Concrete-Filled Steel Tubular Tied Arch Bridge

System: Application to Columbus Viaduct

G. Morcous, Ph.D., P.E., A.M.ASCE1; K. Hanna, Ph.D., P.E.2;
Y. Deng, S.M.ASCE3; and M. K. Tadros, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE4

Abstract: The tied arch bridge system provides a unique solution to the several challenges associated with the construction of railroad
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Ulster AT on 07/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

overpasses and water crossings, such as restricted vertical clearance, undesirable or impractical arrangement for intermediate piers, and
extremely limited traffic control during construction. The paper presents the design and construction challenges pertinent to a novel
concrete-filled steel tubular tied arch system that was first introduced in the Ravenna viaduct (53 m) and applied later to the Columbus
viaduct (79 m). The main structural components of the Columbus viaduct are described in detail and the advantages of the system are
summarized. The detailed analysis of the system at different construction stages and design checks of main components and connections
under various loading conditions are discussed. Experimental investigations conducted on concrete-filled steel tubular arch and tie specimens
to validate their theoretical capacities are demonstrated. The three-dimensional nonlinear finite element model developed to analyze the tie-to-
arch connection and evaluate the lateral stability of arches is presented. Finally, the main construction procedures and challenges of the
three tied arches of the Columbus viaduct are highlighted. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000205. © 2012 American Society of
Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Arch bridges; Concrete; Steel; Tubes; Design; Construction; Finite element method; Lateral stability;
Nebraska.
Author keywords: Arch; Bridges; Concrete; Steel; Tubes; Design; Construction; Finite-element analysis; Lateral stability.

Introduction
In recent years, the Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) has
adopted a novel tied arch bridge system in the construction of the
Ravenna viaduct and Columbus viaduct in the state of Nebraska
(Tadros and Girgis 2006; Morcous et al. 2009). This system pro-
vides a unique solution to several of the challenges associated with
the construction of railroad overpasses and water crossings, such as
restricted vertical clearance, undesirable or impractical arrange-
ment for intermediate piers, and extremely limited traffic control
during construction. In this system, the main components are pre-
fabricated, assembled, and then placed on site, which accelerates
construction and eliminates constraints of working over live and
major railroad routes. The structural efficiency and slenderness
of the tied arch system is accomplished by using high performance
1
Associate Professor, Durham School of Architectural Engineering and
Construction, Univ. of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1110 S. 67th St., Omaha, NE
68182 (corresponding author). E-mail: gmorcous2@unl.edu
2 Nebraska, has two spans—an arch span of 79 m (260 ft) and a beam
Project Engineer, Con-Fab California Corporation, 1910 E. Lathrop
Road, Lathrop, CA 95330; formerly, Post-Doctoral Fellow, Civil Engineer-
ing, Univ. of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1110 S. 67th St., Omaha, NE 68182.
E-mail: kromelh@confabca.com
3 of construction while replacing the old bridge. This project was
Ph.D. Candidate, Durham School of Architectural Engineering and
Construction, Univ. of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1110 S. 67th St., Omaha, NE
68182. E-mail: ydeng@mail.unomaha.edu
4
Leslie D. Martin Emeritus Professor, Civil Engineering, Univ. of
Nebraska-Lincoln, 1110 S. 67th St., Omaha, NE 68182-0178. E-mail:
mtadros@mail.unomaha.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 25, 2010; approved on
November 29, 2010; published online on December 1, 2010. Discussion
period open until June 1, 2012; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineer-
ing, Vol. 17, No. 1, January 1, 2012. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/2012/1-
107–116/$25.00.
steel and concrete materials and recognizing the enhanced strength
and ductility of concrete-filled steel tubes through synergistic in-
teractions of the steel tube and concrete in-fill.
The Ravenna viaduct spans a major route of the Burlington
Northern Santa Fe Railroad. Because approximately 60 trains
per day pass on this route, there are very tight restrictions on
the vertical clearance above the tracks, horizontal distance between
piers, and time and duration of rail traffic interruptions. The bridge
was built in 2005 using two parallel arches that have a single span
of 53 m (174 ft) over six sets of rail tracks, two main lines, and four
sidings. The structural depth below the existing road grade is
0.81 m (32 in.) to provide the required vertical clearance above
the railroad tracks, and the total width is 17.22 m (56.5 ft) to ac-
commodate three traffic lanes and one pedestrian lane. The con-
struction of this bridge has shown that the tied arch system is a
very efficient and cost-effective system for a project with such
constraints.
The Columbus viaduct, located on U.S. 30 in Platte County,
span 29.26 m (96 ft). It has a structural depth below the road grade
of 1.12 m (44 in.) and a total width of approximately 25.60 m
(84 ft). Three parallel tied arches are used to facilitate staging
completed in 2009 and has proven the feasibility of the tied arch
system in applications where spans over 79 m (260 ft) are required
and vertical clearance restrictions exist.
This paper presents the design and construction challenges
associated with the concrete-filled steel tubular tied arches of the
Columbus viaduct. The paper is organized as follows: (1) the first
section describes the main structural components in detail and sum-
marizes their unique advantages over conventional systems; (2) the
second section presents a detailed analysis of the system at different
construction phases; (3) the third section discusses design checks of

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012 / 107

J. Bridge Eng. 2012.17:107-116.

 the main components under various loading conditions, including
the finite-element model developed to analyze the tie-to-arch
connection, as well as nonlinear analysis performed for the lateral
stability of arches; (4) the fourth section demonstrates the construc-
tion sequence and challenges; and (5) the last section summarizes
the project conclusions.
Description of Tied Arch Bridge System
The main structural components of the Columbus viaduct are:
(1) arches, (2) ties, (3) hangers, (4) floor beams, and (5) a composite
deck with both ties and floor beams. The general plan, elevation, and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Ulster AT on 07/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
cross section of the system are shown in Fig. 1(a)–1(c), respectively.
For the two outside arches, each arch consists of two 457-mm-
(18-in.-) diameter by 12.7-mm- (0.5-in.-) thick concrete-filled steel
tubes. For the median arch, the arch consists of two 457-mm-
(18-in.-) diameter by 23.8-mm- (0.94-in.-) thick concrete-filled
steel tubes. Although the arches are the primary compression mem-
bers in the system, no braces are provided to connect the parallel
arches, which is highly desirable for aesthetic reasons and for pro-
viding unlimited overhead clearance. However, the two parallel
tubes of each arch are spaced at 914 mm (36 in.) on center to greatly
Fig. 1. (a) General plan of Columbus viaduct; (b) general elevation of Columbus viaduct; (c) cross section of Columbus viaduct
108 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012
J. Bridge Eng. 2012.17:107-116.
increase the moment of inertia in the lateral direction and provide
adequate space to connect the hangers. A self-consolidating con-
crete (SCC) is pumped to fill the steel tubes of all arches and ties
without a need for vibration.
The ties are concrete-filled steel boxes that are 914-mm- (3-ft-)
wide, 12.7-mm- (0.5-in.-) thick, and 610-mm- (2-ft-) deep. The
depth of these boxes is increased gradually over 4.57 m (15 ft) from
each end to be 914 mm (3 ft). Outside boxes are posttensioned with
38 fully tensioned 15.2-mm- (0.6-in.-) diameter strands, while the
median box is posttensioned with 74 fully tensioned 15.2-mm-
(0.6-in.-) diameter strands. Two posttensioning ducts are used in
each box and are grouted with nonshrink grout after final postten-
sioning is applied. The concrete in-fill makes posttensioning more
efficient by providing a larger effective area to sustain the postten-
sioning force. The compressive strength and ductility of the con-
crete core are increased by the lateral confinement provided by the
steel tube, while the local buckling of the steel tube is restrained by
the concrete in-fill.
Hangers are made of 44.5-mm- (1¾-in.-) diameter threaded rods
with minimum yield strength of 828 MPa (120 ksi). Hangers vary
in length along the arch and are used to connect the arch and tie at
3.05-m (10-ft) spacing. Floor beams are 12.17 m (39 ft 11 in.) in
length and simply supported on the ties at hanger locations. Floor

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Ulster AT on 07/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Plan and profile views of viaduct model (m)
beams are W24 × 162 rolled sections with shear studs that are
22.2 mm (7/8 in.) in diameter, 127-mm- (5-in.-) high, and spaced
at 22.9 mm (9 in.) on center to provide the full composite action
with the deck. The composite deck is 20.3-mm- (8-in.-) thick and
posttensioned longitudinally with 15.2-mm- (0.6-in.-) diameter
unbonded monostrands spaced at 305 mm (12 in.) on center. The
stay-in-place metal deck for concrete forming can be assembled
with the floor beams before erection.
The structural efficiency of this system is mainly because of
(1) significant reduction in bending moments through the use of
arches and ties, (2) the effect of confinement on the concrete capac-
ity in compression members, (3) the use of posttensioning to elimi-
nate tensile stresses in the ties, and (4) composite action with a full
width bridge deck to enhance the flexural capacity of the ties even
without diaphragms. The economic efficiency of this system is
mainly because of (1) optimal use of different materials (e.g., steel
and concrete), and (2) prefabrication of the tied arch and preassem-
bly of the metal decking, which saves significantly on construction
time and allows replacement projects to be completed with minimal
traffic disruption. Moreover, this system makes it possible to design
a superstructure that provides the required overhead clearance both
under and above the bridge and also improves the bridge aesthetics.
System Analysis
Structural analysis of the Columbus viaduct is performed using the
structural analysis software SAP2000 v.10.1.3. The viaduct is
Table 1. Properties of Composite Sections
Dimensions
Element Parameter
Median arch (schedule 80 steel pipe filled with 8 ksi SCC) Outer diameter
Spacing CL-to-CL
Thickness
Outside arch (extra heavy steel pipe filled with 8 ksi SCC) Outer diameter
Spacing CL-to-CL
Thickness
Tie (grade 50 W steel box filled with 8 ksi SCC) Depth
Width
Thickness
Haunched tie (grade 50 W steel box filled with 8 ksi SCC) Depth
Width
Thickness
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012 / 109
J. Bridge Eng. 2012.17:107-116.
modeled as a three-dimensional (3D) structure using frame ele-
ments for ties, arches, cross beams, end beams, and rails; cable el-
ements for hangers; tendon elements for posttensioning strands;
and shell elements for the concrete deck. Fig. 2 shows the plan
and profile views of the model, its different components, and
centerline dimensions. Section properties are calculated for two dif-
ferent stages of construction: (1) steel sections only; and (2) steel
sections filled with concrete. Transformed section properties of
composite sections, including area and moment of inertia, are
shown in Table 1.
In addition to the self-weight of different components, the fol-
lowing loads are considered in the analysis:
1. Posttensioning of ties and the deck is considered with jacking
stress force 1,452.4 MPa (210:6 ksi ¼ 0:78 × 270 ksi) and an
anchorage set of 6.4 mm (0.25 in.). The resulting force after
anchorage set is 182.4 kN (41 kips) per strand.
2. Vehicular live load is calculated in accordance with AASHTO
LRFD Section 3.6.1.2 (AASHTO 2007), which includes the
design truck in addition to a lane load of 9:34 kN=m
(0.64 klf) uniformly distributed over 3.05 m (10 ft) width. Mul-
tiple presence factors are used based on the number of loaded
lanes (maximum of four traffic lanes and two pedestrian lanes)
according to AASHTO LRFD Section 3.6.1.1. A dynamic load
allowance of 33% is used in accordance with AASHTO LRFD
Section 3.6.2.
3. Pedestrian live load is calculated in accordance with AASHTO
LRFD Section 3.6.1.6, which includes a uniform load of
3:59 kN=m (0.075 ksf) over pedestrian lanes with no multiple
presence factor or dynamic load allowance.
4. Fatigue load is calculated in accordance with AASHTO LRFD
Section 3.6.1.4, which includes a fatigue truck that has a 9.144-
m (30-ft) fixed distance between the two 220.7-kN (32-kips)
axles. A load factor of 1.5 (0:75 × 2) is used for infinite life
check. A dynamic load allowance of 15% is used in accor-
dance with AASHTO LRFD Section 3.6.2.
Because of the proposed construction sequence of the Columbus
viaduct, four analysis stages were performed as follows:
1. Stage I—Structure: Arches and ties (steel only) and
floor beams;
Loads: Self-weight of arches, ties, floor beams, metal deck-
ing, and filling concrete.
2. Stage II—Structure: Arches and ties (filled with concrete) and
floor beams;
Loads: Posttensioning of ties and self-weight of con-
crete deck.
Transformed section properties to steel
Value (mm) A (mm2 ) I x (mm4 ) I y (mm4 )
457.2 110,983 2:0 × 109 2:5 × 1010
914.4
23.8
457.2 86,723 1:5 × 109 2:0 × 1010
914.4
12.7
609.6 128,951 5:1 × 109 1:1 × 1010
914.4
12.7
914.4 184,113 1:5 × 1010 1:5 × 1010
914.4
12.7
 Table 2. Analysis Results for Different Load Cases
Load cases
Primary structural element Section capacity DC P DW Total DC, P, DW LL+IM Total factored Rating factor
Floor beams M (kN-m) 4,251 375 — 62 563 1,355 2,934 1.56
Hangers P (kN) 1,444 486 27 53 714 156 988 2.67
Outsidetie beams (+ve) M (kN-m) 9,836 (404) 1,017 (38) 455 3,100 5,879 1.73
P (kN) 9,786 4,122 — 369 5,706 1,233 7,864 1.89
Outsidetie beams (−ve) M (kN-m) (4,748) (404) 1,017 (38) 455 (2,249) (3,482) 1.32
P (kN) 11,565 4,122 — 369 5,706 1,233 7,864 2.72
Outside arch pipes M (kN-m) 1,221 265 53 14 404 180 718 2.60
P (kN) (11,120) (4,121) 99 (367) (5,602) (1,254) (7,797) 2.51
Median tie beams (+ve) M (kN-m) 15,601 (625) 1,997 (67) 1,115 4,750 9,427 1.74
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Ulster AT on 07/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

P (kN) 17,792 6,910 — 727 9,727 2,035 13,288 2.26

Mediantie beams (−ve) M (kN-m) (5,087) (625) 1,997 (67) 1,115 (3,413) (4,859) 1.04
P (kN) 13,789 6,910 — 727 9,727 2,035 13,288 1.14
Median arch pipes M (kN-m) 1,750 558 129 29 869 338 1,460 1.49
P (kN) (15,346) (6,921) 193 (732) (9,556) (2,099) (13,230) 1.58

3. Stage III—Structure: Arches and ties (filled with concrete),
floor beams, and 191-mm (7.5-in.) concrete deck composite
with tie beams and cross beams;
Loads: Posttensioning of deck.
4. Stage IV—Structure: Arches and ties (filled with concrete),
floor beams, and 191-mm (7.5-in.) concrete deck composite
with ties and floor beams
Loads: Railing, wearing surface, moving live load (truckþ
impact and lane load), pedestrian load, and fatigue load.
Table 2 summarizes bending moment and axial force at the criti-
cal sections under different load cases and construction stages.
Design Challenges
Arch Design
Local Buckling
For circular sections, a slenderness limit of λey equal to 125, is
proposed by Bradford et al. (2002), where section slenderness
λs is calculated as follows:
λs ¼ ðD=tÞðf y =250Þ ≤ λey ¼ 125 ð1Þ
where f y = yield strength of steel tube (MPa); D = outer diameter of
steel tube; and t = thickness of steel tube.
Within this limit, the strength of postlocal buckling can be
considered to be no less than the yield strength of steel tube.
All arch components of the Columbus viaduct satisfy this slender-
ness limit; therefore, no local buckling is considered in the design,
and the ultimate strength of steel tubes is considered equal to the
yield strength.
Confinement Effect
The effect of confinement on concrete-filled steel tubular columns is
proposed by Fujimoto et al. (2004) as follows, based on Von Mises
yield criterion—hoop tensile strength in steel tube σsθ = 0:19f y ; lon-
gitudinal compressivestrength of steel tube = 0:89f y ;and longitudinal
tensile strength of steel tube = 1:08f y . The confining pressure for cir-
cular concrete-filled steel tubes is evaluated by the hoop stress as
2σsθ t
σr ¼ ð2Þ
ðD
2tÞ
The effect of confinement on the compressive strength of the
concrete and its ultimate strain are considered according to Mander
et al. (1988a, b) and Richart et al. (1928). These studies have in-
dicated a significant increase in the compressive capacity and duc-
tility of confined concrete. For the median arch, a confining
pressure of 7.6 MPa (1.1 ksi) results in an increase of compressive
strength of concrete from 55 MPa (8.0 ksi) to 86 MPa (12.5 ksi),
and an increase of ultimate strain from 0.003 to 0.008.
Experimental Investigation
The increase in the flexural capacity of a steel tube when filled with
concrete was estimated experimentally by Deng et al. (2011). Two
identical 6,100-mm- (20-ft-) long, 273-mm- (10.75-in.-) diameter
steel tubes, one filled with concrete, were simply supported with a
clear span of 5,510 mm (18.1 ft) and tested with point load at the
midspan. The hollow specimen sustained an ultimate load of
177 kN (39.79 kips) with a permanent deflection of 272 mm
(10.71 in.). Local buckling at the midspan on the compression side
of the tube was noticeable. The concrete-filled specimen sustained
246 kN (55.31 kips) with a permanent deflection of 419 mm
(16.50 in.). It was noted that local buckling wave formation in
the steel tube was significantly restrained by the concrete in-fill.
By comparing load and deflection values of the two specimens,
it can be concluded that filling a steel tube with concrete increased
its flexural capacity and ductility approximately 39% and 54% re-
spectively, as shown in Fig. 3. The predicted flexural capacity using
the theoretical sectional analysis, 288 kN-m (212.4 kip-ft), com-
pares well with that of the experimental result, 339 kN-m
(250.1 kip-ft) (Deng et al. 2011).
Design Checks
Theoretical sectional analysis is then performed to develop the in-
teraction diagrams for strength design checks at the critical sections
in the arch. According to the structural analysis of the system, the
median arch is more critical than the outside arch and is taken as an
example. For the median arch, Fig. 4(b) shows its cross section and
Fig. 4(a) shows the nominal strength and factored strength of P-M
(axial force-moment) interaction diagram with and without effect of
confinement.
Tie Design
Local Buckling and Confinement Effect
For rectangular sections, a slenderness limit for local buckling is pro-
posed by Uy (1998) as the width-to-thickness ratio (b/t) = 80 and the

110 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012

J. Bridge Eng. 2012.17:107-116.

 300
Hollow Pipe Experimental Investigation
Concrete Filled Pipe Because of the uniqueness of the tie design, an experimental inves-
250 tigation was carried out in an earlier study (Tadros and Girgis 2006)
to estimate the flexural capacity of the posttensioned concrete-filled
200 steel tube. The 12.19-m- (40-ft-) long steel tube has a section of
0:61 m × 0:61 m (2 ft × 2 ft) and consists of four welded plates
Load (kN)

that are 12.7-mm- (0.5-in.-) thick. The top plate of the tube was
150
left off to facilitate the installation of the posttensioning hardware.
End plates had two holes that were 165 mm (6.5 in.) in diameter to
100 fit posttensioning anchorages. Posttensioning hardware, which in-
cludes wedge plates, wedges, anchorage plates, duct couplers,
50 ducts, and grouting accessories, were installed and properly fas-
tened in the steel tube. The 102-mm- (4-in.-) diameter ducts were
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Ulster AT on 07/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

installed so that the center of the ducts is 102 mm (4 in.) from the
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 bottom of the tube. Duct chairs were used to maintain a 51-mm
Deflection (mm) (2-in.) concrete cover below the duct, and bars were placed directly
on top of the ducts at 915-mm (3-ft) spacing to prevent the upward
Fig. 3. Load-deflection relationships of arch specimen and steel pipe movement of the ducts by buoyant forces when concrete is poured.
under bending The top plate was then welded to close the steel box. The top plate
has two 102-mm- (4-in.-) diameter holes at each end for concrete
pumping and 12 25.4-mm- (1-ft-) diameter holes spaced at 915 mm
for venting and quality assurance.
A self-consolidating concrete with a 762-mm (30-in.) spread
and a specified 28-day strength of 48.3 MPa (7,000 psi) was
pumped into the steel tube. Only 20 15.2-mm- (0.6-in.-) diameter
strands (10 per duct) were used and posttensioned at 1,396.6 MPa
(202.5 ksi) (0:75f pu ) using monostrand jack after the filling con-
crete strength has reached 27.6 MPa (4,000 psi). After all strands
were tensioned, lift-off tests were performed to determine the true
level of prestressing after initial losses. This was found to be aver-
aged at 1,175.9 MPa (170.5 ksi), which indicates 16% initial losses.
Following posttensioning, the two ducts were grouted using a very
simple grout consisting of Type I cement and water (w=c ¼ 0:44).
Toggle bolts and washers were used to block the nine additional
holes in the anchor plate (only 10 strands in a 19-strand plate)
and 50.8-mm- (2-in.-) diameter tube fitting were used to block
the grout access holes.
The specimen was tested in four point flexure using two
hydraulic jacks spaced 3.658 m (12 ft) from each other. The
span of the specimen from centerline to centerline was 11.963 m
(39.25 ft), and the loading points were located at 4.153 m (13.6 ft)
from each support, as shown in Fig. 5. The ultimate moment capac-
ity was 4,111 kN-m (3,032 kip-ft), and the ultimate deflection at the
midspan was 114 mm (4.49 in.), as shown in Fig. 6. This capacity is
very close to the value predicted using theoretical sectional analysis
(4,039 kN-m, 2,979 kip-ft).

Fig. 4. Median-arch: (a) the P-M interaction diagram; (b) cross
section (m)
plasticity limit for postlocal buckling to provide full yielding as
b/t = 60. For the Columbus viaduct ties, most of the plates are
not subjected to compression; the tie acts as the primary tension
member of the arch. Because of bending effects, some plates will
be subjected to compression stresses; however, the unsupported
width-to-thickness ratio of these plates <60. Accordingly, the maxi-
mum strength of steel in design equals the yield strength.
As indicated by Fujimoto et al. (2004), the confinement effect of
rectangular concrete-filled steel tubes is much less efficient than
that of circular ones. Therefore, confinement effects are conserva-
tively neglected in theoretical sectional analysis for estimating the
capacity of ties.
Design Checks
Theoretical sectional analysis was then performed to develop the
interaction diagrams for four tie sections, i.e., midsection of the
outside tie, end-section of the outside tie, midsection of the median
tie, and end-section of the median tie. For each section, diagrams
were developed for two construction stages, i.e., noncomposite tie
for construction stage II and composite tie for construction stage
III. Based on the results of an earlier experimental investigation
(Tadros and Girgis 2006), the effective deck width for composite
sections was taken as the distance between the centerlines of the
deck panels between ties, i.e., half-width of the deck for the outside
tie and full width of the deck for the median tie. Fig. 7(a) shows the
cross section of the composite median tie, and Fig. 7(b) demon-
strates the interaction diagram of the composite median tie with
74 strands and the demand at critical sections. The design checks
indicate that it is adequate to use 38 strands for the outside tie and
74 strands for the median tie.

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012 / 111

J. Bridge Eng. 2012.17:107-116.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Ulster AT on 07/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Tie specimen under bending (Image by G. Morcous)

2500

2000

1500
Load (kN)

1000

Fig. 7. Midsection of composite median tie: (a) cross section for com-
500
posite tie (m); (b) interaction diagram and the demand of critical section
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Deflection (mm)

Fig. 6. Load-deflection relationship of tie specimen

Arch-Tie Connection
The arch-tie connection of the median arch is considered the most
critical connection based on the analysis results presented earlier.
Thus, a detailed finite-element (FE) model of this connection was
developed using structural analysis program ANSYS v.11.0 to de-
termine the principle stresses at the weld locations. The loads ap-
plied to this connection were obtained from the 3D SAP model and
factored according to the 2007 AASHTO LRFD (AASHTO 2007).
These loads include dead load, posttensioning force, superimposed
dead load, and live loads. Fig. 8 shows the principle stresses at the
connection and welding locations. Based on the presented stress Fig. 8. FE model for arch-tie connection
contours, it was concluded that the average principle stresses be-
cause of factored loads at the weld location are less than 138 MPa
(20 ksi). About 75% of these stresses is a result of dead load and Lateral Stability
prestressing force, while only 25% results from transient loads.
Because fatigue load is only one truck without lane load and with Lateral stability analysis was performed to confirm the stability of
a 15% impact factor, the fatigue limit state was found to be uncriti- the three arches of the Columbus viaduct in the transverse direction
cal. Higher stress values up to 276 MPa (40 ksi) occur at very few when subjected to wind loads. Nonlinear static analysis (because
locations (i.e., the intersection of the tube and box) because of of geometric nonlinearity) was applied to the 3D SAP model to
stress concentrations. However, these stresses are still below the account for P-delta effects on the arch elements. Wind load was
ultimate strength of the steel section and the weld used, i.e., F y ¼ calculated according to AASHTO LRFD Section 3.8.1.2
317 MPa (46 ksi). (AASHTO 2007), which is 2:39 kN=m2 (0.50 ksf) in the windward

112 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012

J. Bridge Eng. 2012.17:107-116.

 800

700 Median Arch

Outside Arch
600
Lateral Deflection (mm)

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Ulster AT on 07/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Dead Load Multiplier

Fig. 9. Lateral deflections calculated using nonlinear analysis with

P-delta effects

direction, and 1:20 kN=m2 (0.25 ksf) in the leeward direction on

the arch components. The calculated values should not be less than
4:38 kN=m (0.30 klf) in the plane of the windward tie, and
2:19 kN=m (0.15 klf) in the plane of the leeward tie. To check
the lateral stability of the Columbus viaduct arches, wind load is
Fig. 10. Lateral deflections because of wind load þ 4 × dead load
applied while increasing the dead load gradually until lateral insta-
bility (i.e., buckling) occurs. P-delta effects resulting from the com-
pressive force in the arches will increase as the dead load increases.
These effects are calculated in several iterations until the solution the construction of the foundation and substructure (piers and abut-
converges. Fig. 9 shows the increase of the lateral deflection of the ments) of the new bridge as well as half of its superstructure. The
median and outside arches when the dead load multiplier ranges remaining portion of the old bridge deck was used as a platform for
from zero to four. In all these cases, the arches remain stable as the assembly and erection of two arches of the new bridge. This
the solution converges. When a dead load multiplier of five was allowed a speedy construction with minimal interruption to railroad
used, lateral instability occurred, and a converging solution could traffic. Second, after completing one half of the new bridge, the
not be reached. A dead load multiplier of four confirms that the remaining substructure and superstructure of the old bridge was
structure is stable under the static design wind load with a factor demolished, and the new deck was used as a platform for construct-
of safety of four. Fig. 10 shows the deformed shape of the structure ing the other half. Because of the weight of the tied arch and the
when wind load is applied in conjunction with four times the capacity of available cranes, it was decided that each arch would be
dead load. partially assembled, installed, then completed in place by installing
the remaining portions of the arch tubes and hangers. Two cranes
In-Plane Buckling of Arches
were used to stabilize the arch from two points close to the ends,
The effects of in-plane buckling of arches, especially shallow ones, while a third crane was used to install the remaining pottions of the
have been extensively investigated. Pi and Trahair (1999) pro- arch, as shown in Fig. 11. Once the arch was completed, hangers
posed methods for designing steel arches against in-plane failure.
Bradford et al. (2006a) presented a nonlinear theory to investigate
the elastic in-plane buckling of shallow tied circular arches under
uniformly distributed radial loading. Bradford et al. (2006b) gave
the analytical formulations for the in-plane nonlinear behavior of
shallow concrete-filled steel tubular arches subjected to uniformly
distributed loading.
The arches of the Columbus viaduct are considered shallow—
the rise to span ratio is 0.154. The in-plane buckling has been in-
vestigated by the 3D SAP model and nonlinear analysis performed
earlier to evaluate the lateral stability of arches. The analysis data
indicate that in-plane buckling is not a concern even when four
times the dead load is applied. This is owing to the stiffness of
the concrete-filled steel tubes and the short spacing between
hangers.

Construction Challenges

The construction of the Columbus viaduct was carried out in two

Fig. 11. Installation of arch (Image by G. Morcous)
major stages. First, part of the old bridge was demolished to allow

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012 / 113

J. Bridge Eng. 2012.17:107-116.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Ulster AT on 07/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 12. Installation of hangers and bracing (Image by G. Morcous)

Fig. 15. Posttensioning tie beams (Image by G. Morcous)

Fig. 13. Installation of floor beams (Image by G. Morcous)

Fig. 16. Installation of metal decking and deck slab reinforcement
(Image by G. Morcous)

Fig. 14. Pumping concrete into ties and arches (Image by

G. Morcous) Fig. 17. Pouring concrete of deck (Image by G. Morcous)

114 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012

J. Bridge Eng. 2012.17:107-116.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Ulster AT on 07/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 18. Posttensioning deck slab (Image by G. Morcous)
Fig. 19. Columbus viaduct (Image by G. Morcous)
were installed, and the arch was temporarily braced on two sides by
cables anchored to the ground and/or the old bridge, as shown in
Fig. 12. After completing two arches, floor beams were then in-
stalled, as shown in Fig. 13, to brace the two arches and eliminate
some of the bracing cables. Self-consolidating concrete was
pumped through predrilled holes in the bottom of arch tubes
and at the ends of tie beams, as shown in Fig. 14. Air vents at
the top of the arch tubes and middle of tie beams were used to en-
sure that steel tubes were completely filled with concrete. Postten-
sioning was then applied to tie beams after the filling concrete
gained adequate strength, as shown in Fig. 15. Stay-in-place metal
decking and deck reinforcement were installed, as shown in Fig. 16,
before deck concrete was poured and finished, as shown
in Fig. 17. After the deck concrete gained the required strength,
monostrand posttensioning was applied, as shown in Fig. 18,
and the deck was used as a platform for constructing the other half.
Fig. 19 shows a photo of the completed bridge.
Summary and Conclusions
The tied arch system provides a unique solution to the several chal-
lenges associated with the construction of railroad overpasses, such
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012 / 115
J. Bridge Eng. 2012.17:107-116.
as restricted vertical clearance, inadequate space for intermediate
piers, and very limited traffic control during construction. The sys-
tem was first applied to the construction of the Ravenna viaduct to
provide a structural depth of 0.81 m (32 in.) while crossing a span
of 53 m (174 ft) without any intermediate piers. Additionally, most
of the assembly and construction was done before the bridge was
over the railroad, which kept worker time over the railroad and rail
traffic disruption to a minimum.
In this paper, the analysis, design, and construction of the
Columbus viaduct using the tied arch system was introduced.
Three-dimensional models were developed for the structural analy-
sis of the viaduct at different construction stages. The models con-
sist of frame elements (i.e., tie, arch, cross beams, and end beams),
cable elements (i.e., hangers), and shell elements (i.e., deck).
Design loads were calculated according to the 2007 AASHTO
LRFD specifications (AASHTO 2007). Experimental investiga-
tions were performed on arch and tie specimens to validate their
capacities predicted by theoretical sectional analysis using the
theory of confinement and strain compatibility. A finite-element
model was also developed to check the stresses at the arch-to-tie
connection of the median arch. P-delta analysis was performed
to check lateral stability and in-plane buckling of the outside
and median arches. Finally, the construction sequence and chal-
lenges were presented.
Based on the experience gained from the design and construc-
tion of the Ravenna and Columbus viaducts, the following conclu-
sions can be drawn:
• The concrete-filled steel tubular tied arch system can be success-
fully used for spans up to 79 m (260 ft).
• Confinement has a significant effect on the capacity of concrete-
filled steel tubular arches (circular tubes) and should be consid-
ered in the design of these arches. However, the confinement
effect on the capacity of concrete-filled steel tubular ties (rec-
tangular tubes) is insignificant and can be neglected in design-
ing those ties.
• The flexural capacity of concrete-filled steel tubular arches and
tie beams can be accurately predicted using theoretical sectional
analysis that accounts for confinement and strain compatibility.
• The lateral stability of a concrete-filled steel tubular tied arch
bridge system is adequate without any lateral bracing. Nonlinear
analysis has confirmed that the structure is stable against in-
plane and out-of-plane buckling under the static design wind
load plus four times the dead load.
• Construction of the concrete-filled steel tubular bridge system
can be carried out with minimal interruption to the crossing
traffic and with no need for specialized construction equipment.
Acknowledgments
This project was sponsored by the Nebraska Department of Roads
(NDOR) and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. The support of
the technical advisory committee (TAC) members is gratefully ac-
knowledged. The design team at the NDOR Bridge Division is also
acknowledged; they spent considerable time and effort in coordi-
nating this project, discussing its technical direction, and inspiring
the university researchers. Acknowledgement also goes to the un-
dergraduate and graduate students who participated in the different
tasks of the project.
References
AASHTO (2007). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 4th Ed.,
Washington, DC.
 Bradford, M. A., Loh, H. Y., and Uy, B. (2002). “Slenderness limits
for filled circular steel tubes.” J. Constr. Steel Res., 58(2),
243–252.
Bradford, M. A., Pi, Y. L., and Gilbert, R. I. (2006a). “Nonlinear in-plane
behavior and buckling of concrete-filled steel tubular arches.” Proc.,
Tubular Structures XI: 11th Int. Symp. and IIW Int. Conf. on Tubular
Structures, J. A. Packer, and S. Willibald, eds., Taylor & Francis,
London, 353–358.
Bradford, M. A., Zhang, Y. X., Gilbert, R. I., and Wang, T. (2006b).
“In-plane nonlinear analysis and buckling of tied circular arches.”
Adv. Struct. Eng., 9(3), 311–319.
Deng, Y., Tuan, C. Y., Zhou, Q., and Xiao, Y. (2011). “Flexural strength
analysis of non-post-tensioned and post-tensioned concrete-filled
circular steel tubes.” J. Constr. Steel Res., 67(2), 192–202.
Fujimoto, T., Mukai, A., Nishiyama, I., and Sakino, K. (2004). “Behavior
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Ulster AT on 07/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
of eccentrically loaded concrete-filled steel tubular columns.” J. Struct.
Eng., 130(2), 203–212.
116 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012
J. Bridge Eng. 2012.17:107-116.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. (1988a). “Theoretical stress-
strain model for confined concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 114(8), 1804–1826.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. (1988b). “Observed
stress-strain behavior of confined concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 114(8),
1827–1849.
Morcous, G., Hanna, K. E., and Tadros, M. K. (2009). “Columbus Viaduct
system.” Tech. Rep. P303, Nebraska Dept. of Roads, Lincoln, NE.
Pi, Y. L., and Trahair, N. S. (1999). “In-plane buckling and design of steel
arches.” J. Struct. Eng., 125(11), 1291–1298.
Richart, F. E., Brandtzaeg, A., and Brown, R. L. (1928). “Study of the
failure of concrete under combined compressive stresses.” Bulletin
No. 185, Engineering Experiment Station, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana,
IL.
Tadros, M. K., Girgis, A. F. M. (2006). “Concrete filled steel tube arch.”
Tech. Rep. SPR-1(03) 560, Nebraska Dept. of Roads, Lincoln, NE.
Uy, B. (1998). “Local and post-local buckling of concrete filled steel
welded box columns.” J. Constr. Steel Res., 47(1–2), 47–72.