Precast Segmental Box Girder Bridges With External Prestressing

Prof. Dr.-Ing. G.
Rombach
Technical University of Hamburg-Harburg
Segmental Bridges
Page: 1
INSA Rennes, Feb. 2002
Precast segmental box girder bridges with external prestressing

- design and construction Prof. Dr.-Ing. G. Rombach
Technical University, Hamburg-Harburg, Germany
Summary
Segmental box girder bridges externally post-tensioned are one of the major new developments in bridge
engineering in the last years. In contrast to classical monolithic constructions a segmental bridge consists of
small precast elements stressed together by external tendons (fig. 1). The many advantages of this type of
structure like fast and versatile construction, no disruption at ground level, high controlled quality and cost
savings have made them the preferred solution for many long elevated highways, especially in South East
Asia (see [1], [2]), and bridges. Design and construction of precast segmental hollow box girder bridges will
be mentioned in this paper.
Introduction
The greatest segmental bridges had been build in South East Asia resp. Bangkok. This region of the world
suffers under a big lack of sufficient infrastructure e.g. roads. In the big cities like e.g. Bangkok the traffic
nearly collapsed. There is a great need to change this bad situation rapidly. A Master Plan had been
developed for the Bangkok region which lead to many big train and highway projects (table 1).
Table 1 Projects in Bangkok
Name of
Project
System
Total length
Constr. Cost
Bill. EUR
Hopewell
(SRT-CT,
BERTS
7 train tracks + 4-lane

elevated highway
Segmental Constr.
4-lane elevated
highway
6-lane elevated
highway
I-beams
60 km
2,4
13 km
0,08
18,7 km
0,32
6-lane elevated
highway
Segmental Constr.
39 km
0,85
Bang Na
Expressway
6-lane elevated
highway
Segmental Constr.
54 km +
0,7
Sector C+
4-lane elevated
highway
Segmental Constr.
appr. 30 km
0,4
SST
Ramindra
Atrnarong
Expressway
Second
Stage
Expressway
System
Fig. 1
Segmental bridge under

construction
Table 2 Restraints
Conditions
no space at grade
traffic jams
flooding
bad soil condition
short construction time
transportation problems
cost
flexible system
Solution
==> elevated highway
==> precast system
==> segmental hollow box girder
Table 3 Second Stage Expressway System Part I, Sector B

INSA-segmart
19.02.2002
Prof. Dr.-Ing. G. Rombach

Segmental Bridges
total length of bridge:
2 x 10 km
total area of bridge deck:
370 000 m
number of spans:
806 (716 segmental ; 90 I beams)
number of segments:
appr. 9000
number of bored piles:
2360
number of driven piles:
10400
number of ramps:
41
at grade roads:
6000 m
office buildings:
length of electric cables:
appr. 54 km
construction time:
29 months
total cost:
appr. 325 Mio EUR
Page: 2
2 Structural elements of segmental bridges

Segmental bridges are mainly built as single span structures to avoid coupling of post tensioning cables.
Furthermore in single spans the greatest shear force is not located in the same section as the greatest
bending moment. Though the joint between the segment is always closed. A typical span is shown in fig. 2.
45,25m
7,0-15,60m
3,40m
2,40m
Figure 2 Standard span

A standard span has a length of appr. 45m. It consists of 14 segments. Dry joints are used in this project (no
epoxy glue). No continuous reinforcement is provided across the match cast joints between the segments.
Due to the external post tensioning (fig. 3) 3 different segments are needed (fig. 4):
Pier segment:
Deviator segment:
Standard segment:
INSA-segmart
heavy end diaphgram required to stiffen the box

section and for anchorage of p.t. cables
required to deviate tendons
thin webs (35cm)
19.02.2002

Segmental Bridges
Page: 3
172.5
50
1022.5
No. 3
No. 1,2
No. 4
No. 5
No. 6
1020
1360
1022.5
No. 8
No. 7
4525cm
(12 segments 340cm + 2 segments 172.5cm )
top view
No.3
No. 4
No. 5
No. 2
No. 1
No. 6
No. 7
No. 8
symmetry line
Figure 3 Tendon layout
INSA-segmart
19.02.2002

Segmental Bridges
Page: 4
D3 : 1090 - 1560cm
D2 : 700-1190cm
Pier Segment
Nr. 1
Nr. 2
Nr. 3
240
Nr. 4
Nr. 5
30
80
130
180
Nr. 6
Deviator Segment
Nr. 1
Nr. 5
Nr. 4
Nr. 6
Standard Segment
20
40
20
Detail B
35
Detail A
<150
2
3
7
8
52
Nr.
Nr.
Nr.
Nr.
35
28.5
28.5
34
40
72.5
100
Nr. 2
Nr. 8
Nr. 7
Nr. 3
variable
75
D2 : 18
D3 : 20
D2 : 370cm
D3 : 550cm
Shear Keys
Figure 4 Type of segments
INSA-segmart
19.02.2002

Segmental Bridges
Page: 5
Figure 5 Substructure
3 Construction
3.1 Making of precast segments:
No free space between the segments is allowed. Therefore the segments are poured in line.
Two different methods are used to make the segments:
- Long line match casting method
- Short line match casting method
The short line match method is more flexible and needs less construction space.
Figure 6: Short line match casting

3.2 Assembling of Segments
INSA-segmart
19.02.2002

Segmental Bridges
Page: 6
standard scafforlding
free cantilever
overslung truss
underslung truss
Figure 7: Assembling of segments

88,10
10,0
49,45
28,65
Laufkatze
Hilfsgleitstuhl
Hinterer
Sttzrahmen
Hintere
Horizontalabsttzung
48,65
Hauptgleitstuhl
Hilfssttze
Hintere Absttzung
Figure 8: Overslung Truss
INSA-segmart
19.02.2002

Segmental Bridges
Page: 7
4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Segmental Bridges

Table 4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Segmental Bridges
Disadvantages
Advantages
safety (e.g. in case of fire)

extra cost (more prestressing required, single spans, truss)
high construction loading (overslung truss)
new construction method technology
(e.g. geometry control of segments, design)
short construction time
(segments are prefabricated while the substructure is being built)
no interruption of traffic
precast mass production
- cost efficient
- good, controlled quality
- shapes
weather independent construction (dry joints)
small light segments
hollow box section
reduced dead load
cost (reduced reinforcement)
recycling
Table 5: Advantages and disadvantages of external prestressing

Disadvantages
Advantages
INSA-segmart
additional mild reinforcement required (Dsp)

additional Cost for ducts, anchorage, etc.
only straight tendon layout
diffusion of post-tensioning forces
replacement of tendons possible
inspection of tendons possible
easier Installation of longitudinal tendons
good corrosion protection of p.t. cables
less dead load (thin webs)
pouring is facilitated (no p.t. ducts)
less friction (no wobble losses)
prestress forces can be modified after construction (spare ducts)
greater permissible p.t. stresses
19.02.2002

Segmental Bridges
Page: 8
5 Design
5.1 Longitudinal Design
General Requirements
The design of a segmental bridge has to be done for the serviceability and the ultimate limit state with the
following distinctions to monolithic structures:
Serviceability Limit State
- Full prestressing min. compressive stress 1 MPa
- Shear transfer in the joints
Ultimate Limit State
- Opening of the joints has to be considered
- Load transfer in the joints
Under service condition the concrete compression in the dry joints has to be greater than 1,0 1,4 MPa.
Therefore the whole structure is under compression during normal loading. As there is no tension within the
concrete, forces and moments can be calculated based on a linear elastic behaviour of the structure. In
addition to monolithic bridges, all joints have to be designed for shear loads (ULS). The shear force is carried
by shear keys and by friction between the joint surfaces.
Under ultimate loads the joints between the segments will open. The resulting decrease of the structural
stiffness has to be considered in the design. This can be done by analytical (moment-curvature relationship)
or numerical methods (finite element methods).
Critical sections
midth of span
first joint after support
diaphragms
deviators
greatest bending moment

greatest shear force but prestress force not uniformly distributed in
cross-section
high concentrated loads due to anchorage of tendons
high concentrated loads due to tendons.
Numerical investigations
The load deformation characteristic of a segmental construction is different from a monolithic one due to
the dry unreinforced joints between the precast elements. Examinations of the behaviour of a segmental
bridge and the forces in the joints finite element calculations had been conducted taking into account the nonlinear behaviour due to the opening of the dry joints under tension. In contrast to known numerical
investigations, the fine indentation of the joints had been modelled which is of great importance regarding
torsion effects (fig. 9).
Figure 9 Finite element mesh of a segment

A real existing single span segmental bridge with external post-tensioning, a standard span of the elevated
highway Second Stage Expressway System in Bangkok [2] had been modelled (fig 2, 3, 9). This structure is
used as data from a full-scale test [5] is available to verify the results of the complex numerical simulations.
The opening of the dry joints is modelled by interface elements.
INSA-segmart
19.02.2002

Segmental Bridges
Page: 9
tendons
Figure 10: Finite element model of standard span
Figure 11: Finite element model stresses and open joints

Fig. 12 shows the calculated moment-deflection curve which is typical for a single span segmental bridge with
dry joints. At the beginning of loading the whole structure is under compression due to the high post-tension
normal forces. Thus the structure behave like a monolithic one. The deflection increases linear with the load.
At a midspan moment of M 37 MNm due to live load the first joint near midspan starts to open rapidly
resulting in a great decrease of stiffness. The lever arm of the inner forces keeps nearly constant. Thus the
moment deflection curve is again nearly linear. The structure fails due to crushing of the concrete in the top
slab. Nevertheless a ductile behaviour of the segmental bridge can be seen.
deflection in midspan due to live loads [m]
0,40
q
g
h
0,30
point
0,20
Finite Element
experiment
opening of the joint
up to 1/
3h
0,10
20
38 40
2/ h
3
46,9
Stresses in mid-span before failure

60
bending moment in midspan due to live load [MNm]
Figure 12 Comparison between full-scale test and numerical results

Only 3 of 13 joints are open under failure load. Thus a great part of the bridge keeps under full compression.
Further shown in figure 12 are the results from a full-scale test carried out in Bangkok. A good agreement
between the numerical results and the test data can be seen. This demonstrates that the finite element model
is capable to model the real behaviour of a segmental bridge.
INSA-segmart
19.02.2002

Segmental Bridges
Page: 10
Several load combinations corresponding to bending, shear and torsion are examined to determine the
stresses resp. the forces in the joint [6]. In a single span bridge the joints near the support are always closed
due to the small bending moment. As the behaviour of an open joint is of main interest also a single span
bridge restraint on one side with a modified tendon profile has been modelled.
Fig 13 shows the resulting shear forces in the first joint close to the support in the webs and the slabs due to
torsion with increasing load. The results from three different numerical models are presented. The first one is
a monolithic girder which behaves always linear. Further the shear forces for a segmental bridge with smooth
and keyed joints are shown.
There are no differences between the models as long as all joints are closed. When the joint starts to open,
the force in the top slab (tensile region) degreases. A great difference in the behaviour of a bridge with plain
and keyed joints can be noticed. Smooth joints can only transfer forces when they are under compression
whereas keyed joints can still transfer forces until a certain gap is reached. Even bigger differences can be
seen in the webs. The plain joint reach the limit condition lim Fz = 0,7sn just after the joint opens whereas the
force in the keyed joint still increases.
The results emphazise that the shear keys have a significant influence on the behavior of a segmental bridge
under torsion loads. Calculations with plain joints are insufficient when torsion effects become significant.
q DA
Horizontal force Fy [MN]
3,0
g+q
joint no. 1
q
g
y
2,0
top slab
1,0
bottom slab
0
-1,0
Segmental bridge
with shear keys
monolithic girder
Segmental bridge with plain joint
-2,0
-3,0
10
15
20
26
30
-1,0
Horizontal force Fz [MN]
Horizontal force Fz [MN]
-1,0
right web
-2,0
-3,0
lim F =
z 0,7s
n
-4,0
-5,0
10
15
20
26
30
35
10
15
-3,0
lim F
-4,0
-5,0
-6,0
20
26
30
35
39
left web
-2,0
-7,0
0
39
joint opening
up to 2/3 h
joint opening
up to 1/3 h
35
= 0,7s
Segmental bridge
with shear keys
monolithic girder
Segmental bridge with plain joint
39
Figure 13 Forces in the webs an the slabs due to torsion
Figure 14
INSA-segmart
Joint opening due to positive resp. negative bending moments

19.02.2002

Segmental Bridges
Page: 11
a
f
x
l/ 2
zp -
2.f. a
Dl= 4.f . zp-x- 2 2
l
l -4f
Figure 15 Analytical model

5.2 Design of segmental joints
There is a great uncertainty regarding the design of the joints between the segments (see fig. 18). This is
surprising as the behaviour of the joint is of critical importance for the safety of a segmental structure.
The shear capacity of a keyed joint is a combination of the friction between the plain surfaces and the shear
capacity of the keys. The latter one is neglected in the German regulations.
5.2.1 Existing design models
The joints of many segmental bridges had been designed according to the AASHTO Recommendations [4].
Equation 1 is mainly based on tests with small specimens having usually one shear key only [7] similar to that
shown in figure 16 [8].
V j = Akey 6, 792 10-3 fck (12 + 2, 466 s n ) + 0,6 Asm s n
(1)
[m, MN, MPa ]

where:
sn
Asm
fck
Akey
average compressive stress across the joint

area of contact between smooth surfaces in the
failure plane
characteristic concrete compressive strength
min. area of the base of all keys in the failure plane
Ak
A sm
A sm
Ak
According to the German recommendations for design of segmental bridges [3] only the frictional forces
should be considered in the design. The load bearing of the shear keys is neglected as only epoxy joints can
be used. Please note the difference between eq. (1) and (2) regarding the frictional area Asm resp. AT.
V j = m s n AT
L L
3 L+H
(2)
b(z)
where: AT effective shear area
zi
AT
L/2
The results of both models will be discussed together with the proposed design concept in section 5.2.3.
5.2.2 Tests and numerical verification

To develop a design concept for the joints tests with specimens, similar to that described in [7] having one or
multiple shear keys (fig. 16) were conducted to calibrate the finite element model. The study includes dry and
glued joints. The dimensions of the shear keys are representative for segmental bridges. The non-linear
material behaviour of the concrete like e.g. crushing and cracking and the interaction between the indented
surfaces (bond, slippage, friction) has been considered in the numerical model.
INSA-segmart
19.02.2002
Segmental Bridges
Page: 12
80 20 50
100
150

115
35
[mm]
150
Figure 16 Test specimen

The test specimens are first stressed normal to the joint and than loaded with a vertical force up to failure.
Fig. 17 shows the experimental and calculated load-deformation curve. The behaviour of the joint and the
ultimate load are well predicted. The highly complex concrete behaviour near the failure load has not been
modelled as this region is not relevant for the load bearing capacity of a joint.
250
250
dry joint
200
shear force in kN
shear force in kN
glued joint
205,5 kN
198,5 kN
200
150
100
150
100
50
50
experiment
Finite Element calc.
0,0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
vertical deflections at top of the specimen in mm
Figure 17
experiment
Finite Element calc.
0,0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
vertical deflections at top of the specimen in mm
Test results versus numerical results for a dry and epoxy joint
5.2.3 New design model

After the verification of the finite element model, a numerical parametric study had been conducted with
various number and shapes of shear keys, concrete qualities etc. [6]. The results lead to a design model that
differs from the existing concepts. The shear capacity of a keyed dry joint Vd,j is a combination of a frictional
and a shear part. For the first one the total area of the joint Ajoint is used and not only the smooth parts (ASm)
like in AASHTO recommendations. The load bearing capacity of the keys depends on the concrete tensile
resp. compressive strength and the area of the failure plane Akey.
Akey = min S hne.b n
(3)
right
minimal
failure
surface
hne,2
h ne,1
INSA-segmart
bn
h ne,3
h ne,3
h ne,2
hne
bn
coefficient of friction
safety coefficient
average compressive stress across the joint
area of the compression zone
characteristic concrete compressive strength
width of the web
factor for the indentation of the joint
min. area of the base of all keys in the failure
plane
height of keys, with hne 6bn
width of the keys
b
bn
hne,4
m = 0,65
gF = 2,0
sn
Ajoint
fck
b
f = 0,14
Akey
A joint = h.b
where:
left
min Shne = Sh ne,1-3 < Sh ne,1-4

hne,1
for dry joints: V = 1 ( m s A + f f A )

d, j
n
jo int
ck
key
gF
19.02.2002

Segmental Bridges
Page: 13
The failure plane Akey will have the least area of key breakage. A relatively high safety coefficient of gF = 2,0
should be used as the failure of the joint is brittle.
For glued joints only the frictional part can be used (eq. 4). Experiments showed a relatively small increase in
strength of appr. 20% between a glued and a dry joint. Furthermore a sufficient quality of the glue can not be
guaranteed on site.
for glued joints:
Vd , j =
1
m s n Ajo int
gF
(4)
To compare the results of both models, the shear stress t = Vd,j / Ajoint is calculated for a standard segment of
the segmental bridge in Bangkok [2]. The relevant joints are fully closed. The concrete compressive strength
is fck = 40 MPa.
Fig. 18 shows the load bearing capacity of a keyed joint according to various design models. The great
differences between AASHTO and the German regulations can be seen. The first model can not be used for
high compressive stresses, which may occur near the ultimate design load of a multispan segmental bridge.
Furthermore it seems to overestimate the load bearing capacity of a joint.
510cm
AA
SH
TO
Shear Stress [MPa]
15
10
5
an
erm
n
co
gn
i
s
de
w
Ne
on
ati
c
i
f
ci
spe
Detail A
35
t
cep
50
200
75
240 cm
22.5
20
185cm
Shear Keys
fck = 40 MPa
10
15
20
25
30
35
Compressive Stress [MPa]
AASHTO [4]:
t = 4,17 + 1, 06 s n
DBV [3]:
t = 0,7 s n
[MPa]
Figure 18 Comparison between different design models (standard segment [2])
INSA-segmart
19.02.2002

Segmental Bridges
Page: 14
5.3 Types of joints

Reinforcement
Beton
Mortar
Reinforcement
Tendon
Spannkanal
s = 20-60cm
Reinforcement
s = 7-12cm
Epoxy or
Cement Mortar
Reinforcement
Cement Mortar
Tendon
tendon
s = 2-5cm
s <3mm
dry joint
Reinforcement
Tendon
s=0
Figure 19 Types of Joints
45
20
260
25/35
20
2720 cm
20
729cm
520.5cm
475cm
Figure 18 Bang Na Bang Pli Bang Pakong Expressway
INSA-segmart
19.02.2002

Segmental Bridges
Page: 15
REFERENCES
[1]
Brockmann, Ch., Shafer, G.: Design and Construction of the Bang Na-Bang Pli-Bang Pakong
Expressway. in: Stoelhorst, D. et al: Challenges for Concrete in the Next Millenium, Vol. 1,
pp. 275-280, Rotterdam 1998
[2]
Rombach, G.: Bangkok Expressway - Segmentbrckenbau contra Verkehrschaos, aus: Aus

dem Massivbau und seinem Umfeld (Hilsdorf, Kobler ed.), Schriftenreihe des Institutes fr
Massivbau und Baustofftechnologie, University of Karlsruhe 1995, pp. 645-656
[3]
Deutscher Beton-Verein: Empfehlungen fr Segmentfertigteilbrcken mit externen Spanngliedern,

1999
[4]
AASHTO 89 (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials): Guide

Specifications for Design and Construction of Segmental Concrete Bridges, 1989, Interim
Specifications 1990 1999
[5]
Takebayashi, T., Deeprasertwong, K., Leung, Y.: A Full-Scale Destructive Test of a Precast
Segmental Box Girder Bridge with Dry Joints and External Tendons, Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers, August 1994, pp. 297-315
[6]
Specker, A.: Der Einfluss der Fugen auf die Querkraft- und Torsionstragfhigkeit extern
vorgespannter Segmentbrcken. Thesis, Technical University of Hamburg-Harburg, 2001
[7]
Buyukozturk, O., Bakhoum, M., Beattie, S.: Shear Behaviour of Joints in Precast Concrete Segmental
Bridges, Journal of Structural Engineering, No. 12, December 1990, pp. 3380-3401
[8]
Roberts, C.L., Breen, J.E., Kreger, M.E.: Measurements Based Revisions for Segmental Bridge
Design and Construction Criteria. Research Report 1234-3F, The University of Texas at Austin,
Austin 1993
INSA-segmart
19.02.2002

Precast Segmental Box Girder Bridges With External Prestressing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Precast Segmental Box Girder Bridges With External Prestressing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Prof. Dr.-Ing. G.

Precast segmental box girder bridges with external prestressing

7 train tracks + 4-lane

Segmental bridge under

Table 3 Second Stage Expressway System Part I, Sector B

Prof. Dr.-Ing. G. Rombach

total length of bridge:

total area of bridge deck:

806 (716 segmental ; 90 I beams)

number of bored piles:

number of driven piles:

length of electric cables:

appr. 325 Mio EUR

2 Structural elements of segmental bridges

Figure 2 Standard span

heavy end diaphgram required to stiffen the box

Prof. Dr.-Ing. G. Rombach

Figure 3 Tendon layout

Prof. Dr.-Ing. G. Rombach

Figure 4 Type of segments

Prof. Dr.-Ing. G. Rombach

Figure 6: Short line match casting

Prof. Dr.-Ing. G. Rombach

Figure 7: Assembling of segments

Figure 8: Overslung Truss

Prof. Dr.-Ing. G. Rombach

4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Segmental Bridges

safety (e.g. in case of fire)

Table 5: Advantages and disadvantages of external prestressing

additional mild reinforcement required (Dsp)

Prof. Dr.-Ing. G. Rombach

greatest bending moment

Figure 9 Finite element mesh of a segment

Prof. Dr.-Ing. G. Rombach

Figure 10: Finite element model of standard span

Figure 11: Finite element model stresses and open joints

deflection in midspan due to live loads [m]

Stresses in mid-span before failure

bending moment in midspan due to live load [MNm]

Figure 12 Comparison between full-scale test and numerical results

Prof. Dr.-Ing. G. Rombach

Horizontal force Fy [MN]

Horizontal force Fz [MN]

Horizontal force Fz [MN]

Figure 13 Forces in the webs an the slabs due to torsion

Joint opening due to positive resp. negative bending moments

Prof. Dr.-Ing. G. Rombach

Figure 15 Analytical model

[m, MN, MPa ]

average compressive stress across the joint

where: AT effective shear area

5.2.2 Tests and numerical verification

Prof. Dr.-Ing. G. Rombach

Figure 16 Test specimen

vertical deflections at top of the specimen in mm

vertical deflections at top of the specimen in mm

5.2.3 New design model

min Shne = Sh ne,1-3 < Sh ne,1-4

for dry joints: V = 1 ( m s A + f f A )

Prof. Dr.-Ing. G. Rombach

Shear Stress [MPa]

Compressive Stress [MPa]

Figure 18 Comparison between different design models (standard segment [2])