Challenging Design Aspects of a 3-Tower Cable-Stayed Bridge

John BRESTIN Tian-Jian (Steve) ZHU John FINKE

Vice President Executive Engineer Department Manager
Buckland & Taylor Buckland & Taylor Jacobs
Seattle, WA, USA Vancouver, BC, CANADA St. Louis, MO, USA
jnbn@b-t.com tjz@b-t.com John.Finke@jacobs.com

John Brestin, born 1968, received
his Bachelors of Science in Civil
Engineering from the University
of Nebraska and his Masters of
Science in Civil Engineering from
Purdue University. He worked for
Kiewit Construction and HNTB
before joining Buckland & Taylor
to direct major bridge projects.
Tian-Jian (Steve) Zhu, born 1960,
received his Bachelors of
Engineering from Zhejiang
University in China and his
Masters of Engineering and
Doctor of Philosophy from
McMaster University in Canada.
He is an executive engineer with
Buckland & Taylor.
John Finke, born 1964, received
his Bachelors of Science in Civil
Engineering from the University
of Missouri at Rolla and his
Masters of Science in Structural
Engineering from Washington
University in St. Louis. He is the
manager of the Structures
Department in St. Louis, MO.

Summary
Keywords: Cable-Stayed Bridge, Three Towers, Dynamic Analysis, Foundations, Durability,
Accelerated Schedule.

1. Introduction
A three tower cable-stayed bridge brings with it a unique set of challenges for the design team. This
presentation focuses on those challenges by looking in depth at the Downtown Louisville crossing over
the Ohio River. The final design of this structure presented unique geotechnical conditions, site specific
seismic design spectrum developed, aggressive scour conditions, erection method, wind engineering
analysis all completed on an extremely aggressive design and construction schedule will be discussed.
We will also explain the inherent flexibility of a three tower cable-stayed bridge with no anchor cables
to stiffen the center tower and foundations consisting of a single row of shafts at each tower and anchor
pier. Probabilistic service life design to attain 100 years of life is employed on this bridge to assure a
proper level of durability, service life design is in its infancy in North America and therefore afforded an
additional level of
complexity to the
design. A collaborative
effort well underway
between the Kentucky
Transportation
Cabinet, Walsh
Construction, Jacobs
and Buckland &
Taylor has led to a
landmark project well
on its way towards an
expected opening in
2016.

Fig. 1: Night Bridge Rendering

2. Bridge Description
The downtown crossing of the Ohio River Bridge in Louisville, Kentucky is a three tower cable-stayed
bridge founded on a rock profile with significant slope. The 2106 ft. (642 m) long bridge has two main
spans of 750 ft. each (229 m), and end spans of 303 ft. each (92 m) and carries 6 lanes of traffic. The
750 ft. (299 m) spans are supported by 15 cables spaced at roughly 45 ft. (15m) along the Edge Girders.
The Edge Girder Anchorages are outboard of the centerline of the girder and the superstructure is made
up of traditional composite steel section. The towers are constructed on drilled shafts and pile caps and
are primarily concrete with mild steel reinforcing. The upper section of the tower contains no cross strut
between the pylons, and the individual pylons are 5 sided pentagons. The tower anchor box is steel
construction made composite with the reinforced concrete pylons. There is primary navigation channel
with a clearance envelope for shipping of 71 ft. (22m) high, by 680 ft. (207m) wide, and an auxiliary
navigation channel width 465 ft. (142m) in width. Wind fairings that attach to the edge of the deck
along 50 percent of the length of spans 3 and 4 provide stability during wind events.

Fig. 1: Bridge General Arrangement

Fig. 2: Bridge Deck Cross Section

3. Design Challenges
3.1 Site Condition
The bedrock profile at the bridge site slopes upwards significantly from the Kentucky to the Indiana
shore resulting in uneven foundation stiffness along the bridge.
The overburden soils above the bedrock are relatively thick at Anchor Pier 2R on the Kentucky shore
and diminish towards the Indiana side with no overburden soils at Tower 5R and Anchor Pier 6R.
The bridge design considered the following requirements:
Maximizing the navigation clearances for the main spans of the three tower arrangement;
Minimizing disturbance to river flow and local water level rise at the river foundations;
Minimizing debris accumulation at the river foundations;
Designing for 100 year scour depths for strength limit states and 50% of 500 year scour depths for
extreme event limit states - 30' deep overburden soils at Tower 4R were assumed to be completely
scoured away, and the top 30' of the 70' deep overburden soils were assumed to be scoured away at
Tower 3R; and
Designing for large barge impact loads for the river piers - about 4600 kips for Towers 3R and 4R.
The key to address the first three design requirements above was to minimize footprint for the tower
foundations in the direction perpendicular to the river flow.

3.2 Foundations
The selected foundation system for each tower consists of a single row of four 12' (3.66m) diameter
drilled shafts aligned with the river flow, as shown in Figure 4. The two tower legs are supported by
two separate waterline pile caps with each founded on two drilled shafts, and the two pile caps are
connected by a cross beam in between. This foundation system minimizes the dimension perpendicular
to the river flow. As a result, it maximizes the main span navigation clearances and minimizes
disturbance to river flow and the risk of debris accumulation. Due to the design's result of significantly
reducing the number of shafts required per tower, the selected
foundation system shortens the installation time and accelerates
the overall construction schedule.
All drilled shafts consists of an 11.5' (3.51m) diameter rock socket
ranging from 18 to 32 feet (6-10m) in length and a 12' (3.66m)
inner diameter and 1" (25mm) wall thickness steel casing above
the bedrock. The steel casing is seated into the bedrock by about
1' to achieve proper sealing. At Tower 4R, the steel casings are
vibrated down to bedrock. At Tower 3R and Anchor Pier 2R, the
steel casings are oscillated down to bedrock to provide intimate
contact between the steel casing and the overburden soils. Vertical
geotechnical capacity of the shafts was determined considering
the rock socket only. Lateral resistance to the shafts by
overburden soils above bedrock was taken into account at Tower
3R and Anchor Pier 2R only after proper scour depths were
considered.
In the transverse direction of each tower foundation, the pile caps
plus the cross beam provide framing action for the four shafts.
However, the foundation system relies on cantilever action of the
shafts to resist overturning moments resulting from longitudinal
loads instead of pile axil loads in a conventional pile group
foundation. As a result, the foundation system of this cable-stayed
bridge is much more flexible in the longitudinal direction as
compared to a typical cable-stayed bridge founded on a pile group
Fig. 4: 3D Tower Foundation foundation system with piles spaced in both directions. This
Rendering longitudinal flexibility created unique challenges for both design
and erection of this bridge.
3.3 Three-Tower Arrangement
The three tower arrangement as shown in Figure 2 is required by the owner. The Request for Proposal
(RFP) requires the center tower being taller than the side towers within a specified range. This results in
greater flexibility in the center tower.
Unlike a conventional two-tower arrangement where top of the towers is properly restrained by back
stays attached to the anchor piers, the center tower in this three-tower arrangement is not properly
restrained at the top, resulting in large demands on edge girders near mid-span of the main spans and
large longitudinal overturning moment demands on the shafts of the center tower. To address this issue,
the following measures were taken:
Install two bundled large size back stays spaced at 15' at the top of each side tower. This helps to
stiffen the top of the side towers which in turn stiffens the mid-span of the main span decks;
Keep the center tower as short as allowed by the RFP; and
Increase the edge girder stiffness in the vertical plane by increasing the girder depth (7' deep).

3.4 Articulation (Expansion and Contraction)

The three-tower arrangement, the single row of shafts foundation and the sloped bedrock profile created
unique challenges to develop proper articulation for the bridge structure.
Different options of articulation for the continuous superstructure were considered in the pre-bid design
phase including:
Fixed connections between edge girders and tower legs at all three towers;
Complete longitudinal floating of the superstructure at all three towers; and
Different combinations of longitudinal connections of the superstructure with the three towers using
links or bumpers.
The optimum solution was to provide longitudinal restraint of
the deck at Tower 5R only using bumpers where the bedrock
is the highest and the free-standing length of the shafts is the
shortest, as shown in Figure 5. Horizontally oriented
laminated elastomeric bearings are used for the longitudinal
bumpers.
The continuous superstructure is restrained transversely by
deck level bumpers at the thee towers and by transverse shear
keys connected to the end floor beams at the two anchor piers
as shown in Figure 5. Horizontally oriented laminated
elastomeric bearings are used for the transverse bumpers, and
horizontally oriented disc bearings are used at the transverse
shear keys.
The edge girders are vertically supported by disc bearings at
the three towers. Vertical tie-downs (pin-pin articulation)
connect the two ends of the edge girders to the two anchor
piers as shown in Figure 6.

3.5 Flexible System

Fig. 5: Tower 5R Deck Bumper Single row of shafts foundations, three-tower arrangement and
longitudinal superstructure connection at Tower 5R only result
in a flexible structural system in the longitudinal direction.
 The RFP does not permit transverse struts between tower legs above the deck. The DBT elected to
eliminate any transverse struts below deck to reduce cost and improve construction schedule. As a
result, the system is also flexible in the
transverse direction due to lack of struts between
the tower legs above the foundation.
The flexibility of the system created the
following challenges for design of the permanent
structure:
For the towers with taller free-standing
shafts (Towers 3R and 4R), the foundation
design was governed by erection loads.
Therefore, analyses of the completed structure
and critical erection stages had to be performed
concurrently at an early stage of the design;
Even with added reinforcement in the
shafts to deal with erection loads, relatively
severe restrictions are still required for the
erection sequence at the center tower (Tower
4R). Therefore, earlier discussions with the
Contractor were needed to ensure that such
restrictions would not significantly impact their
field operations and can be properly incorporated
into their erection plan;
Proper determination of wind loading
Fig. 6. Anchor Pier Tie-Down through wind tunnel testing became critical for
this flexible system for both the completed structure and the critical erection stages. At the time of
foundation design, wind tunnel testing had not started. Wind loading was initially evaluated based
on buffeting analysis using reasonably conservative force coefficients from prior experience, and
wind loads were then progressively refined as results from section model testing and as 3D aero-
elastic model testing became available;
System flexibility also created some challenges in developing appropriate measures to mitigate
vortex-shedding induced instability. Wind tunnel testing was performed on fairings of different
shapes and sizes, and the option of using tuned mass dampers was also considered. The final
solution was to use a two-sloped shape wind fairing after considerations of effectiveness, reliability,
initial cost, future maintenance cost and other factors for the different options. Due to flexibility of
this bridge, the two-sloped wind fairing has dimensions somewhat larger than those typically used
on other cable-stayed bridges, as shown in Figure 3. Wind fairing is provided over the center half
span for each of the two main spans;
Longitudinal bending demands on the drilled shafts are sensitive to installation tolerances of the
shafts (both out of plan location and plumb tolerances). Therefore, it was important to establish
practical and achievable tolerance ranges after discussions with the Contractor based on installation
methods (e.g. oscillation vs. vibration at different locations), local soil conditions, and previous
installation experience. Upon reaching an agreement on an installation tolerance it was clear to the
contactor that a 2-stage template would be needed during casing installation to meet the relatively
tight tolerances. Early discussions on shaft tolerance were a must to the success of this unique
foundation design. The agreed upon tolerance ranges were incorporated in computer modelling of
both the completed structural system and the critical erection stages. The contractor has installed
more than half of the drilled shafts by early 2014 and has been able to meet the required location
and plumbness tolerances to date
 Because of the system flexibility, it was important to properly capture the secondary P-delta and
slenderness effects. Geometric nonlinearity was properly modelled in the global model of the
completed bridge structure and the models of the critical erection stages. Installation tolerances for
the shafts were also modelled. To capture soil-structure interaction properly, p-y springs for refined
soil and rock layers were distributed along the length of drilled shafts. The nonlinear behaviour of
the p-y springs was modelled depending on the limit states considered;
The shaft foundations were initially designed based on the geotechnical capacities and p-y spring
stiffness properties evaluated based on the extensive borehole data along the bridge length. O-Cell
and stat-namic tests were then performed on an 8' diameter technique shaft. The test results were
used to calibrate the design parameters and optimize the shaft design. This calibration enabled some
reduction of the rock socket length (ranging from 2' to 6') resulting in sizable cost saving for the
Contractor. A world record was set for the magnitude of the applied load in the O-Cell testing of the
technique shaft; and
The flexibility of the center tower leads to complex behaviour of the edge girders under combined
axial, bending and shear effects for different load combinations at different limit states. The current
AASHTO design standards do not adequately address such cases. The DBT worked together with
the owner's Engineer and resolved this issue by applying the appropriate provisions of the Eurocode
for edge girder design providing more uniform and consistent safety margins consistent with the
overall project design criteria.

3.6 Service Life Design

The Ohio River Bridge Downtown Crossing in one of the first

major bridges in North America where a rational durability
study was explicitly performed and incorporated in the design
process. The RFP required non-replaceable elements of the
bridge to have a 100 year service life. We therefore developed a
corrosion protection plan that provided the bridge a 90 percent

Fig. 6. & 7- Tower and Anchor Pier Elevations showing Exposure Conditions
 probability of meeting or exceeding the prescribed service life.
Figures 6 & 7 show the exposure conditions assumed for the probabilistic approach the design team
used to design the

4. Erection Challenges
The bridge superstructure is erected by the balanced cantilever method at each of the three towers. The
superstructure is erected in 45' long sections (three floor beam spacing).
The flexibility of the structural system, single row of shafts foundations, and three-tower arrangement
also created the following unique challenges for bridge erection:
More restrictions on placement sequence of superstructure steelwork and precast deck panels are
required to minimize the unbalanced erection loads thereby the longitudinal overturning demands on
the tower foundations particularly for the center tower (Tower 4R);
Measures, such as two stage templates, are required to minimize tolerances in installation of the
drilled shafts. Control of the tolerances in the longitudinal direction (both out of plan location and
plumb tolerances) becomes critical because the shafts rely on cantilever action to resist longitudinal
bending and therefore are very sensitive to longitudinal installation tolerances. The longitudinal
deviation of the as-built from the theoretical shaft location needs to be accurately determined from
survey and monitored after installation of each shaft, and adjustments to the subsequent shafts may
be required depending on the deviations of the previous shafts;
A temporary bent is required for the balanced cantilever superstructure erection at each of the three
towers, as shown in Figure 8. Because of the system flexibility and the three-tower arrangement, the
temporary bent in the secondary navigation channel near the center tower (Tower 4R) has to remain
in place for the total duration of superstructure erection (after closure of both main spans); and
Because of longitudinal flexibility of the tower foundations, load sharing between the tower and
temporary bent becomes more complex prior to closure of each main span. The stiffness of the
temporary bent including installation tolerances for the bent shafts needs to be accurately modelled
in the erection analysis. The location of the temporary bent needs to be optimized, and more
adjustments in the form of vertical jacking and shimming are required at top of the temporary bent.

5. Compressed Schedule
Because of system flexibility, demands on the foundations are governed not only by the completed
structure but also by the critical erection stages. Therefore, careful analyses of both the completed
structure and the critical erection stages capturing the key behavior are required to develop appropriate
design loads for the foundations. The construction schedule for this design/build project is very
aggressive, and the designer didn't have the luxury of completing all studies and investigations (such as
wind tunnel testing and technique shaft load tests) prior to computer model analysis and foundation
design. To address the compressed schedule, some initial reasonably conservative assumptions were
required based on the available information and experience from previous projects so that foundation
design could move ahead. The initial assumptions were then refined and optimized as results from
subsequent studies and investigations became available. For example, the design of the first tower
(Tower 5R) was somewhat conservative whereas the design of the other two towers were optimized due
to refinement of the wind loads based on wind tunnel test results and calibration with the technique shaft
load test results after the test results became available.
6. Summary
KYTC's project requirements and the design/build team's drive to reduce cost and shorten construction
schedule led to the development of a three-tower cable-stayed bridge with a flexible foundation system
in the longitudinal direction. Working through the site specific challenges and external constraints the
design team was able to deliver an affordable solution that could be built in a short period of time.
The key measures taken by the design build team to address these unique challenges included the
following:
The design/build team worked effectively with the owner's engineer to develop project specific
design criteria to address the unique behaviour of the flexible system and to provide overall safety
margin for the structural system consistent with the project requirements specified in the RFP;
At the start of the final design, the designer identified the key system behaviour that needed to be
properly captured not only for the completed structure but also for the critical erection stages.
Appropriate computer models were developed to ensure such behaviour was properly modelled.
Sensitivity of the key behaviour to the design assumptions including construction tolerances were
also properly incorporated;

Fig. 8: Temporary Bent Arrangements for Superstructure Erection

At the early design stages, the designer and the contractor had extensive discussions and reached a
consensus on the appropriate restrictions that are required in placement of superstructure steelwork
and precast deck panels to limit the erection loads on the flexible foundations;
To comply with the contractor's very aggressive construction schedule, the designer had to complete
the design of the first tower before all studies and investigations (such as wind tunnel and technique
shat load tests) had been completed. The designer made some reasonably conservative assumptions
in design of the first tower based on the available information and prior experience. The first tower
design was then confirmed, and design of the other towers, anchor piers and superstructure was
progressively optimized when findings from the studies and investigations became available.
The end result is a durable structure that will grace the Louisville Skyline for years to come.