Cast-in-situ balanced cantilever construction

Cast-in-situ balanced cantilever construction is ideally suited to box section bridges of medium or
long span, where there is insuf cient repetition to justify precasting. The method becomeseconomical
for bridges with a main span of 60 m and above, and remains viable up tothe largest span that may
be built, currently about 300 m.Early cantilever built bridges were pinned at mid-span. However,
these bridges have in several instances exhibited unexpectedlylarge creep de ections at mid-span
(7.2.4). Furthermore, the presence of anexpansion joint at mid-span affects the ride of the bridge,
and is a maintenance liability. Mostmodern cantilever built decks are made continuous by casting a
mid-span stitch.
The method of construction leads to a self-weight moment diagram that is predominantlyhogging,
and it is clearly economical to provide a greater structural depth over thesupports and to minimise
the weight of the deck towards mid-span. Furthermore, theconstruction of the deck in short lengths
on a weekly cycle makes it relatively easy to changethe geometry of the shutter for each cast.
Consequently, most bridges built by thismethod have variable depth.
The depth of the deck for large bridges is inevitably a compromise between economy ofmaterials,
appearance and ease of construction. For spans less than about 100 m, foreconomy the depth of the
deck at the support should ideally be approximately span/14. At thisdepth, the prestress is
economical, the webs do not usually need to be thickened to carryshear, and the bottom slab can
also stay at its mid-span thickness. However, the depth of he deck may be forcing the road alignment
higher than is desirable, and there may also beconsequences for the appearance of the bridge. The
support depth may be reduced tospan/20, with the consequent greater consumption of prestress,
and the greater complicationof the construction as the webs and bottom slab will need to be
thickened at the supports.
Large bridges generally adopt a support depth of about span/20 to overcome the disadvantagesof
the great structural depths otherwise attained. For a 300 m span for instance,span/15 would yield a
depth of 20 m.
The economical mid-span depth depends principally on the loading code used. With the British code,
where the dominant load is a 180 ton vehicle, for bridges up to about 80 m span the midspan depth
should not be less than about span/35. If the deck is more slender, the amount ofprestress in the
mid-span section becomes excessive, with dif culties in housing andanchoring the tendons. For
instance, Benaim's Taf Fawr Bridge has a span of 66 m anddepths at pier and mid-span of 4.5 m and
1.9 m; the River Dee Bridge, designed initially byTravers Morgan and re-engineered for tender by
Benaim, has a main span of 83 m and depths at the pier and mid-span of 6.1 m and 3.4 m. With most
other loading codes it is economical to adopt depths of span/45 or less. As the span becomes longer
and the live load less signi? cant, the mid-span section may be thinner. The thinner the mid-span, the
more moment is shed towards the supports, which improves the economy of the deck.
If the deck is built into its piers, carried by double piers that provide a high degree of xity orhas
short stiff end spans restraining a main span, the mid-span section may be thinner still.For example,
the 929 m long Bhairab Bridge in Bangladesh was designed by Benaim toBritish codes and rests on
double piers, Figure 13.6. It has spans of 110 m, and depths of 6 mand 2.7 m at pier and mid-span.
Benaim's Kwai Tsing Bridge in Hong Kong, built-in to doubleleaf piers,
Figure 15.13, has three main spans of 122 m, and pier and mid-span depths of7.5 m and 3 m. One

end span was only 60 m long, and was ballasted by an adjacent 36 mspan with which it was
continuous. The world's longest cantilever span, the 301 m StolmaBridge in Norway, has end spans
of 94 m and 72 m, is 15 m deep at the supports andonly 3.5 m deep at mid-span (span/86). This midspan depth would not be feasible underBritish live loading.
Constant depth cantilever built bridges rarely exceed a span of 100 m, due to the inherent lack of
economy. Generally such bridges have span/depth ratio not shallower than 1/18.
The length of the side spans of cantilever built bridges are usually little more than half the main
span. This suits the construction technology as explained in 15.4.5. When the side span is thisshort,
it must be checked that the abutment bearings are not decompressed by factored liveloads in the
main span. A counter-weight consisting of mass concrete in the last metres ofthe box may be used to
increase the bearing reaction. Alternatively, the deck may be held down byties which permit the
length changes of the deck, but this constitutes an additionalmaintenance and durability liability. If
the deck continues beyond the balancedcantilever spans, the reaction of the adjacent span may be
used to hold down the endof the cantilevered span. However, in bridges with very long main spans it
may be cost effective to imit the overall length of the deck by curtailing the side spans, which will
then need to beanchored down with very substantial forces. This is clearly easier to achieve in
Norwegianrock than in British clay!

As described in 7.11 and 7.12, decks should be built into their piers wherever possible. Theprincipal
penalty for building the deck into the piers is the bending moment that is applied tothe foundations
when the bridge is in service. For most internal piers, where the adjacentspans are equal, this
moment is almost entirely due to live loads, the dead loads being virtually inbalance. However, short
end spans lead to signi? cant unbalanced dead as well as live loadmoments being applied to the
foundations, principally of the ? rst and last pier, Figure 15.14.For the dead load bending moments
of the end span and of the ? rst internal span to beequal over the pier, the end span length should be
approximately 80 per cent of the internalspan. This causes problems in building the unbalanced
portion of the end span, and thesagging moment in the end span will be greater than in an internal

span. A compromiseneeds to be found.

With spans above about 150 m, it becomes worthwhile to use different qualities of concrete
fordifferent areas of the deck. For instance, the support section may use very high strengthconcrete,
minimising the thickness of webs and bottom slab, although very thin deepwebs may start to meet
problems of elastic stability. Further out in the span, the concretewill be less highly stressed and the
use of more expensive lightweight concrete may be costeffective. Several large bridges, including
the Stolma Bridge, were designed in this way.The Resal effect is described in 9.4.7. For spans over
about 150 m, where the support depth istypically 810 m, it is worthwhile considering a trussed start
to the span, Figure 9.23.