at the most critical location, the dimensioning of shear reinforcement, and the factor that determines the amount of prestress required for each analysis case. The sizing of prestressing tendons is described in Section 4.2.2.4. Table 4 |. Summary of structural response and dimensioning of castin-pace on falsework box-girder Senviceabilty imitates —Governne Lo Uh _ Flexural strength ‘Shear strength Stresses, factor for (om) Miz M, MGM, Al nn S60F girder ous (MPa) asl, prestress (em) (vm) mmm’) (mm) @ Se Fequirernent 037000 38200 97% — 1200 a0 Wie ULS Texural _ 15 35100 35600 99% 2000 : 0.86 31% ULS flexural 35 29 33600 34800 97% 2000 243 9.0K 107 38% ——ULS flexural 25 32100 32400 -99% 2000 200 22% 1.66 53% _ULS flexural 10 75100 78400 96% 1200 224 5.4% az 40% © ULS flexural 15 67400 68600 98% 1200 147 6.2% 191 68% —_ULS flexural 50 20 63300 70700 90% 1200 102 17% an 61% sSstress 25 61200 69900 88% ©2000 133 16% 210 75% SLSstress 30 60300 73600 82% ©2000 106 18% 247 88% SLSstress 10 115000 118000 98% 1200 219 5.0% 116 41% ULS flexural 15 99100 99700 99% 1200 138 8.0% 13 65% © ULS flexural 20 90200 96500 94% 1200 99 23% 201 2% —SUSstress 50 25 5100 92800 92% 1200 75 29% 2.46 88% Stress a0 81300 88900 91% 1200 63 23% 233 83% © SLSstress a5 73500 83300 88% ©1200 52-30% 245 87% Stress 10 190000 199000 100% 1200 182 7.2% 1.46 52% ULS flexural 4s 161000 164000 98% 1200 112 13% as 66% ——ULS flexural 20 155000 173000 90% 1200 79 «24% 210 75% SLSstress 75 5 142000 147000 97% 1200 59 29% 197 70% Stress 30 149000 166000 90% 1200 47 37% 2a7 78% ssstress a5 143000 146000 98% 2000 60 28% 209 75% ___SLSstress First, under ULS, the table describes the relationship between the flexural strength demand (Myzs) and resistance (M,). Table 4-1 also summarizes the stirup requirements for satisfying shear demand by listing the stirrup area (A,), minimum stirrup spacing (sy) as well as the percentage of girder that needs stirrups to be placed at a spacing of spin. The remainder of the girder requires stirrups spaced at every 300mm which is the minimum spacing prescribed by CHBDC (CSA 2006,32 C1.8.14,3), All analysis cases, except for the cases with span of 35m and ratios of 10 and 15, need stirrup spacing of less than 300mm near the supports where shear forces are greatest. Cases with larger span lengths and span-to-depth ratios require small stirrup spacing of less than 100mm which should be increased by using a bigger reinforcement bar (i. larger than 20M) for construction purposes. However, the spacing described in Table 4-1 is used in this study, because the required ‘volume of stirrup varies little with respect to stirrup spacing and it is of greater concer than the spacing in cost comparisons. Table 1 also compares SLS stresses with the factored cracking stress. SLS stresses (oss) cannot exceed the concrete tensile stress (f.= 2.8 MPa) to avoid cracking during service. Lastly, the table shows the factor that governs the amount of prestress needed for each analysis, case. The governing factor is either ULS flexural strength or SLS stress; ULS shear strength does not govern since stirrups are added to resist any extra shear that is not balanced by the tendons and concrete. The ULS flexural resistance is proportional to the cross-sectional depth while the SLS. stress depends on the sectional modulus which is related to the second power of the depth. For cases, with low span-to-depth ratios, the sectional moduli are large and the SLS stresses are relatively small, thus ULS flexural strength governs the prestress requirement. However, as span-to-depth ratio increases, the sectional modulus decreases at a faster rate than the cross-sectional depth (Figure 4-5). As a result, SLS stress becomes more critical for slender girders and thus, it governs the prestress requirement for these cases. 5 Sectional modulus $n ‘or depth hm sw 1 0 % a % 49 um Figure 48, Changes in sectional modulus and cross-sectional dep 4.2.2.2 Vibration Limits Figure 4-6 describes the vibration deflection limits for bridges with frequent pedestrian use and the truck load deflections under SLS2. The truck deflections are acceptable for all analysis cases and vibration limits do not govern the prestressing requirement. The truck deflections are at least 58% less than the vibration limits.33 0 Les unt © sracklond _ Les ut deecson 49 fm) som un v0 «= L=75m 85m i : ' * vain a s os my Sw Figure 4-6. Deflection for superstructre vibration lmittion 4.2.2.3 Deflections The following graphs summarize the dead load, long-term and short-term deflections in terms of span length over deflection (L/A). As expected, deflection inereases with increasing span lengths and span-to-depth ratios, The maximum camber required is 0.5m for the case with a span of 75m and span-to-depth ratio of 35 such that the long-term deflection essentially becomes zero. 12000 Deadtoad 9000 bes defection wa} (down) 4000 of 000 Long-term defection 4000 (creep + last) (wa) 2000 {sown 0 15000 shortteen 35m ‘efetion 10000 (eas oad resress before ss) 5000 L (ua) ie [down 1. Deletions: 2) dead load, b) long-term, c) short-term,34 4.2.2.4 Material Consumption Table 4-2 and Figure 4-8 summarize the material consumption for cach analysis case as well as their variations from the baseline case (i.e, L/h=20, which is the conventional ratio defined in Chapter 2). These results are also illustrated in cross-section drawings in Appendix C.1 eral eonsumptions for east-in-place on falsework box-gind T Conarete Prestressng tendon enforcing sea im Me %echangeTrom Number of % change from — Wass % change rom aseline case tendons baseline eae (fon) __batene ase 70 “19% 2 5% ~«G “16% 152m 465% 76 -30% 133, 13.8% 5 2 2260 ow 108 % 1286, o% 3 1m 39 136 920% 187 105% 10445042586 76 am 360 118% 153860 4B 100 3% a 13.2% so 2 350K a o% 304 %“ 2 320-406 1h 28% 306 10.7% 30-3350 60% 240 17% 5 10.4% 105690285 2 a8 76 118% 155000 +8.0% 120 2% 410 +15% 2 ©4600 160 ~% 08 * S035 438047 12 20% a5 102% 30 7% a 127% 190 Ba 300 488K a 30% 106290308 re 110% 36870 #9.0% 184-288 585, 125% 2 60m 240 ~% sn % 35 6030 49% x0 5K 58 14K 30 $8507. 360K G8 18.2% 3 so10 6a 57 st20K gat 18.8% As shown in the graphs, when the gitder becomes more slender, concrete volume decreases gradually at a decreasing rate, This trend exists because concrete volume depends highly on the cross-sectional depth which also decreases at a declining rate as span-to~depth ratio increase: (Figure 4-8 a & b), Also, at higher span-to-depth ratios, the concrete volume varies less since the reduction in web concrete is counterbalanced by the increase in bottom slab thickness. For instance, for the cases with span length of $0m, concrete volume decreases by 880m° as span-to-depth ratio increases from 10 to 20, but concrete volume only decreases by 220m’ as span-to-depth ratio increases from 20 to 30. In the latter case, the concrete reduction in the webs is 284m®, but the total concrete reduction is only 220m’ due to increase in bottom slab thickness, On the contrary, the amount of prestress increases as span-to-depth ratio increases, because slender bridges have lower flexural re mnces and require larger prestress forces (Figure 4-8 ¢)35 The number of tendons increases at an increasing rate because for slender cases with large prestress demand, the tendons need to be placed in more than one layer within the webs, thus lowering the resistance moment lever arm, The prestress layout becomes more inefficient as slendemess increases, resulting in an even greater demand for tendons to provide the same level of prestress. Reinforcing steel mass is attributed to the longitudinal and transverse steel reinforcing bars as ‘well as the stirrups. The amount of steel reinforcing bars needed is proportional to the cross- sectional area because they are placed according to Figure 4-3. Consequently, the graph for reinforcing steel mass follows the trend of concrete volume for cases with low span-to-depth ratios (Figure 4-8 d). These cases have deep girders that can resist shear using mostly stirrups installed with the minimum spacing needed to support the tendons (i.e. 20M bars spaced at 300 mm), so the required amount of reinforcing steel depends on the conerete volume. For the more slender girders, more stirrups are needed to resist shear and thus the reinforcing steel graph no longer follows the same trend as the concrete volume graph at higher span-to-depth ratios. 8) Concrete volume 1b) Cross-sectional depth 0000 30 : Dest m hie) 000 2000 20 un ©) Number of presressing stands ® Rei 500 restrese Reoforcing strands 300 + 60m steel mass 490 som ten) 200 . 200 ° ° 5 10 15 2 2% 3% 35 4 5 0 15 2 2 3% 38 40 us un Figure 4-8, Material consumptions for eastin-plae on falsework box-gider36 4.2.2.5 Limiting Factors of Span-to-Depth Ratios ‘The upper bound of span-to-depth ratio for cast-in-place on falsework box-girders is restricted by the number of prestressing tendons that can fit inside the webs and by the minimum height of the interior box cavity. First, the maximum feasible span-to-depth ratio for cases with span lengths of 75m is limited to 35 due to the tendon arrangement within the webs. This case requires sixteen 37- strand ducts arranged in four layers in the webs (current tendon arrangement in Figure 4-9), For cases having ratios beyond 35, more tendons are needed due to the reduced moment lever arm and. section modulus, but they cannot be accommodated efficiently within the 450mm thick webs according to the current tendon arrangement. This inefficient arrangement of tendons decreases the eccentricity of tendons, thus further increasing the prestressing demand. Figure 4-9 compares the current tendon arrangement to a more efficient arrangement in which three duets are placed in one layer in each web, thus increasing the eccentricity (i.e. hy> ha). However, since the web thickness is ‘kept constant for all cases in this study, the more efficient tendon arrangement is not used. The current arrangement cannot efficiently accommodate tendons needed for the cases with span lengths of 75m and slendemess ratios beyond 35. (0 Mare ftint tendon arrangement Current tendon arrangement Figure 4-9, ‘Tendon arrangement that limits further increase in span-to-depth ratio Ifthe more efficient tendon arrangement from Figure 4-9 is used, the prestressing demand is expected to decrease. For example, for the case with span length of 75m and ratio of 35, using the more efficient arrangement incre the eccentricity by 89mm and decreases the prestressing demand by 3.0%, This decrease in tendon is relatively minor, because the advantage from additional tendon eccentricity is offset by the increase in dead load (i.e. concrete volume increases by 4.3% due to the thicker webs). With thicker webs, the maximum feasible span-to-depth ratio for cases with span lengths of 75m becomes 40 at which point the limiting factor is the minimum height requirement of the interior box cavity. Therefore, the results of this analysis depend on the assumed web thickness. Using thinner webs requires more prestressing tendons and reduces the ‘maximum feasible span-to-depth ratio while larger web thickness reduces prestressing demand and expands the feasible range of ratios.37 Another factor that restricts span-to-epth ratios is the minimum height requirement for the interior box cavity. As shown in Figure 4-10, the interior box cavity needs to be at least 1,0m such that workers have enough space to strip forms, stress tendons and perform maintenance and repairs Figure 4-10. Interior box cavity limitation Although this height limit is not required by CHBDG, it is often used as good construction practice, This height requirement restricts the ratio for cases with span lengths of 35m, 50m, and 60m to 25. 0, and 35 respectively. As span-to-depth ratio increases, more tendons are used and the bottom slab becomes thicker in order to accommodate the compressive stress zone in negative ‘moment regions. As the bottom slab thickness inereases, the height of interior box cavity shortens. If this minimum height restriction does not exist, the box would essentially tur into a solid slab for the more slender cases (Figure 4-11) Figure4.3. Cast-in-Place on Falsework Solid Slab As shown in the previous analysis, box-girders are not feasible for slender cases (i.e. span-to- depth ratio greater than 30) due to practical construction considerations. Any further reduction in cross-sectional depth essentially turns the box into a solid slab. This finding leads to the analysis of in-place on falsework solid slabs described in this section. From the aspect of construction cost optimization, investigating span-to-depth ratios for solid slabs is valuable, because concrete savings as a result of reduced depth in solid slabs would be more than those in box-girders. As indicated by the shaded areas in Figure 4-12, reducing depth in solid slab eliminates a strip of concrete as wide as the soffit while reducing depth in box-girder only removes the web concrete, Figure 4-12. Concrete reduetion due to increase in span-to-depth ratio for solid slab and box-ginéer ca -ineplace on falsework solid slabs are economical for short-span bridges due to simple formwork, prestress layout and concreting operations (Hewson 2003). The straightforward construction does not require a high level of technology or an extensive amount of labour. However, solid slabs are inefficient in terms of structural behaviour, because they result in relatively large dead loads and need more prestressing to get sufficient flexural stiffness and resistance compared to box-girders (Menn 1990). Due to its excessive dead load, solid slabs are generally used for shorter spans of less than 20m, (Gauvreau 2006). To reduce the dead load for long span cases, voided slabs (Figure 4-13) are used instead of solid slabs. In voided slabs, stay-in-place forms are used to create the hollow cores. These forms must be anchored against uplift during concreting and they need vents and drainage openings, thus complicating the construction process. The voids also pose durability issues since inspection is not possible inside the voids. Due to the construction complications and durability concerns, voided slabs are not considered in the analysis despite the savings in concrete and reinforcing steel. a ———_ 8 O OOOO 00 Figure 4-13, Voided slab 3839 43.1 Model ‘The analysis considers 18 cases with span lengths of 20m, 25m, 30m, and 35m and span-to- depth ratios of 30, 35, 40, 45, and 50. According to Gauvreau (2006), the maximum cost-effective slab depth is 0.8m and the maximum practical span-to-depth ratio is 25, resulting in a maximum span of 20m, This analysis uses a higher range of spans and ratios in order to demonstrate the impacts of slendemess. Bridges with spans shorter than 20m cannot achieve the proposed span-to- depth ratios because the girders would be too slender to accommodate sufficient reinforcement (e.g. 15m long span with a ratio of 35 only has a depth of 0.43m). Also, this set of ratios is chosen since the commonly used value is 30 based on the review of existing bridges in Chapter 2. Furthermore, span-to-depth ratios below 30 are not investigated, because a deep cross-section with 1 depth greater than approximately 0.8m has large dead loads and is not economical (Menn 1990). 43.1.1 Cross-Section A typical cross-section and reinforcement layout are shown in Figures 4-14 and 4-15. Compared to the box cross-section considered previously, the solid slab’ model has a wider deck (i.e. 22m) that supports six design lanes and shorter deck cantilevers (1. 3.75m) in order to emphasize slab behaviour. Also, the deck cantilevers are tapered to reduce dead load which is much higher in solid slabs than in box-girders. Longitudinal internal bonded tendons are grouped in bands over support lines based on recent practices in North America (Park and Gamble 2000). To simplify analysis, a solid wall pier is assumed and thus, only one band of tendons that spread over the entire “spine” of the cross-section is used, To carry loads into the longitudinal tendon band, transverse tendons are uniformly distributed along the length of the bridge. Figure 4-14, Typical cross-section for cast-in-place on flsework solid slab Figure 4-18, Typical reinforcing sce layout 4.3.1.2 Prestressing Tendon Layout The model has the same tendon layout as the one from the box-girder model (Figure 4-4)4.3.2 Strip Method versus Beam Model Designing reinforcement based on clastic sectional forces only is complicated in slabs, because bending moments exist in two orthogonal directions. To simplify the design, two methods are considered: strip method and beam model. Results from these two methods are compared in this, section for three analysis cases: 1) L=25m, L/h=30; 2) L=30m, Lih=40; 3) L=35m, L/h=50. The strip method, proposed by Hillerborg (1996), generates lower bound solutions of the theory of plasticity. In contrast to yield line theory, the strip method solution provides adequate flexural safety at ULS. This method states that if the moments can be distributed such that equilibrium, equations are satisfied and the reinforcements are designed for these moments, then the slab is safe at ULS. The solution only needs to fulfill equilibrium equations and not necessarily the compatibility criteria, More than one solution is possible since the slab is statically indeterminate, For design purposes, the solution that yields reinforcement economy and favorable behaviour under service conditions is used In the simple strip method, load is assumed to be carried by strips that run in the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement directions. These strips are treated as beams and the moment in each strip can be solved using simple staties. To further simplify analysis, torsional moments are assumed to be zero in these strips. This moment distribution is preferred because torsional moments require more reinforcement. One way to apply the simple strip method in prestressed slabs is to divide the slab into strips that contain one tendon each. Since all the tendons are equal, strip width is varied in order to balance the load. Menn (1990) proposed a straightforward way to redistribute moments in slabs. In order to minimize cracking, the prestressing deviation forces (q,) are chosen to be 60-80% of the total dead load. To simplify analysis and construction, parallel prestressing tendons are arranged into narrow bands. These bands of tendons are idealized as beams in the longitudinal direction and slabs can redistribute moments onto the bands to reduce peak stresses. To account for this moment redistribution onto these reinforcement bands, a self-equilibrating moment (m,) is used: May = mM, ~ Map i) where m, = moment where q, is applied tothe original slab sment when-q, is applied to the idealized slab in which the prestressing bands acts individual beams This self-equilibrating moment varies across the width of the cross-section since additional positive moments are concentrated at the reinforcement bands. Reinforcements are designed for the final moments after redistribution, Design moments in the analysis are computed based on Menn’s prestressing concept. First, the structure is divided into two 3.75m wide edge strips and one 14,5m wide prestress band as shown in 4041 Figure 4-16 b, Longitudinal tendons are distributed evenly in the prestress band. The two edge strips are narrow relative to the prestress strip in order to ensure the deck cantilever load would travel into the presttess band due tothe short load path, To compute —mip, -q(-) is applied to the prestress band where q, is 80% of the total dead load, bis the total slab width and bp is the width of prestress band. Likewise, m, is obtained by applying qp to the entire slab, The redundant moment (m,.) is the difference between m, and my, The redundant moment transfers forces from the edge strips to the prestress band. Since this moment is self-equilibrating, the total moment remains the same after redistribution as shown in Figure 4-16 g, Reinforcement is then designed such that the following is satisfied the factored moment (Figure 4-16 h): ey, Mpy + LM, + OM < My [2] where a=load factor M,=moment resistance The transverse distribution of longitudinal bending moment across the slab and the final design ‘moment are illustrated in Figure 4-16. —————— ————— += b) Section A-A: Lege trie Prestres band Ege stip ©) Dead load and live load moments mp, +m. (assume mp, = mya) 200 4) -mp due to application of deviation forces gy on prestress band: eee ©) my due to application of deviation forces q, om the entire slab width: 8) Solequilibrating moment may = -mp + 2) Unfactored design moment = nin. + mx + mg: ao LO at SH mm, 2200 hy Design moment = penn, + a.m 2a 328 Figure 4-16, Transverse distribution of longitudinal bending moment in slabs (values are divided by mp.)42 ‘The three analysis cases are also investigated under the assumption that the slab behaves like a beam, so there is no moment redistribution, The longitudinal tendon requirements for ULS flexure determined from the two methods are summarized in Table 4-3. le 4-3, Results from beam model and strip method [osm =D [aim sad Team, WnSsO Beam Strip %diff. Beam strip Sedift. Beam Strip sail Tendon requirement 230 176 23% 360 351 25% 500 486 2.8% Total construction cost per deck area $2170 $2110 28% $2480 $2540_24% $2580 $2570 _0.4% The table shows that the prestress requirements and total construction costs obtained from the two methods are similar. Strip method does not change the results significantly because the analysis model is predominantly a simple, one-way system, so the moment distribution is similar to that of a beam. Therefore, the simpler beam assumption is used for the analysis. 43.3 Analysis Results 43.3.1 Structural Behaviour and Dimensioning Table 4-4 describes the ULS strengths and SLS stress at the most critical location and the dimensioning of shear stirups for each analysis case. The sizing of prestressing tendon is described in Section 4.3.3.5. For all eases, the ULS flexural resistance (M,) is at least 27% greater than the demand (Murs), $0 flexural strength does not govern the prestress requirement. However, to satisfy the maximum reinforcement criterion, larger concrete compressive strengths (P.) are needed. This criterion is discussed in greater details in Section 4.3.3.2. On the other hand, shear strength requirements can be fulfilled with the listed stirrup areas (A,) distributed at a minimum spacing of 300mm as described in CHBDC. Only minimum stirrups are needed because the cross-sectional widths and concrete strengths are large, thus resulting in high concrete shear resistances. Lastly, SLS stresses govern the prestressing requirement for all cases. Critical stress occurs at the top fibre of the support which is subjected to large negative momentsable 44, Summary of structural response and dimensioning of eas-in-place on fasework solid slab (imate iit sates ‘Seviceabilty init sates Lm) Yh Flexural streng ‘Shear strength Mas ktm) M,(kNm) MyM, (MPa) A, mm’) oss (MPa) OsaMe, 3 T7500 20000 86% <5 600 250 85% 2 35 15900 asi00 83% 50 600 263 93% 40 14800 18900 78% 7S 600 304 BBs 30 28600 34000 aim 80 600 254 90% 235 25500 31600 «81% 50 1000 242 85% 40 23400 30000 «79% = 80 1000 264 85% 30 43900 49600 89% = 50 600 267 94% 35 33300 45800 86% 50 1000 275 97% 40 36500 4300 «82% = 60 1000 303 98% 45 32800 42900 76% 75 1000 303 B7% 30 #900 e100 85% 50 600 279 98% 35 61200 74300 2K 50 1000 254 90% 5 a0 55900 e100 82% «= 60 1000 292 94% 45 51800 6s00 81% 80 1000 348 97% 4.3.3.2 Maximum Reinforcement Criterion According to the maximum reinforcement criterion in CHBDC (CSA 2006, C18.8.4.5), the flexural resistane: 1 ULS should be developed with a c/d of less than 0.5 at regions where the ‘moment capacity is close to the demand (cis the height of compressive stress region while d is the distance between the extreme compressive fibre and the tendon as shown in Figure 4-17). This ensures that the tendons would already be yielding and significant plastic deformations have occurred when concrete crushes such that the structure would fail in a ductile manner. This limitation is not satisfied for the more slender analysis cases. Slender bridges have short moment lever arms and thus large prestress requirements. A large tensile force in the tendon needs to be balanced by an equally large concrete compressive force, meaning that c is large. Slender bridges have small d due to physical limitation and large c due to moment requirements, resulting in large c/d ratios, For cases that do not satisfy this criterion, concrete strengths are increased such that prestress requirement and c decrease, Concrete strengths that are needed to satisfy the maximum reinforcement limit are summarized in Table 4-5. These higher strength coneretes are more expensive and the additional expenses will be accounted for in the cost comparative studies in Chapter 6, For the cases that are crossed out in the table, concrete with strengths greater than 80 MPa are needed to fulfil the criterion. Such high strengths are not widely used in today’s bridge industry and hence, the maximum span-to-depth ratio is limited by the maximum reinforcement, criterion and the maximum practical concrete strength.44 ‘Table 45. Concrete strengths required to satisfy F required to satisfy c/a<05 limit (MPa) Yh om 25m Som 3S 30 «50 30 30 30 3550 50 50 50 concrete sans, bj eutalent conte ess e)conewte fg) fo to oo 43 450 0 1s 20 50 a5 ais 43.3.3 Vibration Limits Figure 4-18 describes the vibration deflection limits for bridges with frequent pedestrian use and the truck load deflections under SLS2. The truck deflections are acceptable for all analysis cases and vibration limits do not govern the prestressing requirement. The truck deflections are at, least 52% less than the vibration limits. The deflection increases as the girder becomes more slender until the span-to- 0 2) [5.13] PQ) = ‘@ { Pues) if pate) < 0.2 where x=distance from stressing lcation R=jacking force agc=Jacking stress=80%f,=1490MPa 1i=coeflicient of friction™0.25 for external ducts «()=sum of angle changes between stressing location and polnt x atx «4,=Intentional angle changes (refer to Figure 5-11) $6) ey ‘Aa=unintentional angle change due to construction tolerances and displacement of tendon during concreting =0° for external tendons & surrot wospan & sumpoer = = i Figure $-11. Intentional angle changes58 The friction losses are summarized in the Table 5-1, The maximum loss is only 5% of fy. Table $1. Prestress lasses duc to friction Table -2. Presres losses duc to anchorage sot Friction losses (%6 off) ‘Anchorage set losses (aff) Uh “30m 40m som Uh “30m 40m 0m 15 433% 491K 5.08% 15 6K 56% 542% 20 270% «330% «3.56 20 468% © 4.62% 0.29% 25 237% 2.60% 23 = 376% 3.68% The loss of prestress due to anchorage set is a function of friction losses. The anchorage set is assumed to be 6mm and the prestress loss due to anchorage set is computed using Equation 5-14. (Collins and Mitchell 1997), The prestress losses due to anchorage set are summarized in Table 5-2. (5-14) P(x) = 2p | \ where p= friction loss per unit length [kN/m] Agee =anchorage set = 6mm 2 Creep and Shrinkage Losses Creep and shrinkage losses for girders with external, unbonded tendons are computed using Equation 5-15 which is modified from Menn’s formula for bonded tendons using new compatibility conditions (Menn 1990) ap [Ao EI coax + ee (DECAL Bs AP@) = ———>—_—_, Tnplt + ne Olt + AE seeoey wheret = time measured from initial loading @(x) = distance from centroid of gross uncracked concrete section to centroid of tendon £,= modulus of elasticity of concrete at time of initial loading , = modulus of elasticity of prestressing tendon n=, /I A, = area of gross uncracked concrete section area of tendon noment of inertia of gross uncracked concrete section (0) = time-varying creep coefficient = 155 for precast concrete 2.0 for cast-in-place concrete = aging coefficient = 0.8 (Menn 1990) £,4(t) = time-varying shrinkage strain under relative humidity of 60% (Toronto value from CHBDO, ‘G tata - . — $2500 7 35m, et 125m, 5.0% constuction S877 Ls gn in cost per Se BRR to, 98 eck rea sco 30m, 0.% (simp soo 3.000 soo cP on aowork so sib = cP onfalsework boriser a Precast san by span boxgider © pany span borg sw a mss un Figure 6-10, Total construction cost comparison 6.3 Other Cost Factors tors In addition to construction costs, bridge designers are also concemed with other cost f such as operation, maintenance, rehabilitation, and demolition costs. These factors are excluded in this cost study, but changing span-to-depth ratio is expected to have minor effects on these costs. ‘These factors depend more on the overall design concept (e.g. structural system, cross-section type, span arrangement) than on the dimensioning of structural components (Menn 1990).9 6.4 Sensitivity Analysis The purpose of the sensitivity study is to investigate how sensitive are the analysis results to changes in material unit prices and in breakdown of construction costs. The material unit prices vary in different locations due to differences in labour costs and technology levels. The construction cost breakdown also changes depending on the site conditions. 6.4.1 Sensitivity with Respect to Changes in Material Unit Prices The first aspect to investigate is the impact of changes in material unit prices. A new set of superstructure costs are calculated based on the following variations in material unit prices: Table 6-6, Material unit price changes Material Uni Original price 450% 50% on per $1,500 $2,250 3750 Prestressing tendon per kg $850 $12.75 $425 Reinforcing stee perks $5.00 $7.50 $2.50 ‘These changes in unit prices are drastic and are chosen for only illustrative purposes such that a clear trend would be observed. A more realistic maximum price change would be around 20%. ‘The effects of changing unit prices on total cor truction costs are illustrated in the following, graphs, The maximum percentage differences in cost for each span length over the specified range of span-to-depth ratios are also indicated on the graphs. The dashed lines represent the costs under original unit prices while the solid lines represent the costs when the unit prices vary by 50%. The impacts of altering unit prices are illustrated in Figures 6-11 and 6-12 for concrete, Figures 6-13 and 6-14 for prestressing tendons, and Figures 6-15 and 6-16 for reinforcing steel. The graphs show ‘that modifying concrete unit price has the greatest influence on the total construction cost, because concrete cost constitutes a large portion of the superstructure cost. For example, for a cast-in-place on falsework box-girder with span length of 75m and span-to-depth ratio of 10, inereasing the concrete unit cost by 50% raises the total construction cost by 35%. On the other hand, increasing the prestressing cost by 50% only increases the total construction cost by 4.6%.Tota cost per deck area (sine) Figure 6-11. eck ares (sine) Figure 6-12. $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1900 50 80 Le75m, 2056 5 ae arm Lem, 2386 som, 8.086 LSM, 218 25m, 64% 35m, 9.1% 0 cate 2200, 3.85% —+-cHP on flsework sl sab ci on falework box gider precast span-byspan box aeder 0 5 1% 1 2% % 3% 3 4 4 DS Un ‘Total consiuetion east comparison (~50% eonerete unit price) $5,000 $4000 $3,000 2,000 $1,000 30 "30m, 1.5% 0 on fabework sli sa ——ciP on faiework borer —— Precast spam span bow girder os) mM sm ss un ‘Total constuction cost comparison (-50% concrete unt price)otal eck area (sie) Figure 6-13. Total ost pet eck area (sine) Figure 6-14 5,000 4,000 $3,000 2,000 1,000 30 81 Tt ss at 6 = eon 8a pe EE ame 50m, 7.4% “tim, 358 fp jsomtoe tt tin 60 ean dont aman 30m, 1.3% 7 Acar onfalsework sold sab —*— OP on falsework border —=— Precast spar-byspan bor geder a a un ‘Total consirution cost comparison (-50% prestrestng tendon unit price) $8,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1000 30 275m, 13% © 60m, 13% som, 12% £ Lssm,o.7% HP on faeewerk solid lab + aPentalsework box geder = Precast span‘y-span box gider o 5 wm sD 2% SDSS 5 Un ‘Total construction cost comparison (-50% prestessing tendon unit price)22 $3000 s4s00 construction $3000 | 50m, 93% + Ses aor ax deckorea 135m, 77% = son fips 28m 47% ‘i : ae com 290 s2000 St onan s1s00 ci onfalsework sod sab cP on falsework box girder recast spar-byspan Borger Ce Un Figure 6-15, Total construction cost comparison (~50% reinforeing steel unit pice) s.000 4000 rex . cemseuton $3000 |} taps tog cere vssom 11% ‘sie ae Be asm san cored samo | UISN70%: corti 20m 3.2% suo cr onan soasb cron tabewert bower Precast pon yspan bwier © er ee ee ee ee wm Figure 6-16, Total construction cost comparison (-50% reinforcing steel unt price) As shown in the graphs, the optimal span-to-depth ratios remain at 25, 40, and 20 for cast-in- place box-girder, cast-in-place solid slab, and precast box-girder regardless of unit price changes. Table 6-7 summarizes the maximum cost improvements of using these optimal span-to-depth ratiosinstead of conventional ratios for the specified variations in unit price. Despite such drastic unit price changes, the cost improvements are only 0.6% + 1.1% for cast-in-place box-girder, 5.8% + 2.3% for cast-in-place solid-slabs, and 1.0% + 0.5% for precast span-by-span box-girder. Table 6-7 also lists the maximum percentage changes in cost over the entire range of span-to- depth ratio in parentheses. These values represent the maximum cost increase when the least cost- efficient span-to-depth ratios are used instead of the optimal ratios. For instance, for a given span length, using a span-to-depth ratio of 10 instead of the optimal ratio results in 11% increase in total place box-girder. This increase in cost changes to 12% if the concrete construction cost for cast unit price is increased by 50%, For cases with altered unit prices, the changes in cost with respect to es. Since the span-to-depth ratios deviate less than 3% from the ones for cases with original unit pri optimal ratios remain the same and the changes in cost improvements are negligible (less than 3%), results from the cost study are insensitive to modifications in unit prices, Table 6-7. Sumnmazy of material unit price sensitivity analysis Unit cost change iP on falsewark boxgider CIP on falsewark sold slab Precast span by-span box girder Range of Uh ratio 10-35 30-50 15-30 Optimal ratio 25 40 20 Conventional ratio 20 30 v Original unit prices 0.4% (12%) 5.8% (6.2%) 1.0% (2.834) +50% concrete 0.9% (1255) 7.9% (8.7%) 1.3% (2.2%) 80% concrete 1.5% (1256), 3.6% (3.8%) 0.5% (3.1%) +50% prestressing tendon 0.9% (11%) 5.2% (5.5%) 0.8% (2.7%) 50% presteessing tendon 1.0% (13%) 8.1% (9.3%) 1.5% (2.5%) 150% reinforcingsteel 0.3% (11%) 6.3% (6.7%) 1.0% (1.75) SO%reinforcingsteel 0.4% (11%) 6.9% (7.4%) 0.9% (1.8%) 64.2 Sensitivity with Respect to Changes in Construction Cost Breakdown The purpose of this section of the sensitivity study is to investigate the impact of altering the construction cost breakdown. Hitherto, the cost results are computed according to Menn’s breakdown of construction costs as described in Section 6.2.1. This breakdown changes under situations such as complications in geotechnical and hydraulic conditions, changes in bridge height which affect pier costs, and variations in mobilization cost for different construction sites, Previous cost calculations assume that the superstructure costs constitute 54.5% of the total construction cost for the bs ine cases. Costs for the remaining items (i.e. substructure, mobilization and accessories) are computed based on the superstructure costs of the baseline cases and are set to be constant for the other cases with the same span lengths. Therefore, altering only the c of different proportion of superstructure cost is sufficient in demonstrating the influen construction cost breakdowns. The total construction costs obtained from varying the superstructure component from 20% to $0% for castsin-place on falsework box-girder with a span length of 30m are plotted in Figure 6-17.84 ‘As shown in the graph, changing the superstructure percentage basically shifts the curves vertically while the cost difference between cases with different span-to-depth ratios remains the same for each curve, As a result, the optimal ratio remains at 25 regardless of changes in the cost breakdown. The graph also shows the percentage cost improvements from conventional ratio to optimal ratio on the left (maximum cost variations over the entire range of span-to-depth ratios are shown in parentheses). Obviously, the cost improvement increases as superstructure percentage increases because the effect of reducing superstructure cost on the total construction cost is greater if superstructure cost forms a large portion of the total cost. Therefore, using optimal span-to-depth ratios poses more economic incentive if the superstructure percentage is higher. However, in spite of the changes in the cost breakdown, the saving from using the optimal ratio instead of conventional ratio is still less than 0.5% while the maximum cost variation within the entire range of ratio is less than 13%. The same pattem occurs in the other bridge types and span lengths as shown in Appendix C.4. Therefore, the values for optimal span-to-depth ratio as well as the cost variations between cases with optimal and conventional ratios are insensitive to changes in cost breakdown, Cost variation Supersructure as % of ion) total construction cort 6,000 pa 0.2%(52%) sos $4000 03% (69%) om osx (a.4) ame) %, Dao (Meo) $2,000 oa ER 70% 20% 30 ° s wo 8 20 Fs ction costs under changes in85 65 Concluding Remarks The results of this cost study are summarized in Table 6-8 which shows the percentage changes in cost when optimal ratios instead of the conventional ones are used. Cost variations over the analysis range of ratios are also included within the parentheses, For all three bridge types, the cost- effective ratios are higher than the conventional ratios, but the actual cost saving associated with using optimal ratios is less than 5.8%, The cost study also determines that the maximum cost variability is less than 11%, meaning that using the least cost-efficient ratio within the analysis range would only incur a relatively small additional cost. The range of cost-optimal ratios is thus expanded ftom the typical ranges defined in Chapter 2 to the analysis ranges of ratios indicated in Table 6-8. Table 68, Summary of cost study ivan faseworkbox girder Cif on falsework sold slab Precast span-by span box girder ‘analysis range of Fatios 10-35 30-50 15-30 ‘Typieal range of ratios 177-226 22-39 157-188 Conventional ratio 20 30 v Costoptimal ratio. 25 40 20 5.1% (42%) 19% (24%) 4.1% (8.8%) Prestressng tendon +285 (284%) +534 (60%) +265 (62%) Reinforcing steel “13% (18%), 5.3% (5.85) 3.6% (6.2%) Total superstructure 06% (20%) 1196 (22%) 83% (3.3%) ‘otal construction cost 0.496 (13%) 5.85 (62%) 5.0% (1.8%) The results in Table 6-8 are found to be insensitive to changes in material unit price and construction cost breakdown, The optimal ratios, however, are determined based on parameters defined specifically for this study such as cross-section dimensions and span arrangements. If these parameters are altered, the optimums would likely be different, For example, the optimal ratios might increase if thicker webs are used for box-girders, because the prestressing requirement is reduced for slender cases due to the more efficient tendon layout as discussed in Section 4.2.2.5, Therefore, the actual values of optimal ratios determined in this study are expected to change ina real situation. Yet, the general finding regarding the variability in cost is still valid for a broad range of situations, because the study demonstrates that cost savings from the use of optimal ratios are minor compared to other construction cost components which are independent of span-to-depth ratio (e.g. costs of mobilization, substructure, and accessories). So, even if optimal ratio changes, the variability in cost is expected to remain relatively insignificant over the analysis range of ratios.7 AESTHETICS COMPARISONS The selection of slendemess ratio has significant impact on the overall appearance of girder bridges. In particular, the ratio is an especially important visual criterion for highway overpasses, which are mostly observed from the highways passing beneath them, because the superstructure is the “prime object of scrutiny” from this view point (Elliott 1991). The previous cost study demonstrates that total construction cost varies by less than 11% over the range of span-to-depth ratios investigated. This finding provides the designer with more freedom for aesthetic expressions since he can choose from a wide range of slendemess ratios without much economic restrictions, This chapter examines these aesthetic opportunities by comparing the visual impacts of different span-to-depth ratios. This chapter also discusses some visually superior slendemess ratios by exploring existing bridges, which have been considered by the general public as aesthetically pleasing, and by examining some past studies on bridge aesthetics, 7.1 Visual Impact of Span-to-Depth Ratio This section demonstrates the visual impact of altering slendemess ratios by comparing drawings of bridges with various ratios as shown in Figures 7-1 to 7-3. These figures compare bridges with: a) conventional ratio obtained from Chapter 2; b) optimal ratio in terms of cost efficiency determined in Chapter 6; ¢) least cost-efficient ratio for each of the three bridge types considered. The total construction cost and its percentage variation from the cost of the optimal ratio are indicated in the parentheses. Each set of drawing includes a 3-D rendering from the vantage point of a driver, who is passing under the overpass at 150m away from the bridge, as well as 2-D elevation and cross-sectional views. The 2-D drawings are included to illustrate that although changing the slenderness ratio results in clear visual differences on paper, such differences might not be as apparent from the driver's perspe ve in a real situation. The drawings do not include barriers; the effect of barriers is discussed in Section 7.1.2. Also, all the 3-D drawings are obtained under the same lighting condition. 868) _ Conventional Lih = 20 ($2450, 0.4%) 1) _Optimat Luh = 25 ($2460) ©) Maximum cost Lh ~ 10 ($2670im?, 9.0%) J. Castin-place on flsework box-prder with L=50m 878) & c} Conventional and maximum cost Lih~ 30 ($3000? 5.8%) 1b) Optimal Lib = 40 ($2830) Castin-place on faltework solid slab with 888) Conventional Lih = 17 ($2870? 1.0%) 1) Optimal Lih = 20 ($2350) ©) Maximum cost Lith ~ 25 ($2390/m*, 1.8 Figure 7-3. Precast segmental span-by-span box-girder with L=S0m ‘As shown in Figures 7-1 and 7-3, using cost-effective span-to-depth ratios noticeably improves visual slendemess compared to the conventional ratios for cast-in-place on falsework and precast span-by-span box-girders. The visual difference is even more apparent when the optimal case is compared to the case with maximum construction cost. This finding indicates that varying the span- to-depth ratio can have a significant visual impact without substantial cost premiums (Jess than 11% variation in cost for all the analysis eases considered), 8990 However, the visual impact of changing span-to-depth ratio is less obvious for the solid slab case, because visual difference diminishes as slenderness ratio increases beyond 25 as shown in Figure 7-4 2)_Lieto unis ©)_Lin-20 unas Lato Liss Figure 7-4. Visual eects of increasing span-to-depth ratios from 10 w0 35a1 As stated previously, increasing the span-to-depth ratio by reducing the girder depth can enhance visual slenderness without incurring significant additional costs. Increasing the ratio by extending the span length has similar visual effect as shown in Figure 7-5. Yet, the cost premium associated with increasing span length is much more severe. For instance, for the cast-in-place box- girder case depicted in the figure, increasing the span length from 50m to 75m adds 23% to the total construction cost. ) Lih=20, , L=75m ($3020im, 2 0m (82450) ») Figure 7-5. Esfect of increasing span length (box-irder with h=2.Sim)92 7.1.1 Effects of Viewing Points ‘The visual impact of altering span-to-depth ratio becomes more or less noticeable depending on the location of the observer. First, as the observer approaches the bridge, the effect of changing slendemess ratio is more obvious. Figures 7-6 to 7-8 demonstrate the influence of viewing distance by comparing box-girders with span length of 50m and slenderness ratios of 10 and 20 when viewed from distances of 300m, 150m, and 75m. 3) Lnt0 b)_Lin-20 Figure'7-6.- Viewed from 300m 2) _Lh-t0 b)_Li-20 Figure 7-7. Viewed from 150m 2) Lh-10 b)_Li-20 Figure 7-8. Viewed from 75m93 In addition to viewing distance, the viewing angle also influences the impact of span-to-depth ratio, Figure 7-9 shows that the pier width-to-height ratio has greater visual impact than the longitudinal span-to-depth ratio when the bridge is viewed from beneath along the length of the bridge. This viewing angle is of particular importance if pedestrians can walk below the bridge. ‘L-10 with wide wall piers ‘Lis-20 with wide wall piers a) » ©) Lih=10 with narrow piers 4) Lih-20 with narrow piers Figure 7-9. Effects of pier width-to-heigh ratio and span-te-depth ratio04 ‘As the viewing angle becomes less oblique, the impact of pier dimensions diminishes while the span-to-depth ratio has growing influence on the perceived slendemess of the structure Figure 7-10, 8) Lik-10 »)_Lh-20 Figure 7-10, Effect of span-to-depth ratio as viewing angle becomes less oblique 7.1.2 Other Factors that Affect Visual Slenderness In addition to span-to-depth ratio, other factors also affect the perceived thickness of the superstructure, These factors include the bridge height, pier configuration, length of deck slab cantilevers in a box-girder, and railing type. In this section, each factor is investigated using a box- girder model with a span length of $0m and slendemness ratio of 20.95 First, Figure 7-11 compares a tall bridge with a low one, Although the span-to-depth ratios are the same for both bridges, the tall one appears to be more slender due to the larger opening under the bridge. This large opening contrasts with the slender superstructure, thus reducing the perceived girder depth, The low bridge, on the other hand, appears heavy because the girder depth is similar to the bridge height. In fact, to achieve suflicient slendemess and transparency, Menn (1990) suggested that the bridge height needs to be atleast four times greater than the girder depth. This height suggestion ensures that there is a large contrast between the girder depth and the depth of the opening under the bridge, thus lowering the perceived thickness of the superstructure. 8) Bridge heightinder depth =5 ')_ Bridge heiphtigirder depth = 1.75, Figure 7-11. Etfet of bridge height on perceived superstructure slendemess ‘The pier configuration also affects the vis 1 impact of span-to-depth ratio (Figure 7-12). More pronounced piers clearly separate the individual span lengths. As a result, the perceived superstructure thickness still depends on the span-to-depth ratio. Conversely, narrow piers that are tucked in underneath the superstructure draw less attention and thus accentuate the continuity of the entire girder. The perceived slenderness is then related to the ratio between the visually uninterrupted length of the superstructure and the girder depth, 8) Pronounced piers ')_Less obtrusive piers Figure 7-12, Effect of pier configuration on pereeived superstructure slendemess96 Thirdly, the perceived slendemness of the superstructure is influenced by the length of deck slab cantilever in box-girders. Figure 7-13 compares a bridge with short cantilevers to a bridge with longer cantilevers. The latter bridge appears to be more slender because the long cantilevers cast shadows onto the girder webs and these shadows conceal a portion of the girder depth. The continuous shadow line along the girder also emphasizes the overall superstructure length. Hence, slendemess depends more on the bridge length than the span length in this ease. 8) _ Short deck cantilevers )_Long deck cantilevers Figure’ 7-13._ Effect of deck cantilever length on perceived superstructure slendemess Lastly, the railing type contributes to the visual slendemess of the superstructure. Figure 7-14 shows two bridges with open-type metal railings and concrete barrier walls. Any railing increases the perceived depth of the girder. However, the first case appears more slender because metal railings are more transparent compared to concrete barriers. Concrete barriers add an extra depth of solid concrete which represents a major visual bulk. These concrete barriers can be as tall as 1.37m, for highway bridges according to CHBDC (CSA 2006) and this height increases with increasing traffic volume and speed (Dorton 1991). 8) _Open-ype metal rings ) Concrete barier walls Figure 7-14. Effect of railing type on pereeived superstructure slenderness|7 7.2 Evolution of the Visually Optimal Span-to-Depth Ratio ‘As demonstrated previously, varying the span-to-depth ratio clearly has an impact on aesthetics, Yet, visually optimal span-to-depth ratios cannot be easily defined because aesthetics is not a quantifiable attribute, The ratio that yields the best-looking bridge changes over time and depends on the background of the observer. This section explores the visually optimal slendemess ratio by examining the works and design philosophies of various prominent bridge designers. First, the aesthetically optimal slendemess ratio has changed throughout the history of concrete bridges. This section traces the development of slendemess in concrete arch and girder bridges. Arch bridges are considered, because early concrete bridges were mostly arches and the concept of arch slendemess, which is generally associated with the arch thickness and deck depth with respect, to span length, is analogous to the influence of span-to-depth ratios on the slendemess of gitder bridges. Most importantly, although the representation of slendemess is different for the two bridge types, both arch and girder bridges demonstrate evident improvement in slendemess due to economic or aesthetic reasons. In the 19* century, conerete bridges were generally deep and heavy because concrete was regarded as artificial masonry and arch was the primary structural form for concrete bridges at that ‘time, Also, the society preferred the massiveness, rigidity, and embellishments associated with traditional masonry arches. This trend can be seen in the Glenfinnan Railway Viaduct 1901 which is one of the first major concrete bridges (Figure 7-14). Figure 7-14. Glenfinnan Viaduet, 1901 (Cortight 1997) Improvement in the slenderness of arches was evident by the late 19" century due to the development of reinforced concrete which allowed arches to be thinner and flatter. Robert Maillart utilized the new material and created the Stauffacher Bridge 1899 which is a slender three-hinged arch concealed with stone-cladding and omaments such that it resembles traditional masonry arches (Figure 7-15 a). In his subsequent bridges, Maillart abandoned the traditional architectural forms and began his pursuit for slendemness and simpli ity (Figure 7-15). First, he eliminated the stone-8 cladding in the Zuoz Bridge 1901 to reveal the slender arch, He further enhanced slendemness by removing the spandrel walls in the Tavanasa Bridge 1906, 8) _ Stauffacher Bridge, 1899 (Billington 1997) })_Zuoz Bridge, 1901 (Billington 1990) One of the major breakthroughs in bridge aesthetics is Maillatt’s Salginatobel Bridge 1930 which accentuates the simple three-hinged arch form devoid of any structurally unnecessary components (Figure 7-15 d), The bridge’s exceptional slenderness contrasts with the traditional masonry-like structures that were popular at Maillart’s time, The design was chosen mostly for its economic efficiency instead of its aesthetic value. In fact, its aesthetic merit was not widely recognized outside of Switzerland until decades after the bridge was constructed. The Salginatobel Bridge is now praised as a masterpiece of structural art by scholars like Billington (1990) and Bill (1955), In the 1930s, the development of reinforced concrete also allowed for the construction of concrete girder bridges which could reach spans of over 70m. However, long-span reinforced concrete girders commonly had problems with deformations and cracking, To minimize these problems, the girders needed to be very deep, with span-to-depth ratios of less than 10 (Menn 1990), Constant-depth girders with such ratios would be heavy, so long-span reinforeed concrete bridges were usually haunched, Two examples of these variable-depth girders are the Villeneuve-St. Georges Bridge 1939 and the Waterloo Bridge 1939 which are both haunched box-girders (Figure 7-16), Their span-to-depth ratios at the supports are 9.7 and 10 respectively while the midspan ratios are 31 and 32 (Menn 1990).99. je 7-16. Waterloo Bridge over the Thames, 1939 (Darger 2002) Figure 7-17. Changis-sur-Marne Bridgs, 1948, ‘(Mossot 2007) Significant improvement in slendemess for girder bridges only began with the introduction of prestressing technology to bridge construction in the 1940s. Prestressing enhances structural behaviour by reducing tensile stresses in the concrete and increasing the load-carrying capacity with the use of high-strength tendons. As a result, longer and more slender girder bridges were feasible. Some notable examples of slender prestressed bridges include Eugene Freyssinet’s series of post-tensioned bridges along the Mame River 1948 (Figure 7-17). These bridges achieved visual slendemess with the use of prestressing technology, which allowed for longer spans and thinner decks, and had a midspan span-to-depth ratio of up to 40. This isa large improvement in. slendemess compared to the previous examples of reinforced conerete girders which had a midspan ratio close to 30. This improvement in slendemess through post-tensioning technology was mainly driven by material economy, structural efficiency and construction speed. The aesthetic value associated with slenderness was not fully appreciated by society until the 1960s which marked the beginning of 9 an era that praised minimalism and simplicity. The public’s perception on bridge slendemess was demonstrated in a bridge aesthetics survey conducted in 1969 by A.G.D. Crouch under the supervision of Colin O*Connor at the University of Queensland (Crouch 1974, O'Connor 1991). Crouch was an Engineer with the Canberra Department of Works while O’Connor was a Professor of Civil Engineering and has published a number of books and papers regarding bridge design. The bridge aesthetics survey investigated the relative visual merits of various substructure and superstructure proportion parameters (e.g span-to-pier thickness ratio, span-to-column height ratio, ete.) through the use of simple sketches of bridges with varying proportions. The ent ae survey sample included 170 civil engineers, architects, and people with evaluate aesinetc impact of spancto-epth ratios, (©Comnor 1991)100 nno education in structural design (a control group). The civil and architecture groups consisted of students, university staffs as well as people in practice. One particular superstructure proportion parameter that was investigated was the span-to-depth ratio (Figure 7-18). The response corresponded to a preferred ratio of 34.3 for engineers, 20.5 for architects and 24.4 for the control ‘group. The difference among the three groups demonstrated that the visually optimal ratio depends ‘on the background of the observer. Engineers preferred a higher ratio because they valued material efficiency. The other groups, in contrast, preferred a deeper girder because they saw depth as a sign of strength and visual elegance as a matter of good proportions. The sketches used in this survey might be too simple to confidently yield specific values for visually-optimal span-to-depth ratios. ‘Nonetheless, the survey indicated that people in general preferred a more slender structure with a minimum span-to-depth ratio of 20 (i.e. the top two sketches in Figure 7-18). Since there was greater public resonance for visual slendemess, higher span-to-depth ratios gained unprecedented popularity in bridge designs in the 60s and 70s. Bridge designers, therefore, consciously pursued slenderess based on its aesthetic merits in addition to its material economy. In particular, two renowned bridge engineers designed a number of girder bridges with exceptional slendemess at this time: Leonhardt and Menn, Leonhardt believed that “the slender bridge looks better than the clumsy one. A slender look is therefore a design feature well worth striving for” (Leonhardt 1982). He also claimed that heavy bridges appear “depressing” whereas lighter bridges are more elegant. His design philosophy was demonstrated in the Neckar Viaduct 197 and the Kocher Valley Viaduct 1979 (Figures 7-19 and 7-20). The former haunched girder has a slendemess ratio of 56 at midspan and 25 at the supports while the latter constant-depth girder has a ratio of 21.2. Both the haunched and constant-depth girders demonstrate significant improvement in slendemess compared to bridges from the 30s which used span-to-depth ratios of 30 at midspan and 10 at the supports for haunched girders and a ratio of 10 for constant-depth girders. Figure 7-19, Neckar Valley Viaduct, 1977 (Leonhardt Figure 7-20, Kocher Valley Viaduct, 1979 (Leonhardt 1982) 1982)101 Menn, on the other hand, believed that visual elegance was related to the efficient use of material which could be demonstrated by slendemess and lightness of a structure (Menn 1990), Two of his designs that incorporated this concept of visual elegance are the Pregorda Bridge 1974 and the Felsenau Bridge 1974 (Figures 7-21 and 7-22), Like Leonhardt’s bridges, these two bridge: are considerably more slender than the girder bridges constructed in the previous decades. The Pregorda Bridge is a constant-depth girder with a slenderness ratio of 22.2 while the main spans of the Felsenau Bridge are haunched and has ratios of 48 at midspan and 18 at the supports. Figure 7-21, regorda Bridge, 1974 (Menn) igure 7-22, Felsenau Bridge, 1974 (Menn) Other contemporary bridge experts are also strong advocates of bridge slenderness and they have expressed the importance of slendemess in bridge aesthetics in a number of publications. One of these bridge professionals is Edward Wasserman who is the Civil Engineering Director of the Structures Division for the Tennessee Department of Transportation and has been involved in the design of over 2200 bridges. He claimed that a span-to-depth ratio between 25 and 30 would produce a well-proportioned superstructure that “appears to float gracefully” whereas a lower ratio ‘would result ina bridge that appears to “loom heavily upon the landscape” (Wasserman 1991). Likewise, Arthur Elliott, Bridge Engineer responsible for all bridge planning and design with the California Department of Transportation from 1953 to 1973, stated that a “blocky, heavy, and poorly proportioned” bridge is simply not beautiful (Elliott 1991). Frederick Gottemoeller, who has produced a number of publications regarding bridge aesthetics and has developed the aesthetic design guidelines for Maryland and Ohio, also recognizes the visual benefits of slendemess. He claimed that better-looking bridges are characterized by their “simplicity, thinness, and continuity” (Gottemoeller 2004). As shown in this historical study, the public perception of bridge aesthetics changes over time. In the early 1900s, people preferred heavier bridges whereas slender bridges were appreciated in the 60s and 70s. Although the visually optimal span-to-depth ratio cannot be easily determined, contemporary bridge designers generally favour a higher ratio and regard slendemess as a key element in a good-looking bridge.102 7.3 Concluding Remarks This chapter demonstrates that span-to-depth ratio has direct impact on perceived superstructure slendemess by comparing 3-D drawings of bridges with varying ratios. Bridges with the most cost- effective ratio are visually more slender than those with conventional ratios. The visual difference ‘between the cost-effective ratio and conventional ratio is particularly noticeable for the east-in-place oon falsework and precast span-by-span box-girders. For cast-in-place solid slab, the difference is less obvious because the conventional ratio is already high (i.e. 30) and increasing the ratio beyond 25 is found to have negligible visual impact. This chapter further shows that the effect of varying, span-to-depth ratio reduces as the observer moves away from the bridge or as the viewing angle becomes more oblique. Factors, such as low and protruding piers, short deck cantilever lengths, and thick concrete railing, also reduce the perceived slenderness. Lastly, a historical study indicates that the visually optimal slenderness ratio evolves over time and contemporary bridge engineers appreciate the aesthetic merit of superstructure slendemess,8 CONCLUSIONS Girder-type bridges have commonly been designed using conventional span-to-depth ratios which have not changed significantly despite recent development in material strengths and construction technologies. This study determines the optimum slenderness ratios for three types of girder bridges constructed with high-strength concrete: cast-in-place on falsework box-girder and solid slab, and precast segmental span-by-span box-girder. The ratios are optimized based on ‘material consumption and total construction cost criteria, Aesthetic comparisons are also performed to determine the visual impact of these optimum ratios. The primary results of this thesis are summarized as follows, 8.1 Conventional Span-to-Depth Ratios A study of 86 constant-depth girder bridges reveals thatthe typical ranges of span-to-depth ratios are 17.7 to 22.6 for cast-in-place box-girder, 19 to 35 for cast-in-place voided slab, 22 to 39 for cast-ineplace solid slab, and 15.7 to 18.8 for precast segmental box-girder. The study demonstrates that the ratios for cast-in-place and precast segmental box-girders have not varied significantly from 1958 to 2007. The study also indicates that cast-in-place slabs constructed after 1975 are mostly voided slabs with slenderness ratios below 25 due to the more stringent code requirements in recent years, 8.2 Maximum Span-to-Depth Ratios The maximum span-to-depth ratio, which satisfies safety, serviceability, and constructabitity requirements, varies with bridge type and span length. For cast-in-place box-girder with spans of 35m, 50m, and 60m, the maximum ratios are 25, 30, and 35 respectively. These values are restricted by the interior box cavity height requirement which is necessary to provide sufficient space for workers. The maximum ratio is also 35 for the se with a span of 75m; itis limited by the number of tendons that cat fit inside the webs of the box section. ‘The maximum ratios for solid slab are 40 for spans of 20m and 25m, and 45 for spans of 30m and 35m, These ratios are governed by the maximum reinforcement criterion which ensures adequate ductile behaviour, This limitation is especially critical for solid slabs, because slabs have heavier dead loads compared to box-girders with the same ratio, so more reinforcements are needed. For precast segmental box-girder, the maximum ratios are 20 for a span of 30m, and 25 for spans of 40m and 50m. Like cast-in-place box-girders, these ratios are limited by the minimum height requirement for the interior box cavity. Even though the governing factor of maximum slendemess ratio is the same for both bridge types, the ratios for precast box-girders are lower, because external tendons are used, further reducing the height of the cavity within box-girders. 103104 8.3 Material Consumption Comparisons {As slendemness increases, the prestressing and concrete strength demands increase while concrete volume decreases. For both cast-in-place and precast segmental box-girders, the decrease in volume is small compared to the inetease in prestressing since only a small amount of concrete at the webs is eliminated while the moment resistance is significantly lowered as the ratio increases Reduction in concrete volume further diminishes for higher ratios because the bottom slab thickness needs to be increased to accommodate the larger compressive force in a slender girder. This increase in slab thickness counteracts the di +b volume, thus the reduction in conerete volume becomes less for higher ratios, Moreover, a concrete compressive strength of 50 MPa is sufficient to satisfy design requirements in ry analysis e for both of these bridge types. Decrease in concrete volume in a solid slab is more significant since a large strip of concrete as wide as the soffit is removed as the ratio increases. Therefore, this volume reduction is proportional to the decrease in girder depth. On the other hand, prestres ng demand increases with slendemess. This increase in prestressing is less than the one for cast-in-place box-girders, because solid slabs can accommodate many tendons at the same elevation while tendons in box-girders need to be placed in multiple layers within the webs which reduces the prestressing efficiency. Also, higher strength coneretes (ie, .= 50 to 80 MPa) are used for slender slabs to satisfy ductility requirement by lowering the prestressing demand. Asa sult, prestressing consumption in solid slabs increases with span-to-depth ratio at a slower rate relative to box-girders. Material consumptions are compared on the basis of material costs. Considering only the pure material costs without the cost of formworks, falsework or precasting operations, the most efficient ratios are15 for both cast-in-place and precast box-gitders and 30 for solid slabs. Ifthe costs of concrete fabrication and placement are included, the most cost-efficient ratios for the three bridge types increase to 25, 40, and 20. This increase in cost-optimal ratios indicates that the construction economy related to a slenderer and lighter structure is a erucial aspect in the optimization of span- to-depth ratio, More importantly, over the entire range of ratios investigated (i.e. 10 to 35 for cast- in-place box-girder, 30 to 45 for cast-in-place solid slab, and 15 to 25 for precast segmental box- girder), the maximum variations in pure material cost are 42%, 28%, and 12% while the maximum variations in total superstructure cost are only 20%, 12%, and 3.3% for each bridge type. 8.4 — Total Construction Cost Comparisons The total construction costs are computed assuming the superstructure accounts for 54.5% of total construction cost. With the additional costs of mobilization, substructure, and accessories, the most cost-efficient ratios remain the same as the ones based on superstructure costs only. However,10s the economy of using these optimal ratios diminishes when the total construction costs are considered; the maximum savings within the analysis range of ratios are reduced to less than 11%, 6.2%, and 1.8% for cast-in-place box-girder, cast-in-place solid slab, and precast segmental box- girder respectively. This finding indicates that optimizing one particular structural component (ic. superstructure span-to-depth ratio) does not result in significant e omy. Greater cost savings emerge from the selection of an appropriate bridge type. For instance, within the same range of span lengths and span-to-depth ratios, a cast-in-place on falsework box-girder is more economical than a solid slab. Moreover, these findings are not sensitive to changes in material unit prices and in total construction cost breakdown; the cost-optimal ratios remain the same regardless of these changes. The variability in total construction cost over the analysis range of ratios is less than 13% when the material unit price is altered by 50% or when the superstructure cost contribution in the total cost breakdown rises from 54.5% to 80%, 8.5 Aesthetic Comparisons Since the total construction cost does not vary significantly over the entire range of span-to- depth ratios investigated, the designer has more freedom to select the slendemess ratio without much economic constraints. Varying the ratio changes the superstructure slenderness which is generally the most important visual component of a girder-type highway overpass. A historical study indicates that although the public perception on slenderness has evolved over time, contemporary bridge engineers, especially the ones from the 1960s and 1970s, recognize and appreciate the aesthetic merit of slendemess associated with high span-to-depth ratios, ‘The visual impact of span-to-depth ratios is examined by comparing 3-D renderings of bridges with different ratios. This comparison determines that using cost-optimal ratios instead of conventional ones would result in considerable enhancement in the superstructure slenderness for cast-in-place and precast box-girders. Yet, the aesthetic impact of using the optimal ratio in solid slabs is negligible because increasing the ratio beyond 25 is found to have no apparent visual difference, Furthermore, the visual effects of varying span-to-depth ratio reduce as the observer moves away from the bridge or as the viewing angle becomes more oblique. In addition to lowering the slenderness ratio, other factors that reduce perceived slendemess include a low bridge height, protruding piers, short deck cantilever lengths, as well as solid concrete railing, 8.6 Optimal Span-to-Depth Ratios Based on construction economy and aesthetics considerations, the optimal span-to-depth ratios are established to be 25, 40, and 20 for cast-in-place on falsework box-girder, cast-in-place on falsework solid slab, and precast segmental span-by-span box-girder. However, these optimums are106 expected to change in a real situation because they are determined based on specific parameters defined for this study such as cross-section dimensions and span arrangements. More importantly, the study demonstrates that, within th 5 the total mnalysis range of rai construction cost is relatively insensitive to changes in the ratio. This finding is valid even if the optimum ratio changes, because the study shows that cost savings from optimizing span-to-depth ratio are generally minor compared to other construction cost components. The results of this study indicate that, compared to conventional ratios defined for normal-strength concrete bridges, a areater range of values can be used without significant cost premiums for high-strength concrete bridges (i.e. F.~ 50 to 80 MPa): 10 to 35 for cast-in-place on falsework box-girder; 30 to 45 for cast-in-place on falsework solid slab; 15 to 25 for precast segmental span-by-span box-girder.REFERENCE AASHTO-PCI-ASBI, (1997)."Segmental Box Girder Standards for Span-by-Span and Balanced Cantilever Construction.” American Segmental Bridge Institute, (Feb. 1, 2009), AASHTO, (1994). AASHTO LRED Bridge Design Specifications, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C. ACLASCE Committee 343, (1988). "Analysis and design of reinforced concrete bridge structures." American Conerete Institute, Detroit, Belli, A. (2003). "Interstate 895 Bridge, James River, Richmond, Virginia, USA." Structural Engineering International: Journal of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering (IABSE), 13(3), 177-179. Bennett, M. V., and Taylor, A. J. (2002). "Woronora River Bridge, Sydney." Structural Engineering International: Journal of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering (IABSE}, 12(1), 28-31 Bill, M. (1955). Robert Maillart, Girsberger Ziirich, Billington, D. (1990). Robert Maillart and the Art of Reinforced Concrete, The MIT Press, Cambridge Billington, D. (1997). Robert Maillart: Builder, Designer, and Artist, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Cao, S., Wu, W., Tu, J., and Wu, E, (2006). "Design & Construction of Ngong Shuen Chau Viaduct.” International Conference on Bridge Engineering-Challenges in the 2ist Century, Hong Kong, Chen, WF, and Duan, L. (1999). Bridge Engineering Handbook, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Collins, M. P., and Mitchell, D. (1997). Prestressed Concrete Structures, Response Publications, Toronto, Cortright, R. (1997)."Glenfinnan Viaduct." Nicolas Janberg's Structurae, June 1, 2009). Cromer, J.-M., Counasse, C., and Delforno, J-Y. (2003). "The Sart Canal-Bridge, houdeng - ‘Aimeries, Belgium.” Structural Engineering International: Journal of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering (TABSF), 13(1), 19-22. Crouch, A. G. D. (1974). "Bridge Aesthetics - A Sociological Approach." Civil Engineering Transactions, CE16(2), 138 - 142. CSA (1982). "Steel for Prestressed Concrete Tendons." C54 G279-M1982, Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale. CSA. (2006). Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, C. S. Association, ed., Canadian Standards ‘Association, Mississauga, Ontario. 107108 Darger, N. J. (2002)."Waterloo Bridge (1945)." Nicolas Janberg's Structurae, (June 1, 2009). Dorton, R. A. (1991). "Aesthetic Considerations for Bridge Overpass Design." Bridge aesthetics ‘around the world, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, C., 10-17, DSI. (2008). "DYWIDAG Post-Tensioning Systems." D.-S. Intemational, ed., DYWIDAG-Systems Intemational. Duan, L., Chen, K., and Tan, A. (1999). "Design Practice in Europe." Bridge Engineering Handbook, W.-F. Chen and L. Duan, eds., CRC Press Boca Raton, 10-11 to 10-37 Dufferin Concrete. (2009)."2009 Price List." Dufferin Concrete, (June 1, 2009), Elliott, A. L. (1991), "Creating a Beautiful Bridge." Bridge aesthetics around the world ‘Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 215-229. Gauvreau, P. (2006). "Bridges." Past-Tensioning Manual, Post-Tensioning Institute, Phoenix, 195- 240. Gottemoeller, F. (2004). Bridgescape : The Art of Designing Bridges, Wiley, Hoboken, Hassanain, M. (2002), "Optimal Design of High-Performance Concrete Ac Girder Bridges." 6" International Conference on Short & Medium Span Bridges:Developments in Short & Medium Span Bridge Engineering, CSCB, Vancouver. Hewson, N. R. (2003). Prestressed Concrete Bridges : Design and Construction, Thomas Telford, London, Hillerborg, A. (1996). Strip Method Design Handbook, E & FN Spon, London. Holgate, A. (1996). The Art of Structural Engineering: The Work of Jorg Schlaich and His Team, Ed. Axel Menges, Stuttgart. Holowka, M. (1979). "Deck Slab Investigation of a Voided Posttensioned Concrete Bridge Deck - Bridge 20." Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications, St. Catharines. Janberg, N. (2009). "Structurae." (uly 1 ‘Menn, C. (1990). Prestressed Concrete Bridges P. Gauvreau, ed., P. Gauvreau, translator, Birkhauser Verlag, Basel. Mossot, J. (22007)."Changis-sur-Mame Bridge " Nicolas Janberg's Structurae, (Sune 1, 2009). MTO (2003), "Structural Manual.” Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Bridge Office, St Catharines, ‘Muller, J. (1999). "Design Practice in Europe." Bridge Engineering Handbook, W.-F. Chen and L, Duan, eds., CRC Press Boca Raton, 64-61 to 64-37, RS. (2008)."Gantries-Guangzhou LRT Project." NRS Bridge Construction Equipment, (June 1, 2009). O'Brien, E. J., and Keogh, D. L. (1999). Bridge Deck Analysis, E & FN Spon, London. O'Connor, C. (1991). "Empirical Assessment of Bridge Aesthetics: An Australian View." Bridge Aesthetics Around the World, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 230-240. OHBDC. (1983). Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code, Highway Engineering Division, Toronto, OPSS, (2007). Material Specification for Concrete - Materials and Production, Ontario Provincial Standard Specification. OSHA. (2006)."Overhead Launching Gantry Crane Safety and Health Information Bulletin." Occupational Safety de Health Administration, (June 1, 2008). Park, R., and Gamble, W. L, (2000). Reinforced Concrete Slabs, Wiley, New York, PEER. (2005)."Neckar Valley Viaduct, Weitingen, Germany (1978)." Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, (July 1, 2009). Sauvageot, G. (1999). "Segmental Concrete Bridges.” Bridge Engineering Handbook, W.-F. Chen and L. Duan, eds., CRC Press, Boca Raton,10 Scollard, C. R., and Bartlett, F. M. (2004). "Rehabilitation Criteria for Post-Tensioned Voided-Slab Bridges." Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 31(6), 977-987. SNC-Lavalin. (2008). "Highway 400 Major MacKenzie Drive to Highway 11 Heritage Bridge ‘Replacement Design Concept Study.” Report prepared by SNC-Lavalin, submitted to Ontario Ministry of Transportation, ‘TRB. (1990). Truck Weight Limits: Issues and Options, Transportation Research Board Washington, De. Vogel, T. (1997). Christian Menn-Briickenbauer, Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, 57. Wasserman, E. P. (1991). "Aesthetics for Short- and Medium-Span Bridges." Bridge aesthetics ‘around the world Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 58-66. Weinlandbriicke (1958). "Die Weinlandbriicke in der Umfahrungsstrasse von Andelfingen.”" Direktion der 6ffentlichen Bauten des Kantons Ziirich (Administration of Public Buildings of the Canton of Zitrich).APPENDIX A: CHAPTER 2 SUPPLEME "ARY INFORMATION i112 womas-s015 we fa o te 6 6 « e wewe « t ET PET EEL Bd wy SINPH-xOG OMasTE UO DSe|THNea 0j RUM [PUONSET OID “TV TEL, Jopayy-Xog YAOMasTE WO 9De[g-ULISED [-V113 cioucorwad et ee Capen ae cst pepanasouny —B (css atom ‘onan 09 tm tor rene se mms squats Se A Le neainnes woyBumeg —¥ TT FY geszvszsanes'scesese — -Aeweds 13 one YeMIEL pads ui UemeL neauanes wouy Buyaesg, ee = Loc vE ore tenshiyovinusmdeg OST SBE sememerst sest 159 gempueh 429} jevoneusayu) UN “AA saUaisaq {SE CEOV VET RE ane Panonse3 sraeastone tou nesnmegwoytomeg seer SLUE PUELARIMS — sreyuuewstom — & soar a soedset gSMMEMEL ope unto abunieumuts neeunepuoydumeng cut puewsnns estpuannny —_t Tee 7 a ws senegal Tdi, (uj mwoavee uds wonton auen vomraiony —voxed stove -ovsees vss 3 0 : Taniaip a eo aman aD EVOL ® o ra » ca “ sorpsess0c) Bua TapeERED aaa CE SO OMDSTE WO SSETTATNES Ip BUONO) TV OE,114 Tam uaT RE EH WEE BTR a (eeostrsn outs wedycornsd okt s85- sss. wey apenoen az (eeqstpugieveutes|uedeycorvaa ot Sze snsseres MM og fer promaanon az (212q a8pug jexuawiBes) uoday aor 1¥3d oz sez ss STE eSPISSSSTISY chine 6 Are pnpeonosuy = 97 ‘ use PaOUEeER . * soa " BSSEASYIOUIYIS ose = onset eon f a lovtosetr+ov) ' Bes opjede 05504 (eva pug jewawiSas] wodey aormwaa = FOr vt os o9e= torposeere revuawies ‘e96t Pnpeyenayon ey — €z (Oss Soe egy ae eae (rapeostey Yer tgveds stprancones (ewastpin sates vocecornvaa coe et sty gBSISES RMU euts ex tpenevony — 12 porn) str oreo sist kuru & . ) ypeqSaa., neouneguoyumen Sere TSF wees vst ae sessing ot i. Shox egg = sueds, “ouewouag (evosipie mumutes]vodmcornad SwtCE_=SSCSTH~«Cs UHR EURZSWE zest hex wmpenseaney it (2c afpug jequawises) uodayaorty3d = s eee nex Dnpelp o=3se- (ewostpunuoutesvedcornad SFE SY ge ge ge cost : eenciese ot (21eq apug jewuawifies) uoday aor tw3d = S'ST et sw ever z66t Aeu anpeW\ ese) ST ' use ‘VEHOS TveBZ+0E OF " " “ uoya uensinD wouse0 2 say CIV STEVSLEWZOPNS ust aims sipuasmey or neaunnes wouysummeig — SAT we “ “THHE SOIT LEMPERT RE " (ocsrwwow) ck tr ee ast Sree super (ea tpoaiewoutes)vedoucorad rat eon, MEN set tex eenowen at cosine ap Twrmonaaveiues eg Pal iat wm ag ot es vononimeg wos eo ( 009) Zebu (B09 yiOMasTe UO AOEIEUINED “EV AIMEL115 TRATES WOT ITA cewmmeouoytneg eo ee see EEL vast bopsncune a Ueeastpaiennutes wsoueorngd S22 § 89 geesmupaeal tte Mtns et, ae ay a a Stmuoney oF anos (papas ond teow) eet wae az vsin aummoniong —6t Soren neauinep woy ume zest eg fr07 «84a 201 ve ast puevanins pana ° santa “ aman waa (enasiwanimutisminernn ot === Teeharaceiacie «mug eT ty mick “osse0c0) ores =tos ‘pan en ee “openac 0) vse (eostpiemunutasiucinygornsa ok Gsoesvoncecsot ious rest Ah pene st soeteapatese 00 sets" co Teosine : tg sg ube) dey a out feu oroeq vets, teostpusoutesivodeycornsa ot ap USEIBSISUTEENPS eases eet ex oipenunttaney ve (eastpussutes/vowycornsa of === ete omace ste) vest sAeypansnean 8 oe 3.60 (eveq apug jequawias) yoday aor oo errr ‘Ae pnpein auoydere (eostpsssutesivomueornsd of «Foes teugy gSEREE woot ex Empensoiten ze (eosipussutes|secucorsa ot === =Sos—_er = FEtBaGB csst Me} atpenousiaen oe {2002 so}Me pue s2uuag) own v Tes = wa8ua| 20) T00r eyensny sseue of veal any ewe ad 7 lm wo sruainjoy ido [pua)—_(w) wouesvers ueds ou voneae PUN 59 sence od (ponaqU09) ¢saiUeyD wr GBpHREx0g pOMASyR UO a DTV OME,116 sw wo wat setussnset wn fect Auewiay unssepressediong eee) eS ess eo eee vn 996 fuewwa5 —sSpummoos uafuyseus 25 pun wuewistiag Yoenos siaisag ves. torkna'ss 15 ouewostenysnjoweunedsg §— 2B Jones} vo 4d tot epeuey “ zererwvestezerer OAS PVE vezuodpug anyeuipeds 805, ves'ee= “PA ounuo shemyiuysowouredsg §— ZU SHO HST gece gh ASE oManE) UOELD 198 PD gry stoug-am re weave = Tork’? ouewostemyBinoweunedsg zB Jones} vo a> fost epee “" weverwestesrer Omen PVE vetu stun any eupeds BY wea6e= “Tor AN ounuo sMemyBinowouredsa §— WHOSE age peyyg ASE omane) UoaLD 198 PD gy stoug-am cree {6002 993 payunaienug swersuey —goe | s80reL wn 000% pu SBpugsemysopueyy) — sp ssupossy sted UsUNS v8U8800 Wrens ww 73h ou suey | Wee (w} wawadueveueds wane3ey urn ey Ree ncaa " uosardiuog sepue exueds BRD I SqRTS PHOS HOMDITE UO SEDATE “PV EL 8 2 os 2 re ov u 8 0 co 1 ” 1s ov TED susie Tea ora ET Say oasis Roy ws sopd-ut-ase oj uwnap RUONDDS-REOID “EV MEL, GEIS PHOS AxOMEsTEY HO AD¥Lg-WISED TV7 aes wa SER Gomjamgg Tee orig cues emia jo nung reowrosuntroa : 3 sug a epee neaannen Woy Bujmesg PHTS omasiey uo. 08 epeve: ‘Tov Amn ‘oueaug shemysix Jo wuaUedag vee er ese oreeeesmaeee 400 310 f96r paved ‘veH a8pug “any euipeds Scag ag por en CRE EST pay Ta Sao ET NE BE (6007 sams, ‘#7pug Uajdiypspuny 6 er rs sever WN oxme_pmp 8 om peaanees cre at 8 6e Ter wo did 96 Tor Amis 9 mmo samy searcomsose tt eastyun say oes voor uoy Re ee ag as vost ‘orm cas cipseesoereoer ‘oyeauo shen oe ACT VRE geros sever vers oete f96r Tt aipug “any eupeds 9 Taner wen BHMed ee ate ae $5967 = C5 romans uo 4 eset sprue icon) cmiotatiewims —* baueereomenent seston stapes wo ace or ewan) CE EDF arerzazegeray POMIRE] UO prey wivenzt/ion yg set ate Se LO FE eeeversoveewaeerer VOMPNEYOAID foe PRD epaspug any eupeds PH LO FS eapecsrecsereny MMOD LD sega annuals 909 SemnliND ON REO see ses wwe eaaneevwvesttet NownyueuD wast wow soon tnd as ronson eat ih wen oucytweg rer ott cree eat HNAL ww 150 esiyona thes (cone tne tnouonnincomnes est IT eR WN Tot huewing——stphasopegai 56 eta ee apo wz oneeatereneaeior MMMM sues earn ice nee) Samat) sty WN 86 haeun—stpugooumtagen —¥8 (ponmn0s) ¢ madeRD WIS [08 WiOwasTe Ho eS-UISED PV MEL118. Tower scat ToT Toe Tes RoweT — 2 peed apg 3ueRNS set ve op srioe. p85? toot snpeyaneyuonys SU0—N Pr ee ‘est PNMAAIIS 8 OL RL ce _HSSL= cu l2eecrestit) ast Tanpen exNBDisieA EB Vor 8% SHORT [OPeSy DTHOnhe 9861 onpenonoubogen 20 cor ve ow a pope xieias 8 199 yt ov ott =[stvomsereselez 5961 papain orewespe) 08 at 6 105 = 6EVGETTH6E Tewouidos —z661 pApeINoHes GL ae 6 105 = 616 jews eset vpapem ensuing ee ae 6 ESOT = 6EVSELSTHSE eqouitos 1661 Bepein ousseaajoy 9 a 6 08, = GEVGELETHGE Iewouides 661 apemouereuy — 54 (oor Sequel) Sux ve SBME ee est ‘tous wren on SueismoRstzS te \amyenvouits tp " malewvawes)uodayqor wag St OTE e'STLL= uate veds-Aq__ S661 syosetus te, eds pena waists an Beluea Ne Powou oak susp (w) wowsavene ueds woronisue _vonajduioy _uo3e001 owen spidey wt siopu-xoq unds-Ca-unds yrwous weSaI “OV AGE, se 3908 2% “ st _ ee aw ee vomas.s015 ous vopas.ss05) ou aE 929555015 oS ‘paB-xeg ueds-Cq-ueds ejuies yeooud 10j Bupwesp BUONDDS-SSOI “S-V ATE sopayy-xog uedg-cq-ueds peuautag yseaa1d VvAPPENDIX B: SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS. B.1 Flexural Strength for Bonded Tendons at ULS é Suen |) THO Al, This calculation is performed for a cast-in-place on falsework box-girder analysis case with span length | of 50m and span-to-depth ratio L/h of 20. Mu = moment demand = 53 000 kNm Concrete properties Prestressing tendon properties fy = 1670 MPa ,=0.95 Number of strands = 136 1A, = area of prestressing tendons = (236 strands}(140 mm’) = 0.019 m Cross-sectional properties b= width of compressive component = 15m d= distance from extreme compression fibre to centroid = 2.19 m = distance from base to centroid = 1.69m j,= moment of inertia = 6.06 m* Flexural strength requirements @; = 0,85 —0,00151,= 0,78 [CHBDC,Cl.8.3.3] £1 = 0.97 — 0.00251 85 T= bpfpy Ap = (0.95)(1670 MPa)(0.019m?) = 30200 kN Gah b . 30200 kN (0.75)(0.78)(S0 MPa)(15 m) = 0.688 m a-5 0.0688 m = 219 m — 28 = 216m 19120 M,= Tez (30 200 kN)(2.16 m) = 65 100kNm 65 100 kNm > Myis ;3.000kNm — number of tendons is sufficient Minimum reinforcement requirement > minf 22 tewoc, ca) 12000 kNm v 1.33 Myys = 70500 kNm M, = 53000 kNm > 12M =12000kNm «requirement is satisfied Maximum reinforcement requirement $<05 [cl8845] 0.0608" — 5 ogy c= 5 ops ~ 008Im ¢_ 081m f= Fare = 0037 <05 + requirement is satisfied B.2_ Shear Strength at ULS This calculation is performed for a cast-in-place on falsework box-girder analysis case with span length lof 50m and span-to-depth ratio L/h of 20. The following calculation aims to find the minimum stirrup spacing s needed to satisfy shear requirements. Vuns= shear demand = 11300 kN Mus = moment demand = 5330 kNm V,= component of prestressing force in the direction of shear = -3000 kN M, = prestressing moment = 8300 kNm Concrete properties ,=50 MPa f,=2.8 MPa .= 0.75 2, = aggregate size= 10mm Prestressing tendon properties fy = 1670 MPa 550.95 £,= 200 000 MPa Number of strands = 136 ‘Ag = area of prestressing tendons = (136 strands)(140 mm’) = 0.019 m* ‘Ays= area of prestressing tendons in the flexural tension side = 0.568 m” Non-prestressed reinforcement properties f,= 400 MPa = 0.90