Mermigas Konstantinos K 200811 MASc Thesis PDF

Behaviour and Design of
EXTRADOSED BRIDGES
by
Konstantinos Kris Mermigas
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 Konstantinos Kris Mermigas (2008)

Behaviour and Design of Extradosed Bridges
Konstantinos Kris Mermigas

Master of Applied Science
Graduate Department of Civil Engineering
University of Toronto
2008
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this thesis is to provide insight into how different geometric parameters such as tower
height, girder depth, and pier dimensions influence the structural behaviour, cost, and feasibility of an
extradosed bridge.
A study of 51 extradosed bridges shows the variability in proportions and use of extradosed bridges,
and compares their material quantities and structural characteristics to girder and cable-stayed bridges.
The strategies and factors that must be considered in the design of an extradosed bridge are discussed.
Two cantilever constructed girder bridges, an extradosed bridge with stiff girder, and an extradosed
bridge with stiff tower are designed for a three span bridge with central span of 140 m. The structural
behaviour, materials utilisation, and costs of each bridge are compared. Providing stiffness either in the
girder or in the piers of an extradosed bridge are both found to be effective stategies that lead to
competitive designs.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Professor Gauvreau for the opportunity to study under his guidance and be part of
a dynamic and ambitious bridge research group. Professor Gauvreau has served as an inspiration and
mentor to me in my career.
Thanks to my research colleagues for their insightful discussions and feedback: Mike Montgomery,
Jimmy Susetyo, Ivan Wu, Jeff Erochko, Lydell Wiebe, Brent Visscher, Jamie McIntyre, Lulu Shen, Eileen
Li, Sandy Poon, Davis Doan, and especially Jason Salonga.
Finally, thanks to my family and Mary Jane for encouraging and supporting me through my graduate
studies.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii ABSTRACT
iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
iv TABLE OF CONTENTS
viii LIST OF FIGURES
xiii LIST OF TABLES
1 1 WHAT MAKES A BRIDGE EXTRADOSED?

1 1.1 Introduction
2 1.2 Objectives and Scope
3 1.3 Historical Context
13 1.4 General Studies on Extradosed Bridges
15 2 REVIEW OF EXISTING EXTRADOSED BRIDGES

15 2.1 Study of Extradosed Bridges
15 2.2 Trends in Extradosed Bridges to Date
29 2.3 Characteristics of Extradosed Bridges

29 2.3.1 Materials Usage
31 2.3.2 Girder Stiffness
32 2.4 Detailed Descriptions of Extradosed Bridges

32 2.4.1 Odawara Port Bridge, Japan
33 2.4.2 Tsukuhara Extradosed Bridge, Japan
34 2.4.3 Ibi and Kiso River Bridges, Japan
35 2.4.4 Shin-Meisei Bridge, Japan
36 2.4.5 North Arm Bridge, Canada
37 2.4.6 Pont de Saint-Rmy-de-Maurienne, France
38 2.4.7 Viaduc de la ravine des Trois Bassins, Runion
38 2.4.8 Sunniberg Bridge at Klosters, Switzerland
40 2.5 Concluding Remarks
iv
41 3 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF EXTRADOSED BRIDGES
41 3.1 Loads
41 3.1.1 Live Load
44 3.1.2 Temperature
46 3.2 Design Concepts

46 3.2.1 Stiffness of Cables and Girder
48 3.2.2 Stiffness of Superstructure and Substructure
50 3.2.3 Prestressing Methodology
52 3.3 Conceptual Design

52 3.3.1 Fixity of the Girder to the Piers
53 3.3.2 Side Span Length
53 3.3.3 Tower Height and Girder Depth
56 3.4 Stay Cables and Anchorages

56 3.4.1 Cable Arrangement
60 3.4.2 Stay Cable Protection
60 3.4.3 Anchorages in Girder
61 3.4.4 Cable Anchorage in Towers: Saddles or Anchorages?
64 3.4.5 Equivalent Modulus of Elasticity for Stay Cables
65 3.4.6 Preliminary Design of Stay Cables at Serviceability Limit States
67 3.4.7 Verification of Stay Cables at the Fatigue Limit State
68 3.4.8 Verification of Stay Cables at Ultimate Limit States
69 3.4.9 Stay Cable Tensioning
74 3.5 Towers and Piers

75 3.6 The Girder Cross-Section
76 3.6.1 Centrally Supported Box Girder Cross-Section
78 3.6.2 Laterally Supported Single Cell Box Girder Cross-Section
78 3.6.3 Multiple Cell Box Girder Cross-Section
80 3.6.4 Laterally Supported Stiffened Slab Cross-Section
81 3.6.5 Composite Cross-Section
82 3.7 Tendon Layout
83 3.8 Erection
85 3.9 Verification at the Ultimate Limit States
86 3.10 Concluding Remarks
v
88 4 DESIGN OF CANTILEVER CONSTRUCTED GIRDER BRIDGE, EXTRADOSED
BRIDGE WITH STIFF GIRDER, AND EXTRADOSED BRIDGE WITH STIFF TOWER
89 4.1 Design Assumptions
89 4.1.1 Material Properties and Detailing
90 4.1.2 Analysis and Limit States Verification
91 4.1.3 Temperature Gradient
92 4.1.4 Construction Sequence and Segment Construction Cycle
93 4.2 Cantilever Constructed Girder Bridge

93 4.2.1 Layout and Cross-Section
93 4.2.2 Longitudinal Prestressing
96 4.2.3 Verification at SLS and ULS
97 4.3 Extradosed Bridge with Stiff Deck

98 4.3.2 Longitudinal Prestressing
100 4.3.3 Comparison with Bending Moments in a Girder Bridge
102 4.3.4 Detailed Model
104 4.4 Extradosed Bridge with Stiff Tower

106 4.4.2 Detailed Model
108 4.5 Design Comparison

108 4.5.1 Girder Cross-Section
109 4.5.2 Material Quantities
110 4.5.3 Cost Comparison
112 5 CONCLUSIONS
112 5.1 Review of Extradosed Bridges
112 5.2 Design Considerations
113 5.3 Comparison between Extradosed and Cantilever Constructed Girder Bridges
114 6 REFERENCES
vi
122 DRAWINGS
123 CANT-S1. Cantilevered PT Bridge - General Arrangement
124 CANT-A-S2. Cantilevered PT Bridge, Mixed Tendons - P.T. Tendon Duct Locations
125 CANT-A-S3. Cantilevered PT Bridge, Mixed Tendons - P.T. Layout
126 CANT-B-S2. Cantilevered PT Bridge, Internal Tendons - P.T. Tendon Duct Locations & Typical
Reinforcement
127 CANT-B-S3. Cantilevered PT Bridge, Internal Tendons - P.T. Layout
128 EXTG-S1. Extradosed Bridge, Stiff Girder - General Arrangement
129 EXTG-S2. Extradosed Bridge, Stiff Girder - P.T. Tendon Duct Locations & Typical Reinforcement
130 EXTG-S3. Extradosed Bridge, Stiff Girder - P.T. Layout
131 EXTT-S1. Extradosed Bridge, Stiff Tower - General Arrangement
132 EXTT-S2. Extradosed Bridge, Stiff Tower - P.T. Tendon Duct Locations & Typical Reinforcement
133 EXTT-S3. Extradosed Bridge, Stiff Tower - P.T. Layout
134 APPENDIX A Chapter 2 Supplementary Information
139 APPENDIX B Chapter 4 Supporting Calculations

140 B.1 Girder Bridge Preliminary PT Design A - Mixed Tendons
144 B.2 Girder Bridge PT Design A - Detailed Model SLS Stress Checks
145 B.3 Girder Bridge PT Design A - Detailed Model ULS Moment Capacity Check
146 B.4 Girder Bridge Preliminary PT Design B - Internal Tendons
150 B.5 Girder Bridge PT Design B - Detailed Model SLS Stress Checks
151 B.6 Girder Bridge PT Design B - Detailed Model ULS Moment Capacity Check
152 B.7 Stiff Girder Extradosed Bridge PT Design - Detailed Model SLS Stress Checks
153 B.8 Stiff Girder Extradosed Bridge PT Design - Detailed Model ULS Moment Capacity Check
154 B.9 Stiff Girder Extradosed Bridge - Cable Forces
155 B.10 Stiff Tower Extradosed Bridge PT Design - Detailed Model SLS Stress Checks
156 B.11 Stiff Tower Extradosed Bridge PT Design - Detailed Model ULS Moment Capacity Check
157 B.12 Stiff Tower Extradosed Bridge - Cable Forces
158 APPENDIX C Chapter 4 Quantities

159 C.1 Breakdown of Prestressing Quantities of Chapter 4 Bridges
160 APPENDIX D Presentation Handout
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
1 1 WHAT MAKES A BRIDGE EXTRADOSED?

1 1-1 Comparison between cantilever-constructed girder, extradosed, and cable-stayed bridge types.
2 1-2 Finback, cable-panel and extradosed bridge types.
4 1-3 Ganter Bridge (Vogel & Marti 1997)
5 1-5 Barton Creek Bridge (Gee 1991).
5 1-4 Arrt-Darr Viaduct (Mathivat 1988).
6 1-6 Odawara Blueway Bridge (Kasuga 2006).
7 1-7 Saint-Remy-de-Maurienne Bridge (photo by Jacques Mossot, Structurae).
7 1-8 Concept for Usses Viaduct (Virlogeux 2002b).
8 1-9 Santiago Calatravas concepts for crossing deep Alpine valleys. From left to right: Variant 1,
Variant 2 model, Variant 7 sketch and detail presented by Menn at the IABSE Symposium
in Zurich in 1979 (Calatrava 2004).
8 1-10 Response of cable-stiffened, girder-stiffened, and tower-stiffened cable-stayed bridge to live
load.
9 1-11 Poya Bridge, Switzerland: a) Menns 1989 proposal (Menn 1996) and b) cable-stayed design
selected in 2006 for construction (Mandataire Projet Poya 2005).
10 1-12 Millau Viaduct tower options (Virlogeux 2004). Drawn by Sir Norman Foster after
discussions with Virlogeux.
11 1-13 Sunniberg Bridge, Switzerland.
11 1-14 Arrt-Darr and Sunniberg Bridges (see drawings in Figure 2-1).
12 1-15 Golden Ears Hybrid Extradosed Bridge, Vancouver (Bergman 2007).
13 1-16 North Arm Bridge, Canada Line LRT, Vancouver (photo courtesy of Stephen Rees)
13 1-17 Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge in New Haven, Connecticut (Stroh et al. 2003)

23 2-1 Drawings of extradosed bridges.
27 2-2 Extradosed Bridges separated span to depth ratio at a) pier and b) midspan.
28 2-3 Span to depth ratios of extradosed bridges at midspan and pier.
28 2-4 Haunching in extradosed bridges shown a) in groups by span length and b) as the pier to
midspan depth ratio by span.
29 2-5 Span to tower height ratio of extradosed bridges.
viii
30 2-6 Average girder concrete thickness of cantilever-constructed girder, extradosed and cable-stayed
bridges.
30 2-7 Average girder concrete thickness of extradosed bridges.
31 2-8 Mass of steel in cantilever constructed girder bridges: a) longitudinal prestressing steel, and b)
reinforcing steel (plots are based on data from SETRA 2007, Lacaze 2002, DEAL 1999).
32 2-9 Moment of inertia of girder at midspan for extradosed and cable-stayed bridges (per 10 m
width).
33 2-10 Odawara Extradosed Bridge details of tower saddle and arrangement of prestressing bars in
tower from FEM analysis (Kasuga et al. 1994).
33 2-11 Odawara Extradosed Bridge: a) strand supply system; b) saddle structure at the pier top, and
c) anchorage structure at the main girder. (Toniyama & Mikami 1994).
34 2-12 Ibi River Bridge Prestressing Tendon Layout in Cross-Section (Kutsuna et al. 1999).
35 2-13 Nonlinear Behaviour of the Ibi River Bridge up to ultimate load (Kutsuna et al. 2002).
35 2-14 Shin-Meisei Birdge construction of side spans (Iida et al. 2002).
36 2-15 Shin-Meisei Birdge a) photo of steel shell of tower; b) elevation of composite tower and c)
details of composite tower (drawings: Iida et al. 2002, photo and rendering: Kasuga 2006).
36 2-16 North Arm Birdge a) deck level extradosed cable anchorage; b) precast tower, and c) tower
anchor segment (from Griezic et al. 2006).
38 2-17 Trois Bassins Viaduct main pier (Frappart 2005).
39 2-18 Snniberg Bridge a) deck cross-section and b) prestressing and reinforcement (adapted from
Tiefbauamt Graubnden 2001).
39 2-19 Anchorages in towers (adapted from Tiefbauamt Graubnden 2001).
39 2-19 Anchorages in towers (adapted from Tiefbauamt Graubnden 2001).
40 2-20 Sunniberg Bridge a) bending moments and deflections of the edge beam through one stage of
construction, and b) forces and deflections of the main span inner edge beam of the final
structure due to permanent and live loads (adapted from Figi et al. 1998).

42 3-1 CL-625 Live Loading: Maximum of CL-625 Truck (including DLA) or CL-625 Lane Load.
42 3-2 ASCE Loading (adapted from Buckland 1981)
44 3-3 multiple lane loading effect by deck width according to CHBDC 2006 and ASCE 1981, for two
planes of cables and for single plane central cable suspension.
45 3-4 Comparison of Temperature Gradients (adapted from Priestley 1978, AASHTO 2004).
52 3-5 CHBDC CL-625 Live load envelopes for a main span of 100 m.
ix
54 3-6 Comparison of span to depth ratio and effect of the roadway height above ground on the overall
proportions of 3 span cantilever, extradosed, and cable-stayed bridges.
55 3-7 Extradosed bridge geometry studied by Chio Cho (2000).
55 3-8 Girder and extradosed bridge proportions recommended by others.
56 3-9 Bridge proportions used for design in Chapter 4.
57 3-10 Effect of cable inclination on the force components in a cable for a) a constant total force and
b) a constant vertical force.
57 3-11 Quantity of cable steel as a function of relative height of towers - Comparison between fan and
harp cable configurations in a) 1970 (Leonhardt & Zellner 1970) and b) 1980 (Leonhardt
& Zellner 1980).
58 3-12 Quantity of cable steel as a function of relative height of towers - comparison between semi-
fan and harp cable configurations for 140 m main span.
59 3-13 Influence of partial cable support (adapted from Tang 2007).
61 3-14 DSI Extradosed Anchorage Type XD-E (Dywidag 2006).
65 3-15 Ratio of equivalent to initial modulus of elasticity showing the influence of a cables sag on
its stiffness (plot adapted from Leonhardt & Zellner 1970).
66 3-16 Allowable stress in cable stays as a function of the stress range due to live load at SLS
70 3-17 Cable pre-strain and maximum moments for 25 iterations of the zero displacement method
applied in two staged process: a) towers fixed, main span cable strains adjusted and b)
towers released and side span cable strains adjusted. Cable 1 is anchored closest to the pier.
72 3-18 Cable force corresponding to dead load moment distribution (adapted from Gimsing 1997).
73 3-19 Tensions of main span cables, at each stage of construction up to midspan closure, resulting
from a) backwards analysis and b) Staged construction including time-dependent effects
(form traveller not considered).
74 3-20 Tower and pier configurations. From left to right: Barton Creek Bridge, North Arm Bridge
(LRT), Kiso and Ibi Bridges, Sunniberg Bridge, Odawara Blueway Bridge, Tsukuhara
Bridge, Shin-Karato Bridge, Hozu Birdge, Miyakodagawa Bridge and Domovinski Bridge
(LRT and road). See Table 2-1 for drawing sources.
76 3-21 Arrt-Darr Viaduct, France (concept 1982-83): main span 100 m, span to depth ratio 27,
cantilever construction with precast segments with voided webs (Mathivat 1988).
77 3-22 Barton Creek Bridge, United States (completed 1987): main span 103.6 m, span to depth ratio
27 at midspan, cantilever construction, with the fin poured progressively after completion
of 3 segments (Gee 1991).
x
77 3-23 Kiso and Ibi River Bridges, Japan (completed 2001): 275 m maximum spans, span to depth
ratio 39 at piers and 69 at midspan, cantilever construction with precast segments lifted with
600 tonne barge mounted cranes, and central 95 to 105 m steel sections strand-lifted from
barges and made continuous (Casteleyn 1999, Kasuga 2006).
77 3-24 Shin-Meisei Bridge, Japan (completed 2004): 122.3 m main span, span to depth ratio 35, cast-
in-place cantilever construction (Kasuga 2006).
77 3-25 North Arm Bridge, Vancouver, Canada (completed 2008): 180 m main span, span to depth
ratio 53, cantilever construction with precast segments (Griezic et al. 2006).
77 3-26 Trois Bassins Viaduct, Reunion (completed 2008): three main spans of 126 - 104.4 - 75.6 m,
with cables overlapping through the middle span, effective span to depth ratio 30 at tallest
pier and 50 at midspan, cantilever construction of central box, and construction of deck
cantilevers and struts with mobile carriages (Frappart 2005).
78 3-27 Tsukuhara Bridge, Japan (completed 1997): main span of 180 m, span to depth ratio of 33 at
piers and 60 at midspan, cantilever construction in 6 m long segments, transverse tendons
in deck (Kasuga 2006).
78 3-28 Himi Bridge, Japan (completed 2004): main span of 180 m, span to depth ratio of 45, cantilever
construction (Kasuga 2006).
78 3-29 Korror-Babeldoap (Japan-Palau Friendship) Bridge, Palau (completed 2002): main span of
247 m, span to depth ratio of 35 at the piers and 70 at midspan, cantilever construction of
concrete portions of spans, and central 82 m steel section lifted from barges and made
continuous (Oshimi et al. 2002).
79 3-30 Odawara Bridge, Japan (completed 1994): main span of 122.3 m, span to depth ratio of 35 at
the piers and 55 at midspan, cantilever construction (Kasuga 2006).
79 3-31 Shin-Karato Bridge, Japan (completed 1998): main span 140 m, span to depth ratio of 40 at
piers and 56 at midspan, cantilever construction (Tomita et al. 1999).
79 3-32 Domovinski Bridge, Croatia (completed 2006): 840 m total length, spans of 60 m typical with
a main extradosed span of 120 m, span to depth ratio of 30, cantilever construction in 4 m
segments (Bali & Veverka 1999).
80 3-33 Rittoh Bridge, Japan (completed 2006): main span of 170 m, effective span to depth ratio of
37 at pier and 61 at midspan, cantilever construction (Yasukawa 2002).
80 3-34 Pyung-Yeo Bridge, South Korea (completed 2007): main span of 120 m, span to depth ratio
of 34 at piers and 30 at midspan, cantilever construction with one pair of travellers
(Masterson 2006).
80 3-35 Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge, United States (under construction): main span of 157 m, span
to depth ratio of 31 at piers and 45 at midspan (Stroh et al. 2003).
xi
81 3-36 Saint-Rmy-de-Maurienne Bridge, France (completed 1996): spans of 52.4 and 48.5 m,
effective span to depth ratio of 35, cast-in-place on falsework (Grison & Tonello 1997).
81 3-37 Sunniberg Bridge, Switzerland (completed 1998): main spans 128, 140, and 134 m, span to
depth ratio of 127, cantilever construction in 6 m stages (Figi et al. 1997).
81 3-38 Third Bridge over Rio Branco, Brasil (completed 2006): main span of 90 m, span to depth ratio
of 36 at piers and 45 at midspan, cantilever construction (Ishii 2006).
82 3-39 Golden Ears Bridge, Canada (completion 2009): main span of 242 m, span to depth ratio of 54
at piers and 80 at midspan, cantilever construction with precast deck panels (Bergman et al.
2007).
83 3-40 Possible types of tendons in an Extradosed Bridge
85 3-41 Sunniberg Bridge form traveller (adapted from Figi et al. 1998).

88 4-1 Roadway cross-section.
92 4-2 Construction sequence.
93 4-3 Girder cross-section of cantilever constructed girder bridge.
95 4-4 Bending moment in cantilever girder bridge (SAP2000 diagrams at the same relative scale).
98 4-5 Girder cross-section of stiff girder extradosed bridge.
101 4-6 Maximum bending moment in a typical girder bridge of 12.4 m width: a) as a function of longest
span, and b) as a function of girder depth.
102 4-7 Bending moment in extradosed bridge (SAP2000 diagrams at the same relative scale).
104 4-8 Tension in cables of stiff girder extradosed bridge.
105 4-9 Simplified model of main span used to obtain the maximum live load stress range in the cables.
105 4-10 Two basic girder cross-sections considered for the stiff tower extradosed bridge.
106 4-11 Girder cross-section of stiff tower extradosed bridge.
107 4-12 Bending moment in stiff tower extradosed bridge (SAP2000 diagrams at the same relative
scale - bending moments in the tower and rigid links have not been shown for clarity in all
diagrams except temperature).
108 4-13 Tension in cables of stiff tower extradosed bridge.
110 4-14 Average girder concrete thickness of Chapter 4 bridge designs compared with Chapter 2 study
bridges.
xii
LIST OF TABLES

16 2-1 Summary of Extradosed Bridges.
41 3-1 Load factors and load combinations (CSA 2006a).
41 3-2 Permanent loads - maximum and minimum values of load factors for ULS (CSA 2006a).

44 3-3 Comparison of multiple lane load effects according to CHBDC (2006a) and ASCE (Buckland
1981) for the same basic lane load.
48 3-4 Comparison between Sunniberg Bridge and North Arm Bridge response to live load.
49 3-5 Comparison between monolithic and released connnection at main piers of the North Arm
Bridge.
62 3-6 Minimum saddle radii for strand based cables to prevent fretting fatigue.

89 4-1 Material Characteristics assumed for design.
89 4-2 Concrete Covers and Tolerances specified in the CHBDC (CSA 2006a).
90 4-3 Friction Coefficients (per metre length of prestressing tendon)
94 4-4 Critical sections for design and corresponding load cases to produce the maximum load effect.
95 4-5 Preliminary and final tendons for cantilever constructed girder bridge.
96 4-6 SLS Forces and Maximum Stresses in the Girder - Internal and External Tendons
96 4-7 SLS Forces and Maximum Stresses in the Girder - Internal Tendons
99 4-8 Evaluation of alternative cross-sections for lateral support by planes of cables.
100 4-9 Preliminary and final tendons for extradosed bridge.
101 4-10 Maximum Bending Moments in a Typical Box Girder Bridge
103 4-11 SLS Forces and Maximum Stresses in the Girder
103 4-12 ULS Forces in the Girder
109 4-13 Material quantities in girder and cables.
110 4-14 Average material quantities in girder and cables.
111 4-15 In-place costs of materials in girder and cables.
111 4-16 Cost estimate of bridges (costs in $1000).
xiii
134 APPENDIX A
135 A-1 Extradosed Bridges in Chapter 2 Study.
137 A-2 Cantilever Constructed Girder Bridges in Chapter 2 Graphs.
138 A-3 Cable-Stayed Bridges in Chapter 2 Graphs.
158 APPENDIX C
159 C-1 Prestressing quantities in cantilever-constructed girder bridge with internal prestressing.
159 C-2 Prestressing quantities in cantilever-constructed girder bridge with internal and external pre-
stressing.
159 C-3 Prestressing quantities in stiff girder extradosed bridge.
159 C-4 Prestressing quantities in stiff tower extradosed bridge.
xiv
1 WHAT MAKES A BRIDGE EXTRADOSED?
1.1 Introduction
From 1994 to 2008, over fifty extradosed bridges have been constructed worldwide, and the preferred
proportions and cable arrangements have evolved. While there are many articles available on the design of
specific extradosed bridges, very little has been published on their design from a general perspective.
The intrados is defined as the interior curve of an arch, or in the case of cantilever-constructed girder
bridge, the soffit of the girder. Similarly, the extrados is defined as the uppermost surface of the arch. The
term extradosed was coined by Jacques Mathivat (1988) to appropriately describe an innovative cabling
concept he developed for the Arrt-Darr Viaduct (shown in Figure 1-4), in which external tendons were
placed above the deck instead of within the cross-section as would be the case in a girder bridge. To
differentiate these shallow external tendons, which define the uppermost surface of the bridge, from the
stay cables found in a cable-stayed bridge, Mathivat called them extradosed prestressing.
There is some debate over the boundary between cable-stayed and extradosed bridges. Visually,
extradosed bridges are most obviously distinguished from cable-stayed bridges by their tower height in
proportion to the main span, as shown in Figure 1-1. Extradosed bridges typically have a tower height of
less than one eighth of the main span, corresponding to a cable inclination of 17 degrees, as observed from
the bridges considered in Section 2. In this thesis, the term extradosed bridge will be used to describe all
bridges that have a tower that is shorter than that of a conventional cable-stayed bridge, which is widely
accepted to be around a fifth of the span, as will be explained in Section 3.4.1.
The reduced cable inclination in an extradosed bridge leads to an increase in the axial load in the deck
and a decrease in vertical component of force at the cable anchorages. Thus, the function of the extradosed
cables is also to prestress the deck, not only to provide vertical support as in a cable-stayed bridge.
Extradosed bridges are characterised by a low live load stress range in the stay cables.
The definition of an extradosed bridge adopted in this thesis, based on geometry alone, disregards the
live load stress range in the cables, which is done purposefully to consider a range of structures with any
distribution of live load between the axial force resisting system (axial force couple between cable and
deck) and the girder. Extradosed bridges are sometimes criticised for being inefficient structures due to the
reliance on this secondary girder system, because the lever arm between the cable and deck is larger than
the lever arm within the girder.
Girder Bridge Extradosed Bridge Cable-Stayed Bridge
H ~ L/18 to L/15 H ~ L/15 to L/8 H ~ L/5 to L/4

h ~ L/50 to L/30 h ~ L/50 to L/30 h ~ L/100 to L/50
Variable Depth Constant or Variable Depth Constant Depth
Internal and external prestress External prestress Cable stays
Maximum cable stress 0.70 fpu Maximum cable stress 0.60 fpu Maximum cable stress 0.45 fpu
Figure 1-1. Comparison between cantilever-constructed girder, extradosed, and cable-stayed bridge types.
1
2
The detailing and technology found in extradosed bridges is taken directly from externally prestressed
girder bridges and from modern cable-stayed bridges. Modern cable-stayed bridges have a fifty year
history and have been constructed with span lengths from 15 m to over 1000 m.
As compared with cable-stayed bridges, the advantages of extradosed bridges for spans less than
approximately 200 m are numerous. Since the live load stress range is typically small (Mathivat 1988), the
cables can be deviated at the piers by means of a saddle, allowing for a more compact tower, especially in
the case of a fan cable arrangement. The stay cables can be anchored near the webs and the vertical
component of the stay cable force (which is small in comparison to a cable-stayed bridge) is transferred
directly to the girders without the need for a transverse diaphragm at the anchorage location. As with
external prestressing, extradosed bridges can use normal prestressing anchorages instead of the high stress
range type used for cable-stayed bridges. Given a stiff girder, the extradosed bridge can be constructed
without any need to adjust the tension in the cables (Chio Cho 2002).
Finback Bridge Cable-Panel Bridge Extradosed Bridge
Figure 1-2. Finback, cable-panel and extradosed bridge types.
The development of the extradosed bridge has evolved with and may have been influenced by other
types of unconventional cantilevered bridges in which the top tendons rise above the deck level in the
negative moment regions, as shown in Figure 1-2. The fin-back bridge has a wall containing the negative
moment tendons that is monolithic with the deck creating a single section, whereas a cable-panel bridge
has a wall that is detached from the deck section, serving more as passive protection for the cables.
Section 1.2 will describe the development of the extradosed bridge in more detail.
1.2 Objectives and Scope

The purpose of this thesis is to provide insight into how different geometric parameters such as tower
height, girder depth, and pier dimensions influence the structural behaviour, cost, and feasibility of the
extradosed design concept. The objectives are as follows:
1. Clarify what is meant by an extradosed bridge and how this structure type has evolved;
2. Provide a comprehensive summary of extradosed bridges constructed to date;
3. Determine the loads that govern the design of an extradosed bridge;
4. Find a strategy for the design of an extradosed bridge;
5. Determine if providing stiffness in the girder of a cable-supported structure is an efficient structural
solution;
6. Determine if an extradosed bridge is competive against a cantilever constructed girder bridge;
It is desirable to have a sense of judgment over how each of the components of the extradosed bridge affect
the structural behaviour. It can be difficult to develop an intuitive feel for an extradosed structure due to
the complex relationship between its components.
Chapter 2 provides an in-depth summary of extradosed bridges constructed to date that shows the large
variability and great potential that exists within this form. This information is also useful as a starting
3
point for initial dimensioning of the overall structure and its components, and for estimates of material
quantities.
Chapter 3 discusses the primary factors that define the design of an extradosed bridge, from where it
fits into the realm of bridge types, to solutions for critical details that must be worked out in the final
design. Many of the issues discussed are of general applicability to any type of medium to long-span
bridge, as they represent important considerations in the conceptual design process, and are brought
together here in one document. The analysis and comparisons, however, are more specific in their
findings, and may be limited to the typical extradosed bridge problem assumed.
In Chapter 4, designs of a cantilever-constructed girder bridge, a stiff girder extradosed bridge, and a
stiff tower (slender girder) extradosed bridge are presented for a three span bridge, with a central span of
140 m. in length. Variations in prestressing approach are also considered. A materials and cost
comparison is presented to highlight the main differences and overall cost-effectiveness of each design.
Finally, Chapter 5 concludes the thesis by summarizing the primary findings of the preceding chapters
and gives suggestions for future studies.
This thesis will provide enough detail on the designs undertaken to allow a practicing engineer to
understand the key design steps involved in designing an extradosed bridge, in accordance with the
Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC - CSA 2006a) and other relevant codes.
1.3 Historical Context

Jacques Mathivat is most commonly credited for inventing the concept of extradosed prestressing, which
he published in a journal article in 1988 (Mathivat 1988). Mathivat presents extradosed prestressing as a
natural progression from cantilever construction, prompted by the desire to have a construction scheme
with fully replaceable tendons. In France since the 1980s, cantilever constructed girder bridges have
mainly used two groups of tendons: internal horizontal tendons for cantilevering, and external tendons
draped from one pier table to another and deviated by two segments at the third points of the span. The
effectiveness of external tendons over the piers is proportional to the lever arm between the tendon and the
compression block. In a girder bridge, this increase in lever arm comes at the expense of additional dead
load in the webs. To avoid this, the tendons are placed above the deck and deviated by means of a stub
column to create a force couple between the tension in the tendons and the compression in the entire
concrete deck, as is the case in a cable-stayed bridge.
The first modern concrete multi-cable-stayed bridge was the Main Bridge near Frankfurt, designed by
Ulrich Finsterwalder and completed in 1973, only 10 years prior to Mathivats extradosed concept. This
modern cable stayed bridges rely entirely on the force couple between the stay cables and the deck to resist
all load. Initial designs for concrete cable-stayed bridges featured prestressed concrete decks supported at
discrete locations by internal tendons encased in concrete, such as Morandis Maracaibo Bridge
(Billington 1991), completed in 1962. In these structures, the load was carried in bending to the discrete
supports. Extradosed prestressing makes use of a stiffer girder to distribute live load to multiple cables.
Chio Cho (2002) suggests the idea of extradosed prestressing may have come from these long-span
4
concrete cable-stayed structures (around 200 m), which combined with temporary stays for cantilever
construction of constant depth girder bridges of medium span length (around 80 m), result in a hybrid form
where the temporary stays are made permanent.
Mathivat (1988) points out that cable-panel bridges and fin-back bridges may have been inspired by
the same desire to reduce the self-weight of cantilever constructed girder bridges. By locating the
prestressing cables in walls above the deck, the capacity of deck slab in compression can be utilised in
negative moment regions (over the piers) leading to a more efficient structure than a conventional
cantilever constructed box girder bridge. These structures bear some resemblance to extradosed bridges,
but they differ in appearance and in their stiffness, and the cables cannot be easily replaced since they are
encased in a concrete wall. Nevertheless, the proportions of this type of bridge had a significant impact on
the development of the extradosed bridge. The Ganter Bridge, completed in 1980, was the first bridge of
this type, is the most well-known, and inspired the concept for the Arrt-Darr Viaduct (Virlogeux 2002c).
The Ganter Bridge, located in Switzerland, is a cable-
panel bridge with a main span of 174 m that takes a roadway
over a deep valley at heights of up to 140 m above the valley
floor. The bridge is designed by Christian Menn, former
Professor of Structural Engineering at the ETH in Zurich and
the designer of many elegant prestressed concrete bridges in
Switzerland. The roadway runs parallel to the valley on either
side, while the bridge crosses at a skew, which necessitates
sharp curves at both ends of the bridge. The bridge had two Figure 1-3. Ganter Bridge (Vogel & Marti 1997)
unique design requirements: tall, stiff piers in light of the high winds through the valley, and a very narrow
roadway for a bridge of this maximum span length. David Billington, a Professor of Engineering and
director of the Program in Architecture and Engineering at Princeton University, explains that Menns
design decisions were made with aesthetics in mind. While a conventional cantilever constructed box
girder would have been technically feasible, it would have had a visually weak horizontal profile
compared to the powerful vertical elements required (Billington 2003). This does not however explain
why Menn encased the walls in concrete: the walls do not extend into the curved part of the roadway, and
visually the cables would have provided the same perception of strength as the concrete walls while
opening up the view through the valley.
5
Figure 1-4. Arrt-Darr Viaduct (Mathivat 1988)
The first application of extradosed prestressing was Mathivats proposal for the Arrt-Darr viaduct
with precast box girder sections (Mathivat 1987), developed in 1982-1983. The extradosed prestressing
along with voided box girder webs resulted in a material savings of 30% compared with a conventional
cantilever constructed box girder bridge. Mathivats proposal substituted the internal tendons in the top
flange of a box girder for external cables above the running surface, deviated over the piers by stub
columns and anchored inside the box girder, which he called extradosed cables. The low eccentricity of
the cables over the piers allowed them to be stressed to the same level as traditional prestressing since the
cables primary role was to provide horizontal prestress, and they were subject to a low fatigue stress.
Virlogeux explains (1999) that the concept was partially motivated by a distortion of code specifications
to use stay cables more efficiently, since an allowable stress of 0.65 fpu could be used for design of the
cables instead of the value of 0.45 fpu typically adopted for cable-stayed bridges. Unfortunately, the
proposal was not selected for construction and a conventional cantilever post-tensioned structure was
constructed instead.
The Barton Creek Bridge is one of a few prestressed
concrete fin-back bridges constructed. The bridge connects
Austin, Texas to the Estates of Barton Creek over an environ-
mentally sensitive gorge. Preliminary design estimates found
the fin-back bridge with a main span of 104 m to be compara-
ble in cost to a conventional cantilever box girder, both least
cost options for the crossing (Gee 1991). The fin-back bridge
design was chosen as it would be a visible landmark into the Figure 1-5. Barton Creek Bridge (Gee 1991).
Estates from above the bridge and it would consequently
attract publicity to the development. The developers architect noted (Gee 1991) that the flat triangular
fins ideally complemented the peaks of the gently rolling hills on the horizon forming the backdrop against
which the bridge would be seen. Gee explains that his firm was aware of previous proposals for fin-back
bridges and was conscious of the fact that the low material quantities of these designs, as compared with
conventional box girders, were not resulting in competitive bids for construction. A few notable proposals
were the Kessock Bridge in Scotland, the Foyle Bridge in Northern Ireland and the Gateway Bridge in
Australia. The Gateway Bridge was in fact tendered as a fin-back bridge in 1980 but the contract was
6
awarded based on an alternative design of a conventional box-girder bridge (Gee 1991). Tony Gee and
Partners, having been involved with previous fin-backed proposals, designed the Barton Creek Bridge with
constructibility as the most important objective. The cross-section consists of a single box girder below
the deck, with constant dimensions and no internal diaphragms (even over the piers) and webs that incline
inwards from the bottom slab to merge at the deck slab into a central fin that rises above the deck with
constant width. The segments were poured with the median barrier, which allowed the fin to be built up
progressively and off the critical path, as three segments could be cast before increasing the height of the
fin. The bridge was constructed with a form traveller supported laterally outside the webs and on the ribs,
and was completed in 1987 at a cost that was 20% above the original estimate (Gee 1991). The increase
was accounted for in additional items (lighting, approach railings) not included in the initial estimate. In
terms of durability and maintenance, the fin-back bridge has the advantage over a conventional cantilev-
ered bridge that the main tendons are encased in the massive fin, away from the deck surface which is
exposed to traffic. As well, there is no decrease in longitudinal prestress in the deck under live load near
the piers, because the neutral axis of the section lies in the deck slab. Despite the success of the Barton
Creek Bridge, there have been very few fin-back bridges built since.
Virlogeux (1999) claims that the concrete walls in cable-panel and fin-back bridges have two
drawbacks: the tendons cannot be replaced and there is a cost to construct the concrete walls. The
designers of the Barton Creek Bridge took measures to reduce the cost of the single concrete wall and it is
conceivable that the additional cost of the protection system for stay cables would have exceeded the cost
of the walls. However, since the concrete walls add dead load to the bridge, their use is only economical in
shorter spans. In terms of aesthetics, the stay cables of extradosed bridges offer a lighter appearance than
the heavy concrete fins of fin-back bridges.
Akio Kasuga, the Chief Bridge Engineer at
Sumitomo Mitsui Construction Co. Ltd., was the
first to apply Mathivats concept to the first
extradosed bridge to be constructed, the Odawara
Blueway Bridge. The construction was completed
in 1994. Kasuga claims that his designs follow
Mathivats theory that the tower height of
extradosed bridges should be half of the tower
height for a cable stayed bridge of equivalent span
Figure 1-6. Odawara Blueway Bridge (Kasuga 2006) (Ogawa and Kasuga 1998), but Mathivat actually
suggests using a tower height closer to one third of
that for a cable-stayed bridge (Mathivat 1988). The single plane of cables proposed for the Arrt-Darr
viaduct is lighter than the two planes on the Odawara Bridge. However, the towers of the Odawara Bridge,
as shown in Figure 1-6, are well integrated with the pier columns below the deck, while the Arrt-Darr
superstructure rests on an overly massive round pier column, which visually dominates the bridges view
7
in profile. Kasuga (2006) states that practical experience has induced great admiration for the
incisiveness of Mathivats proposal.
Several articles on extradosed bridges in Japan credit and praise Mathivat for inventing the extradosed
bridge (Ogawa and Kasuga 1998; Hirano et al. 1999; Kato et al. 2001; Kasuga 2006), but these bridges are
more similar in appearance and proportions to the Ganter Bridge than to the Arrt-Darr concept, with the
difference that they do not have cables encased in concrete walls. All extradosed bridges in Japan to date
have cables arranged in a semi-fan configuration, with the first cable offset about a fifth of the span from
the pier. Most of these bridges are cast in place and have variable depth girders that are 50% deeper at the
piers than in midspan. The Japan Highway Public Corporation, the owner of several extradosed bridges
including the Odawara, Tsukuhara, and Kiso and Ibi extradosed bridges, allows only external tendons to
be used in their bridges (Chilstrom 2001). Mathivats bridge had six spans with a continuous girder
supported on bearings whereas the first extradosed bridges constructed in Japan were three span structures,
with monolithic connections at the piers that result in frame action. This distinction allowed the first
extradosed bridges to be more slender than Mathivat originally proposed.
In France, the first extradosed bridge was constructed on a much smaller scale than those in Japan, as a
means of spanning further with minimal structural depth available below the roadway. The Saint-Remy-
de-Maurienne Bridge over the A43 highway, shown in Figure 1-7, was tendered in 1993 and completed in
1996 and has a maximum span of only 54 m (Grison and Tonello 1997). On this small scale, it is difficult
to imagine that extradosed tendons could be more economical than constructing concrete walls up to a
maximum height of 3 m, but there is little doubt that the constructed bridge is attractive. Architect Charles
Lavigne, who developed the Arrt-Darr concept with Jacques Mathivat, was also involved in the Saint-
Remy Bridge.
Figure 1-7. Saint-Remy-de-Maurienne Bridge Figure 1-8. Concept for Usses Viaduct
(photo by Jacques Mossot, Structurae) (Virlogeux 2002b)
In the mid 90s, an extradosed bridge was considered for the A41 viaduct over Usses valley in France
(Virlogeux 2002b). The concept was developed by Jean Tonello, Charles Lavigne and Daniel Vibert and
brings together elements from the Arrt-Darr Viaduct and the Barton Creek Bridge. The cross-section
consists of a single-cell box girder with constant dimensions, with wide cantilevers supported by struts, as
seen in Figure 1-8. The project was delayed for many years, and ultimately a steel twin girder structure
with composite concrete deck was constructed at the site in 2008. However, a similiar cross-section to that
8
of the Usses viaduct was adopted for the viaduct over Trois-Bassins in Runion, completed in 2008 and
shown later in Figure 3-26.
Figure 1-9. Santiago Calatravas concepts for crossing deep Alpine valleys. From left to right: Variant 1, Variant 2
model, Variant 7 sketch and detail presented by Menn at the IABSE Symposium in Zurich in 1979 (Calatrava 2004).
In Switzerland, the Ganter Bridge led to a different path for the extradosed bridge. Santiago Calatrava,
while studying at the ETH in 1979, produced a series of sketches of alternatives of the Ganter Bridge, some
of which were presented by Menn at the IABSE Symposium in Zurich in 1979 (Tzonis and Donadei 2005).
All sketches show a slender deck, suspended by cables from a stiff pier. In some alternatives, the two sides
of the tower flare outwards from the roadway in order to accommodate the cables along a curved
horizontal profile. Eight years later, Menn (1987) presented his ideas on the advantages of stiffer, lower
towers for cable-stayed bridges, which enable the use of the full range of effective depth of cross-
section. Since the short towers act as cantilevers, effectively prestressed by the dead load of the girder
acting through the cables, they require relatively little reinforcement to resist bending due to live load.
Neither a flexurally stiff girder nor backstays are required in order to provide adequate system stiffness to
control deformations due to live load. With short towers, larger stay cables are required, but the towers are
more economical than the tall towers normally found in cable-stayed bridges (Menn 1987).
Stiffness from Backstay Cable Stiffness in Deck Stiffness in Tower
LL resisted by backstay cable LL resisted by bending in deck LL resisted by bending in tower
LL offset by dead load in main span; Short side LL resisted by bending in deck Magnitude of bending in tower is not
span prevents backstay from going slack affected by decrease in tower height
Figure 1-10. Response of cable-stiffened, girder-stiffened, and tower-stiffened cable-stayed bridge to live load.
There are three different approaches to providing stiffness in cable-stayed bridges, as shown in
Figure 1-10, which determines how stability of the bridge will be assured under live load. Each approach
9
provides stiffness primarily in one of the three load-bearing elements of the cable-stayed bridge: the stays,
the deck, or the towers. Most early designs, 6 out of the 58 cable-stayed bridges constructed by the end of
1976 (Billington and Nazmy 1991) have cable spacings of 20 to 40 m and provide stiffness in the girder,
with span to depth ratios below 70 (Walther et al. 1999). Since the 1980s, however, almost all cable-
stayed bridges are multiple-stay bridges with cable spacings of less than 10 m, which, combined with an
increased understanding of aerodynamic stability and buckling safety of slender girders, has led to very
slender girders. In these bridges, the fan cable configuration is used to load the tower in axial compression
only, and backstay cables stabilise the tower and control girder deflections due to live load (Menn 1994).
With this system, girder span to depth ratios of up to 500 are possible (Bergermann and Strathopoulos
1988). With stiff towers, the girder can still be made very slender, with span to depth ratios of up to around
200, but backstay cables are no longer required. A harp cable configuration favours stiff towers, since live
load at the quarter points of the main span will cause significant bending in towers, regardless of tower
stiffness.
Figure 1-11. Poya Bridge, Switzerland: a) Menns 1989 proposal (Menn 1996) and b) cable-stayed design selected in
2006 for construction (Mandataire Projet Poya 2005).
In 1989, Menn proposed an extradosed concept for the Poya Bridge as the ideal solution to integrate
the bridge with the deep valley crossing in Fribourg, Switzerland (Billington 2003). Menn was serving on
the jury for the design competition for the bridge, but was not satisfied with any of the designs and
proposed his own concept. Menn (1991) felt that a cable-stayed bridge, which would require towers with a
total height of 120 m, 45 m of which would be above the roadway, would rise above the city and detract
from its historical character. In this same article, Menn elaborates on his ideas for a stiff tower and slender
girder, explaining that the live load is resisted directly by the towers, and thus side span lengths can be
increased to half of the main span length. In most modern cable-stayed bridges, the tower must be
stabilised by backstay cables which require shorter side spans (around 0.4 of the main span) to remain
adequately stressed when they are loaded, as shown in Figure 1-10. For the Poya Bridge concept, Menn
maintained the slender cross-section throughout the viaduct through the use of external prestressing in an
10
under-deck cable-stayed configuration. His proposal was not accepted and a cable-stayed bridge is now
under construction after many years of public consultation. Both concepts are shown in Figure 1-11.
In 1993, Menn proposed his extradosed concept for the Sunniberg
Bridge (Honnigmann and Billington 2003). Menn, again serving on
the jury for the design competition and not satisfied with the three
designs submitted, presented his concept to the highway departments
Alternatives to provide adequate rigidity
architectural consultant who endorsed it and helped convince the between pier, tower, and deck
department to accept it. The 526 m length of the bridge and 60 m

depth of the valley below the roadway favoured multiple piers with
spans of around 150 m. Menn favoured the proposal for the same Pier options to accommodate
longitudinal deformations
aesthetic reasons that he claimed for the Poya Bridge: if the towers
Figure 1-12. Millau Viaduct tower
were designed with conventional proportions, they would rise 35 m options (Virlogeux 2004). Drawn by Sir
above the roadway, and would overpower the surrounding landscape Norman Foster after discussions with Virlogeux.
(Figi et al. 1997). A multiple span cable-stayed bridge with conventional proportions would still require
stiff towers, as illustrated by the conceptual drawings shown in Figure 1-12 for the towers of the Millau
Viaduct, an 8 span cable-stayed bridge (Virlogeux 2004). Cross cables between towers have been
proposed as another means of stabilising them in the horizontal direction, but this solution has questionable
aesthetics and is difficult to construct (Walther et al. 1999) if not infeasible on a curved roadway. The
designs submitted for the design competition did not include a cable-stayed bridge but were of a more
conventional nature: a continuous below deck truss bridge, a cantilever-constructed girder bridge, a
composite box girder bridge, and a box girder viaduct. Given the unusually high demand on aesthetics at
this site, the extradosed bridge was selected to fit into the landscape with elegance, but also stands out as a
memorable crossing and technical achievement (Figi et al. 1997). As constructed, the Sunniberg Bridge
towers appear in proper proportion with the surrounding landscape when viewed from the drivers
perspective. Compared with the Ganter Bridge in Figure 1-3, the Sunniberg Bridge appears much lighter
and more transparent, not only because the cables are light and provide unobstructed views of the valley,
but also because of the open views through the pier legs, as seen in Figure 1-13.
Menn clearly knew about Mathivats ideas for the extradosed bridge, since Mathivat presented an
earlier version of his 1988 article at Menns 60th birthday celebration in 1986 (Mathivat 1986). Despite
this, Menns concept provides stiffness in the piers, while Mathivats concept provides stiffness in the
girder. The two solutions reflect the trends and visions of engineers in their respective countries of origin.
French bridge engineers were using precast segmental construction for many medium span bridges to
encourage mechanisation and rationalize formwork reuse. Precast segmental construction favours a
constant depth cross-section, a nominal girder depth for easier assembly and geometric control from the
relative geometry of segments (Virlogeux 1994a), use of bearings, and allows for future replacement of
tendons. In contrast, Swiss engineers preferred cast-in-place construction for durability and the economy
provided by partial prestressing. Cast-in-place construction allows monolithic connections to be made as
required. Flexible decks are more sensitive to local deformations from transverse bending and thermal
11
Figure 1-13. Sunniberg Bridge, Switzerland.

effects of concrete hardening, but are also more accommodating of field adjustments to their final
geometry since the deck profile can be readjusted after completion without introducing considerable
bending moments (Virlogeux 1994a).
From an aesthetic perspective, Menns Sunniberg Bridge is much
lighter overall than Mathivats Arrt-Darr concept, since the
deck section is dimensioned as the minimum required to span
Figure 1-14. Arrt-Darr and Sunniberg between two adjacent cables. Although the pylons1 are nearly 7
Bridges (see drawings in Figure 2-1).
metres wide in the longitudinal direction, they integrate
seamlessly into the pier legs below the deck, and the total surface area observed from an elevation view is
much less than if a stiff girder was used, as shown in Figure 1-14. Seen from afar, the deck looks as
though it is cradled between the pylons, as seen in Figure 1-13. The pylons, when viewed from the
transverse perspective, are extremely light because the overall member thicknesses are kept to a minimum
through frame action in the crossbeams. The crossbeams are set back from the pier legs which emphasize
the continuous vertical lines from bottom to top which form surfaces of slender proportions at the outside
edges of the pier legs. With a two lane structure on a horizontal curve, supporting the cross-section from
both sides is the only reasonable solution from an operations perspective, and a harp cable arrangement is a
natural choice to avoid the chaotic appearance of cables crossing each other at different angles.
1. Throughout this thesis, the term tower is used to denote anything structural that supports the cables above the
deck; the term pylon is used to denote the two columns of a tower in a stayed bridge with lateral cable planes;
the term mast is used to denote a single column tower, and pier is used to refer to any substructure beneath the
deck, supporting the tower.
12
Extradosed bridges are becoming increasingly popular for spans from 50 m to 250 metres. Over 25
extradosed bridges have been completed in Japan and 15 are underway in South Korea (Bd & e 2006).
Many extradosed bridges constructed to date cross waterways where there is a navigational clearance
requirement as well as interest in minimizing the roadway grade raise at the approaches. This favours an
extradosed bridge over a cantilever-constructed girder bridge, which would have a girder depth at the
supports of two to three times that of the extradosed bridge of equivalent span. While a cable-stayed
bridge is sometimes a feasible option, an extradosed bridge has been selected in many cases because of
overhead glidepath clearance requirements imposed by nearby airports (Stroh 2003; Griezic et al. 2006).
Figure 1-15. Golden Ears Hybrid Extradosed Bridge, Vancouver (Bergman 2007).
In 2001, the Ibi and Kiso Bridges set the record for longest extradosed viaducts with total lengths of
1145 and 1400 m respectively, and extradosed spans of up to 275 m. This was achieved with a hybrid
girder arrangement: a variable depth concrete girder was supported by extradosed cables from the piers and
100 m central steel box girder was connected to the concrete girder to transfer moment and shear but allow
longitudinal expansion. In 2002, the Japan-Palau Friendship Bridge was completed with the same hybrid
configuration with a main span of 247 m. The Golden Ears Bridge, under construction in Vancouver and
scheduled for completion in 2009, has main spans of 242 m and will be the first composite extradosed
bridge constructed. The concrete deck is constructed from precast panels and the bridge has a main span to
tower height ratio of 6, between that of an extradosed and cable-stayed bridge (Bergman et al. 2007). The
bridges engineers have described the bridge as a hybrid extradosed bridge, with a portion of the load near
the piers supported by bending in deck, but load at midspan resisted almost directly by the cables
(Trimbath 2006). The Wuhu Bridge in China, completed in 2000, is the only extradosed bridge to carry
heavy rail. Extradosed cables allow this bridge to span 312 m over the Yangtze River with the same deep
truss cross-section that is used for the other 144 m spans (Fang 2004).
Recently, Man-Chung Tang, who was responsible for the design and construction engineering of many
cable-stayed bridges in North America, has extolled the advantages of partially cable-supported structures
for the potential to fully utilize the capacity of a girder cross-section (Tang 2007). He explains that there is
a tradeoff between girder depth and the size of the stay cables. Live load is shared between the girder and
stay cables based on the relative stiffness of each, while the cable forces under dead loads can be adjusted
as desired. Furthermore, each cable can be adjusted to carry a different amount of dead load, and the cable
layout can be adjusted to achieve greater efficiency. According to Tang, for bridges with medium span
lengths, using the maximum capacity of the girder can result in savings in stay cables and towers. From
some of the proposed concepts, partially cable-supporting creates possibilities for new forms of towers,
13
some of which are sculptural but structurally inefficient and would be unable to support the tension forces
from the stay cables if the girder did not share some of the load.
Figure 1-16. North Arm Bridge, Canada Line LRT, Figure 1-17. Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge in New
Vancouver (photo courtesy of Stephen Rees) Haven, Connecticut (Stroh et al. 2003)
SETRA (2001) published recommended allowable stress limits that cover the full range of external
cables. In that document, external prestressing tendons are defined as being subjected to a stress range of
up to 15 MPa under live load while stays for cable-stayed bridges are subjected to a stress range of around
100 MPa and above. Extradosed cables are characterised as being subjected to a live load stress range
between 30 MPa and 100 MPa and are not sensitive to wind vibrations. These specifications resulted from
a need for design recommendations for bridges that do not fall into distinct categories, and they propose
design limits and approximations based on rational principles. These recommendations were used for the
design of the North Arm Bridge in Canada (Griezic et al. 2006), and they influenced the allowable stress
limit for the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge in the USA (Stroh et al. 2003). It is important to have
guidelines like those published by SETRA (2001) to encourage creative and innovative use of stay cables
in new structural systems, since it is difficult in the initial stages of design to assess the behaviour of a
bridge at ultimate and fatigue limit states.
1.4 General Studies on Extradosed Bridges

Komiya (1999), of the Japan Bridge & Structures Institute, carried out a series of analyses on an
extradosed bridge of 74 - 122 - 74 m spans, with span to depth ratio of 35 at the piers and 55 at midspan.
These are the same span dimensions and proportions as the Odawara Bridge. Parameters that were varied
include the tower height, the anchoring position of the extradosed cables, the stiffness of the girder to
account for cracking, and the stiffness of the tower.
As a result of this study, Komiya presents five reasons why an extradosed bridge might be preferable
over a cantilever constructed or cable-stayed bridge:
1. The girder depth is around 2 to 4 m, about half that of a cantilevered bridge and twice that of a cable-
stayed bridge, which has better constructibility than the other types for laying out post-tensioning and
placing reinforcing steel and concrete;
2. A stiff deck allows the structure to be continuous over multiple spans, and appropriate for rail loading
where deflection limits must be adhered to;
3. The presence of towers can create a symbolic structure as compared to a conventional girder bridge;
14
4. Extradosed cable can use conventional anchorages instead of the expensive anchorages with a high
fatigue strength as used for cable-stayed bridges. Extradosed cables are less sensitive to vibration, and
they do not need to be restressed during construction. On this basis, Komiya concludes that extradosed
cables are more economical than conventional stay cables and lead to better constructibility;
5. Extradosed bridges are less costly than cable-stayed bridges but more costly than cantilever con-
structed girder bridges, based on materials consumption. Extradosed bridges could be more economi-
cal than girder bridges in the case where girder depth is limited by traffic or navigational constraints, or
in the case where poor soil conditions provide an incentive to reduce the structures self-weight.
Chio Cho (2000) carried out a parametric study on an extradosed bridge with similar characteristics to the
Odawara Blueway Bridge, with span lengths of 74 - 122 - 74 m. The results of his study on the structural
behaviour of extradosed prestressing during construction and in service lead to a few important design
recommendations (Chio Cho 2002). The first cable should be anchored between 0.18 and 0.25 of the main
span from the tower as the cables closest to the tower are ineffective. The deck should be proportioned
with a span to depth ratio of 35 at the piers and 45 at midspan to keep all live load stress range in the cables
below 80 MPa, the limit for conventional prestressing anchorages. A compensation of all permanent
loads, with the cables stressed as the bridge is constructed in balanced cantilever, results in high tensile
forces in the bottom fibre of the deck, making a single stressing operation impractical. A compensation of
80% of the permanent load is preferred in order to control the stresses during construction and avoid
restressing after the final structural configuration is acheived. Since it is not possible to completely
balance all permanent loads by stressing the cables during construction only, consideration of creep effects
is essential. It is necessary to precamber the deck for long term deflections due to creep.
Santos (2006) carried out a parametric analysis on an extradosed bridge with a 150 m main span with
simple supports at the piers, which looked at the influence of tower height, depth of deck, and length of the
side span on the total extradosed cable area, the stress variation in the cables, and the bending moment in
the deck. For span to tower height ratios of 15, 10 and 5, he found that span to depth ratios of 37, 34, and
27 respectively were necessary in order to keep the live load stress range to below 50 MPa.
Santos did not explicitly consider the forces in the girder at each stage of construction, and assumes
that superimposed dead load is added at each stage of cantilevering, which is unrealistic for construction.
Santos does not consider any redistribution of forces in the final state due to creep and shrinkage. Due to
these simplifications, some of the conclusions are of limited use.
2 REVIEW OF EXISTING EXTRADOSED BRIDGES
This chapter presents a study 51 extradosed bridges designed to date, with a focus on specific bridges that
have had an influence on subsequent designs, based on their proportions and aesthetic merit. A review of
previously constructed or conceived extradosed bridges provides insight into where and how extradosed
bridges have been used. Section 2.1 summarizes the physical dimensions of the bridges. Section 2.2
describes the typical reasons extradosed bridges were chosen over other bridge types and analyzes the
proportions to find trends. Section 2.3 evaluates the materials usage and stiffness of the girder in the
bridges and compares them to those of typical cantilever constructed box girder and cable-stayed bridges.
Section 2.4 discusses significant details of selected extradosed bridges which show how their designers
have made key conceptual and detailed design decisions.
2.1 Study of Extradosed Bridges

Extradosed bridges provide an economical means of crossing spans of 100 to 250 m with new aesthetic
opportunities relative to cantilever constructed girder bridges and cable-stayed bridge. Table 2-1 shows the
extradosed bridges considered in this study in chronological order by date of construction. Some of these
bridges are described in greater detail in Section 2.2. Figure 2-1 shows elevation and pier section drawings
for the extradosed bridges identified in Table 2-1 as having detailed drawings. The figure shows the wide
variety of forms, spans, and cable configurations that have been selected.
For the two span extradosed bridges considered in this study, the main span has been taken as an
effective main span equal to 0.8 of the sum of the two spans adjacent to the pier, in order to study the
dimensions and proportions of both two and three span extradosed bridges together in Section 2.2. This is
done to account for the influence of positive moment regions at the ends of the span where the girder
resists load in bending only.
2.2 Trends in Extradosed Bridges to Date

Extradosed bridges have been used for one or more of the following reasons:
1. A shallow structural depth below the roadway is preferable, either to meet clearance requirements or
when there is interest in minimizing the approach grades.
2. In the opinion of some designers (Menn 1991), tall piers over a deep valley do not permit a cable-
stayed tower to be aesthetically pleasing when the portion of the tower above the deck is around half of
the height between the deck and the ground.
3. There are height restrictions imposed by a nearby airport that limit the height of the towers overhead.
4. The cross-section of the approach spans on a long viaduct can be made to span further with extradosed
prestressing. Extradosed prestressing can be kept to a minimum by using as many internal and exter-
nal tendons in the girder of the extradosed span as in the approach spans.
There are only a few bridge types that meet these restrictions: trusses, tied arches, extradosed bridges, and
cantilever post-tensioned bridges (when condition 1 is not a requirement - the roadway elevation can be
raised). Trusses may have been an option in the past, but the rising cost of labour has made them
uneconomical for medium and long spans, and their aesthetics can make other structural types preferable.
15
16
Table 2-1. Summary of Extradosed Bridges
Name and Opera- -Deck Depth x Width Picture Detailed

Location tional -Span Lengths Drawing
Date -Deck Description
1 Ganter Bridge, 1980 2.5 - 5 x 10
Switzerland 127.0 + 174.0 + 127.0
Wide single cell concrete box girder, cable-
panel stayed.
Vogel & Marti 1997, Kasuga 2006
2 Arrt-Darr Proposed 3.75 x 20.5

Viaduct, France 60.0 + 100.0 + 100.0 + 100.0 + 100.0 + 52.0
Single cell concrete box girder with voided
webs and struts supporting deck cantilevers.
Photo from Virlogeux 1999

Mathivat 1986, Mathivat 1988, Virlogeux 2002a
3 Barton Creek 1987 3.7 - 10.7 x 17.7

Bridge, Austin, 47.6 + 103.6 + 57.9
USA Single cell concrete box girder with webs
inclined inwards into a central fin above the
deck level, and transverse struts supporting the
deck slab.
Photo from Gee 1999

Gee 1990
4 Socorridos 1993 3.5 x 20

Bridge, Madeira, 54.0 + 85.0 + 106.0 + 86.0
Portugal Single cell concrete box girder, cable-panel
stayed.
Photo from Reis & Pereira 1994

Reis & Pereira 1994
5 Odawara Blueway 1994 2.2 - 3.5 x 13

Bridge, Japan 73.3 + 122.3 + 73.3
Wide double cell concrete box girder.
Photo from Kasuga 2006

Taniyama et al. 1994, Kasuga et al. 1994
6 Saint-Rmy-de- 1996 2.2 x 13.4

Maurienne Bridge, 52.4 + 48.5
Savoie, France U shaped concrete deck with transverse ribs
between edge beams.
Photo by Jaques Mossot, Structurae

Grison & Tonello 1997, Kasuga 2006
7 Tsukuhara Bridge, 1997 3 - 5.5 x 12.8

Japan 65.4 + 180.0 + 76.4
Wide single cell concrete box girder.
Photo from Ogawa et al. 1998

Ogawa et al. 1998
17
Table 2-1. Summary of Extradosed Bridges (continued)

8 Kanisawa Bridge, 1998 3.3 - 5.6 x 17.5
Japan 99.3 + 180.0 + 99.3
Concrete box girder.
Photo from Cho 2002

Kasuga 2006
9 Shin-Karato 1998 2.5 - 3.5 x 11.5

Bridge, Kobe, 74.1 + 140.0 + 69.1
Japan Two and three cell concrete box girder.
Photo from Tomita et al. 1999

Tomita et al. 1999
10 Sunniberg Bridge, 1998 1.1 x 12.375

Switzerland 59.0 + 128.0 + 140.0 + 134.0 + 65.0
Concrete slab with edge stiffening beams.
Photo by author
Figi et al. 1997, Figi et al. 1998, Menn 1998, Baumann & Dniker 1999,
Honigmann & Billington 2003
11 Santanigawa 1999 2.5 - 6.5 x 20.4

(Mitanigawa) 57.9 + 92.9
Bridge, Japan Double cell concrete box girder.
Nishimura et al. 2002, Stroh et al. 2003
12 Second 1999 3.3 - 5.1 x 18

Mandaue - 111.5 + 185.0 + 111.5
Mactan (Marcelo Three cell concrete box girder.
Fernan) Bridge,
Mactan, Philippines Photo from www.jsce.or.jp/committee/tanaka-sho/jyushou
Kasuga 2006
13 Matakina Bridge, 2000 3.5 - 6 x 11.3

Nago, Japan 109.3 + 89.3
Single cell concrete box girder.
Photo from www.dywidag-systems.com

Kasuga 2006
14 Pakse (Lao- 2000 3 - 6.5 x 13.8

Nippon) Bridge, 52.0 + 123.0 + 143.0 + 91.5 + 34.5
Laos Single cell concrete box girder.

Nakamura 2001, Kikuchi et al. 2002, Kasuga 2006
15 Sajiki Bridge, Japan 2000 2.1 - 3.2 x 11

60.8 + 105.0 + 57.5
Kasuga 2006
18

16 Shikari Bridge, 2000 3 - 6 x 23
Japan 94.0 + 140.0 + 140.0 + 140.0 + 94.0
Photo from www.jsce.or.jp/committee/tanaka-sho/jyushou

Stroh et al. 2003
17 Surikamigawa 2000 2.8 - 5 x 9.2

Bridge, Japan 84.82
Kasuga 2006
18 Wuhu Yangtze 2000 15 x 23.4

River Bridge, 180.0 + 312.0 + 180.0
Wuhan, China Double-decker steel truss with composite deck
slab on top roadway, two rail lines on bottom
level.
Photo from Fang 2004

Fang 2004
19 Yukisawa-Ohashi 2000 2 - 3.5 x 15.8

Bridge, Japan 70.3 + 71.0 + 34.4
Two cell concrete box girder with wide
sidewalks on deck cantilever overhangs outside
of cable planes.
Nunoshita et al. 2002, Kasuga 2006
20 Hozu Bridge, Japan 2001 2.8 x 15.3

33.0 + 50.0 + 76.0 + 100.0 + 76.0 + 31.0
Single cell concrete box girder.

Sumida et al. 2002, Kasuga 2006
21 Ibi River Bridge, 2001 4.3 - 7.3 x 33

Japan 154 + 271.5 + 271.5 + 271.5 + 271.5 + 157
Hybrid cross section: four cell concrete box
girder near piers and steel box girder in central
100 m with moment and shear connection.
Photo from Mutsuyoshi 2004
Hirano et al. 1999, Casteleyn 1999, Kutsuna et al. 2002, Kasuga 2006
22 Kiso River Bridge, 2001 4.3 - 7.3 x 33

Japan 160.0 + 275.0 + 275.0 + 275.0 + 160.0
Hybrid cross section: four cell concrete box
100 m with moment and shear connection.
Photo from Mutsuyoshi 2004
Hirano et al. 1999, Casteleyn 1999, Kasuga 2006
19

23 Miyakodagawa 2001 4 - 6.5 x 19.9
Bridge, Japan 134.0 + 134.0
Parallel double cell box concrete box girders.

Kato et al. 2001, Terada et al. 2002
24 Nakanoike Bridge, 2001 2.5 - 4 x 21.4

Japan 60.6 + 60.6
Kasuga 2006
25 Fukaura Bridge, 2002 2.5 - 3 x 13.7

Japan 62.1 + 90.0 + 66 + 45.0 + 29.1
Kasuga 2006
26 Korror Babeldoap 2002 3.5 - 7 x 11.6

Bridge, Palau 82.0 + 247.0 + 82.0
Hybrid cross section: wide single concrete box
82 m.
Photo courtesy of Tony Jones (www.onhiatus.com)
Oshimi et al. 2002, Ewert 2003
27 Sashikubo Bridge, 2002 3.2 - 6.5 x 11.3

Japan 114.0 + 114.0
Kasuga 2006
28 Shinkawa 2002 2.4 - 4 x 25.8

(Tobiuo) Bridge, 38.5 + 45.0 + 90.0 + 130.0 + 80.5
Hamamatsu, Japan Three cell concrete box girder.

Kasuga 2006
29 Deba River 2003 2.7 x 13.9

Bridge, Gipuzkoa, 42.0 - 66.0 - 42.0
Spain U shaped concrete deck with transverse ribs
between edge beams.
Photo from www.eipsa.net

Jaques 2005
30 Himi Bridge, Japan 2004 4 x 12.45

91.8 + 180.0 + 91.8
Single cell doubly composite box girder with
corrugated steel webs.
Photo from bd&e Second Quarter 2004

Kasuga 2006
20

31 Korong Bridge, 2004 2.5 x 15.85
Budapest, Hungary 52.26 + 61.98
Three cell concrete box girder stiffened with
transverse ribs.
Photo from Becze & Barta 2006

Becze & Barta 2006
32 Shin-Meisei 2004 3.5 x 19

Bridge, Japan 89.6 + 122.3 + 82.4
Three cell concrete trapezoidal box girder.
Photo from Mutsuyoshi et al. 2004

Iida et al. 2002, Kasuga 2006
33 Tatekoshi Bridge, 2004 1.8 - 2.9 x 19.14

Japan 56.3 + 55.3
Kasuga 2006
34 Sannohe-Boukyo 2005 3.5 - 6.5 x 13.45

Bridge, Aomori, 99.9 + 200.0 + 99.9
Japan Concrete box girder.

Kasuga 2006
35 Domovinski 2006 3.55 x 34

Bridge over the 48 + 6x60 + 72 + 120 + 72 + 2x60 + 48
River Sava, Croatia Five cell concrete box girder supports light rail
between cable planes.
Photo from Structurae

Bali & Veverka 1999
36 Kack-Hwa First 2006 - x 31.1

Bridge, Gwangju, 55.0 + 115.0 + 100.0
South Korea Multiple cell concrete box girder.
Structurae
37 Nanchiku Bridge, 2006 2.6 - 3.5 x 20.55

Japan 68.1 + 110.0 + 68.1
Kasuga 2006
38 Rittoh Bridge, 2006 4.5 - 7.5 x 19.6

Japan 140 + 170 + 115 + 70 (Tokyo bound)
Three cell doubly composite box girder with
corrugated steel webs.
Photo from Masterson 2004

Wilcox et al. 2002, Yasukawa et al. 2002, Masterson 2004
21

39 Tagami Bridge, 2006 3 - 4.5 x 17.8
Japan 80.2 + 80.2
Kasuga 2006
40 Third Bridge over 2006 2 - 2.5 x 17.4

Rio Branco, Brasil 54 + 90 + 54
Deck slab with L shaped edge beams (appears
as single box girder with incomplete bottom
slab) that taper to I beams at midspan.
Photo from Ishii 2006

Ishii 2006
41 Tokuyama Bridge, 2006 4 - 6.5 x 17.4

Japan 139.7 + 220.0 + 139.7
Stroh et al. 2003
42 Yanagawa Bridge, 2006 4 - 6.5 x 17.4

Japan 130.7 + 130.7
Kasuga, 2006
43 Brazil-Peru 2007 2.35 - 3.35 x 16.8

Integration 65.0 - 110.0 -65.0
Bridge, Brazil Wide single cell concrete box girder.
Photo from Ishii 2006

Structurae
44 Gum-Ga Grand 2007 - x 23

Bridge, 85.4 + 125.0 + 125.0 + 125.0 + 125.0 + 125.0 +
Chungcheongnam- Mulitple cell concrete box girder.
do, South Korea
Structurae
45 Pyung-Yeo 2 2007 3.5 - 4 x 23.5

Bridge, Yeosu, 65.0 + 120.0 + 65.0
South Korea Four cell concrete box girder.
Photo from Masterson 2006

Masterson 2006
46 Second 2007 3.5 x 28.6

Vivekananda 55.0 + 7 x 110.0 + 55.0
Bridge over the Wide single cell trapezoidal box girder with
internal struts (Bang Na cross section).
Hooghly River,
Calcutta, India Photo from www.ibtengineers.com
Binns 2005
22

47 Cho-Rack Bridge, 2008 - x 14
Dangjin, South 70.0 + 130.0 + 130.0 + 130.0 + 70.0
Korea Multiple cell concrete box girder.
Structurae
48 North Arm 2008 3.4 x 10.31

Bridge (Canada 139.0 + 180.0 + 139.0
Line Extradosed Single cell concrete box girder for LRT.
Transit Bridge),
Canada Photo from bd&e 2004
Griezic 2006
49 Trois Bassins 2008 4 - 7 x 22

Viaduct, Reunion, 18.6 - 126.0 - 104.4 - 75.6 - 43.2
France Single cell concrete box girder with steel struts
supporting long deck cantilevers.
Photo from Frappart 2005

Frappart 2005, Boudot et al. 2007
50 Golden Ears 2009 2.7 - 4.5 x 31.5

Bridge, Canada 121.0 + 242.0 + 242.0 + 242.0 + 121.0
Steel box girders at edge of deck with
transverse floor beams composite with precast
concrete deck.
Photo from Trimbath 2006
Trimbath 2006, Bergman et al. 2007
51 Pearl Harbor 2012 3.5 - 5 x 33.7

Memorial 75.9 + 157.0 + 75.9
(Quinnipiac) Parallel five cell concrete box girders with
inclined exterior webs.
Bridge, New
Haven, USA Photo from Stroh et al. 2003
Stroh et al. 2003
23
24
25
26
27
Tied arches and extradosed spans are two good options for urban environments. Girder bridges are not
visible to the driver and as stated by Menn (1991): the general public was never captivated by modern
bridge construction. Beam bridges were largely perceived as boring. For a signature bridge, girder
bridges do not have the visual elegance that is desired by governing authorities and designers alike.
The choice between a tied arch and an extradosed structure might be guided by the span configuration.
If only one long span is required, a tied arch may prove to be economical, but in other cases a cable-
supported bridge will be a clear choice due to the potential for cantilevered construction, which has a
relatively low impact on the terrain below. As the cost of concrete increases and the incremental cost
premium for higher strength decreases, there is more incentive to use materials efficiently. The extradosed
bridge presents a way to make use of the compressive capacity of the concrete, while maintaining
conventional girder cross-sections and common construction methods. \
Extradosed bridges allow for unequal span lengths, unsymmetrical span arrangements, multiple stayed
spans and approach spans with the same cross section as the main spans. Of the extradosed bridges in this
study, 41 of 51 have main spans between 75 and 200 m; 11 have two extradosed spans (one tower), 30
have three extradosed spans (2 towers), and 10 have more than three extradosed spans. From Figure 2-4b,
it is observed that multiple span bridges are viable for all span lengths.
Mathivats concept for a span to depth ratio of between 30 and 35 at the piers has been followed for 22
of the extradosed bridges, but the span to depth ratio at midspan has been increased to over 50 in 23
bridges, as observed from Figure 2-2. There are 13 extradosed bridges with a constant depth cross-section,
10 of which have a span to depth ratio between 30 and 35. The 3 exceptions are the Himi Bridge, the
North Arm Bridge, and the Sunniberg Bridge.
20 20
Constant Depth Constant Depth
Variable Depth Variable Depth
15 15
Bridges
Bridges
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65+ 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65+
Span : Depth at Pier Span : Depth at Midspan
Figure 2-2. Extradosed Bridges separated span to depth ratio at a) pier and b) midspan.
Around half (26) of the extradosed bridges have girders that are embedded (fixed in rotation) at the
piers, which reduces the live load stresses in both the girder and the cables. Extradosed bridges that have a
span to depth ratio above 40 at the pier are always embedded. It can be seen from Figure 2-3 that girders
that are embedded generally have a higher span to depth ratio at midspan, and the span to depth ratio
increases with increasing span length. As well, the girder is almost always embedded at longer span
lengths (only 3 of 19 bridges above 150 m are on simple supports).
28
140
Constant Depth Simple Supports
120 Constant Depth Embedded
Variable Depth Simple Supports at midspan
100 Variable Depth Embedded at pier
Span : Depth
80
60 1:55
40
1:30
20
0
50 66 100 150 200 250 275
Longest Span, m
Figure 2-3. Span to depth ratios of extradosed bridges at midspan and pier.
Variable depth girders are more frequently used at longer span lengths, as shown in Figure 2-4a. A
variable depth cross-section, with the depth at the pier more than 1.5 times the depth at midspan, is used in
26 extradosed girders. As the span length increases, the degree of haunching, or pier to midspan depth
ratio, also increases as observed from Figure 2-4b.
15 3
>1.5
Depth at Pier : Depth at Midspan
1-1.5
10 =1 2
Bridges
5 1
2 Spans
3 Spans
4 Spans +
0 0
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250+ 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Span, m Longest Span, m
Figure 2-4. Haunching in extradosed bridges shown a) in groups by span length and b) as the pier to midspan depth
ratio by span.
Tower height does not seem to be affected by girder depth or the fixity between the girder and piers. It
can however be observed from Figure 2-5 that in general, the span to tower height ratio decreases with
increasing span length. Most bridges have a span to tower height ratio between 8 and 12, and there are
very few bridges (3 of 51) with a span to tower height ratio close to 15, as suggested by Mathivat (1988).
29
15
Mathivat (1988)
14
Span : Height of Tower 12
10
8
8
6 5
Constant Depth Simple Supports Cable-Stayed
4 Typical
Constant Depth Embedded
2 Variable Depth Simple Supports
Variable Depth Embedded
0
50 66 100 150 200 250 275
Longest Span, m
Figure 2-5. Span to tower height ratio of extradosed bridges.
2.3 Characteristics of Extradosed Bridges

2.3.1 Materials Usage
The average girder thickness, the volume of concrete in the girder divided by the deck surface area, can be
used to compare the material usage of different bridge types. In Figure 2-6, the average girder thickness of
extradosed bridges and a selection of cantilever-constructed girder bridges and cable-stayed bridges, is
plotted against the longest span. Information on the girder and cable-stayed bridges considered in this
section is included in Appendix A. Also shown in Figure 2-6 are estimates of average girder thickness tg
as a function of average span lm suggested by Menn (1990) and SETRA (2007), for cantilever constructed
girder bridges, repeated below.
Menns Estimate: t g = 0.35 + 0.0045l m SETRA Estimate: t g = 0.4 + 0.0035l m
As observed from Figure 2-6, the average girder thickness of an extradosed bridge will lie somewhere
between that of a girder bridge and a cable-stayed bridge of the same span length. For a main span
between 80 and 100 m, there can be very little difference between the average girder thickness in a girder
bridge and an extradosed bridge, but the difference increases rapidly, indicating a greater savings in
concrete with an extradosed bridge as the span increases. In contrast, the average thickness of a cable-
stayed bridge increases very gradually, with the longest cable-stayed bridge having an average thickness of
not more than 60% more than the shortest of comparable cross-section. For a 200 m span, the average
girder thickness of a cable-stayed bridge is around 30% of that of a girder bridge.
It appears that a minimum average thickness of around 0.4 m for a cable supported (extradosed or
cable-stayed) bridge and of around 0.6 m for a girder bridge is required regardless of span length. This
minimum thickness is dictated by transverse behaviour and practical requirements. For the cable-stayed
bridges considered in Figure 2-6, stiffened slabs are always lighter than box girders, which can generally
be explained by the absence of a bottom slab.
A closer look at the average girder thickness of the extradosed bridges only, as seen in Figure 2-7,
shows a huge spread of values, especially for spans of around 100 m. The single cell box girders and
30
1.17 Menn (1990) Estimate

Cantilevered Regression
1.1 SETRA (2007) Estimate Cantilever Constructed Girder
Extradosed
Cable-Stayed
1.0
0.9
Average depth of concrete, m 3/m2
Extradosed Regression
0.8
0.7
0.6 Cable-Stayed
Regression
0.5
0.4
0.34
0.3
0 100 200 300 400 500 530
Longest Span, m
Figure 2-6. Average girder concrete thickness of cantilever-constructed girder, extradosed and cable-stayed bridges.
0.91
0.9 Miyakodagawa
Pyung-Yeo
Regression
Shin-Karato
0.8 Korong Domovinski Ganter
Odawara
Hozu Yukisawa-
Tsukuhara
Ohashi Pearl Harbor Ibi Kiso
Shinkawa
0.7
Pakse Himi
Saint-Remy
Shin-Meisei
Rittoh
0.6 Socorridos
North Arm
Trois Bassins
0.5 Barton Brazil-Peru

Sunniberg
Arret-Darre
0.4
0.39 Rio Branco
0.3
50 80 100 150 200 250 275
Longest Span, m
Figure 2-7. Average girder concrete thickness of extradosed bridges.
stiffened slab cross-sections always have a lower average thickness than multiple box girder cross-sections
for the same span.
In terms of total consumption of longitudinal prestressing steel, from available data on internal
prestressing in extradosed bridges (Grison & Tonello 1997; Becze & Barta 2006; Boudot et al. 2007), it
appears that the weight of total prestressing per unit volume of concrete is at best comparable to that of
31
cantilever constructed girder bridges. Therefore, any reduction in self-weight of concrete in the deck
should reduce the prestressing steel.
Figure 2-8 shows the mass of longitudinal prestressing and reinforcing steel, per unit volume of
concrete, in a selection of cantilever constructed girder bridges. The quantity of longitudinal prestressing
steel is fairly consistent, especially for shorter spans. The quantity of reinforcement on the other hand
varies considerably, but most of this variation comes from the transverse system of the deck slab (SETRA
2007). The upper values correspond to reinforced decks, wheras the lower values correspond to
transversly prestressed and ribbed decks. Shear reinforcement also affects the results since there is a large
difference between the web reinforcement if the webs are vertically prestressed or if external tendons are
used, as found for the Chapter 4 girder bridge designs. Regression lines are shown for the available data,
as are lines for preliminary estimates of superstructure costs suggested by Menn (1990) based on an
analysis of 19 bridges:
Prestressing Steel: m P = 0.35l m Reinforcing Steel: m s = 90 + 0.35l m
The parameter lm is the geometrical average span length (li2/li) in metres while the quantities mP and ms
are the mass per unit volume of concrete (kg/m3). For a cantilever-constructed girder bridge, the average
span can be taken as the longest span since the concrete and reinforcement in each side span is essentially
equivalent to half of the main span.
80 200
Mass of Longitudinal Prestressing Steel, kg/m3
Menn (1990)
Estimate 180
Mass of Reinforcing Steel, kg/m 3
60
160 Menn (1990)
Estimate
40 140
120
20
100
0 80
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Longest Span, m Longest Span, m
Figure 2-8. Mass of steel in cantilever constructed girder bridges: a) longitudinal prestressing steel, and b) reinforc-
ing steel (plots are based on data from SETRA 2007, Lacaze 2002, DEAL 1999).
The quantity of reinforcing steel in an extradosed bridge can be estimated from the above charts by
using an equivalent girder span length. The equivalent girder span length is calculated by multiplying the
extradosed span by the average depth of the extradosed cross section divided by the average depth of the
cantilever construction girder cross section. For an extradosed bridge with constant span to depth ratio of
50, the equivalent cantilever constructed girder bridge span would be 65% of the extradosed span.
2.3.2 Girder Stiffness

The moment of inertia of the girder of extradosed bridges at midspan varies considerably, especially for
bridges with a span between 100 and 150 m, as observed in Figure 2-9. This variation can be explained by
32
the variation in span to depth ratio at midspan observed in Figure 2-3. At the upper end, the moment of
inertia of some extradosed bridges is higher than that of cantilver constructed girder bridge of equal span,
while on the lower end, it is barely higher than that of a cable-stayed bridge of equal span, as seen in
Figure 2-9. There is however one extradosed bridge, the Sunniberg Bridge, which has a girder that is
considerably more flexible (lower moment of inertia) than most extradosed bridges. Its structural
behaviour appears to be more like a cable-stayed bridge, despite having a cable inclination of an
extradosed bridge.
It can also be observed that there is a distinct difference between the moment of inertia of cable-stayed
bridges that have box-girders and those that have slabs stiffened by edge beams. In this small sample of
cable-stayed bridges, all box girders are centrally suspended, while all slab or stiffened slab bridges are
laterally supported.
25
Span/40 Span/50
Extradosed
Cable-Stayed
Typical Cantilever
20 Constructed Box Girder
Midspan I per 10 m width, m 4
15
10
Sunniberg
0
0 80 100 200 300 400 500 530
Longest Span (m)
Figure 2-9. Moment of inertia of girder at midspan for extradosed and cable-stayed bridges (per 10 m width).
2.4 Detailed Descriptions of Extradosed Bridges

2.4.1 Odawara Port Bridge, Japan
The Odawara Bridge was the first extradosed bridge in the world to be constructed. The bridge has a two
cell box girder cross-section that is haunched near the piers, and supported in three spans by extradosed
cables in a semi-fan arrangement. The deck is monolithically connected to the two lateral tower legs,
which have a hexagonal shape.
There are 2 lateral planes of 8 extradosed 19-15 mm dia strand tendons per half span. The stress range
in the extradosed cables due to live load is between 15 and 38 MPa (Kasuga et al. 1994). The extradosed
cables are carried over the piers in saddles spaced vertically at 300 mm, with the internal sheath anchored
outside the saddles to prevent slip, as seen in Figure 2-10. After the extradosed cables enter into the deck,
33
Section through top of pylon
Figure 2-10. Odawara Extradosed Bridge details of tower saddle and arrangement of prestressing bars in tower from
FEM analysis (Kasuga et al. 1994).
they curve inwards to provide the necessary clearance for jacking them from within the box girder. This is
a unique solution to conceal the cable anchorages from view above or beneath the bridge. The sheaths are
installed in steel recess tubes both over the towers and through the girder to allow for future replacement of
the complete cable (Taniyama & Mikami 1994). Details of the cable anchorages and installation are
shown in Figure 2-11. The strands are epoxy coated and grouted inside an FRP sheath. High damping
rubber dampers are installed at the stay anchorages to decrease rain and wind vibrations.
a) b)
c)
Figure 2-11. Odawara Extradosed Bridge: a) strand

supply system; b) saddle structure at the pier top, and
c) anchorage structure at the main girder. (Toniyama
& Mikami 1994).
The bridge was constructed in cantilever with cast-in-place concrete. Temporary cables were used for
cantilever construction of the girder out to the first extradosed cables. The bridge features only external
tendons within the girder cross-section, although internal 12-13 mm dia strand tendons were included for
cantilevering.
2.4.2 Tsukuhara Extradosed Bridge, Japan

Twin parallel extradosed structures cross the Tsukuhara Bridge as part of a road network with the Akashi-
Kaikyo Bridge (Ogawa et al. 1998). Due to the steep embankments and deep river, the side spans are very
short at 65.4 m (0.36 of main span) and 76.4 m (0.42 of main span). Fill concrete in the box girder is used
as a counterweight at the end of the each side span in order to reduce the overturning moment at the piers.
34
The deck slab spans 9 m between webs and is post-tensioned with 28.6 mm dia monostrand tendons with
an after-bond pregrouted epoxy that does not require conventional grouting.
There are 2 lateral planes of 8 extradosed 27-15 mm dia strand tendons per half span. The maximum
stress range in the extradosed cables due to live load is 37 MPa (Ogawa et al. 1998). The strands are
individually sheathed with polyethylene, bundled and encased in an HDPE pipe which is filled with a
polyethylene filler (Chilstrom 2001). There are 12 external 19-15 mm dia strand tendons inside the box
girder across the main span to resist positive bending moments, and internal 12-13 mm dia strand tendons
that are mainly used for cantilevering of 7 m segments (Ogawa et al. 1998).
The Tsukuhara Bridge has a span to depth ratio of 60 at midspan, which is very shallow compared with
others studied in this chapter. Despite this fact, the live load stress range in the cables is very low.
2.4.3 Ibi and Kiso River Bridges, Japan

The Ibi and Kiso River Bridges are 5 and 6 span continuous structures that have total lengths of 1397 and
1145 m respectively, with maximum spans of 271.5 and 275 m. The towers are integral with the deck and
the superstructure rests on force distributing rubber bearings on the piers (Chilstrom 2001). The
superstructure has a hybrid construction, with each span consisting of cable-supported precast concrete
segments for the first 90 m from the piers, and a central steel box girder which is continuous with the
concrete sections. The continuity is achieved with shear studs, internal prestressing, and external
prestessing which is installed across the concrete segments, deviated at the piers and in span, and anchored
at the ends of the steel girders (Hirano et al. 1999).
The precast concrete segments are of 60 MPa concrete and have dimensions of 5 m in length, 33 m in
width, and up to 7 m in height. The segments weigh up to 400 tonnes, and were erected using a 600 tonne
crane. The segments were cast using two fabrication lines for each bridge, and transported 10 to 15 km by
barge to the site (Casteleyn 1999). The steel spans of 95 to 105 m weigh up to 2000 tonnes and were
strand-lifted and joined to the concrete segments with prestressing and shear studs.
Figure 2-12. Ibi River Bridge Pre-

stressing Tendon Layout in Cross-
Section (Kutsuna et al. 1999).
Kutsuna and Kasuga (2002) simulated the nonlinear behaviour of the structure up to its ultimate limit
state, to account for material and geometrical nonlinearity. The model included the effects of the girder,
internal and external tendons, and extradosed cables. The total load was increased gradually until the
concrete reached an ultimate strain of 0.0025. The target load was established as (D+L)1.7.
As the load increased, the precompression stress in the upper fibre of the girder section at the pier
increased until it exceeded the cracking stress at (D+L)1.5. Beyond this point, the increase in the tensile
force was taken by the internal and external tendons. The tension in the external tendons was almost
constant up to (D+L)1.5, then increased by 100 MPa at (D+L)1.7. The uppermost extradosed cable
35
Lower fibre concrete stress External tendon stress Extradosed cable stress
at the support section at the support section at the tower
Figure 2-13. Nonlinear Behaviour of the Ibi River Bridge up to ultimate load (Kutsuna et al. 2002).
reached the yield stress at (D+L)1.4, and by (D+L)1.7, all cables had yielded. Since all the cables yield
at ULS, Kutsuna and Kasuga conclude that the extradosed cables are used effectively.
While the magnitude of the live load is not given, the target load of (D+L)1.7 is already very
conservative. Given a ratio of maximum live load (unfactored) to dead load of 0.2, as calculated for the
extradosed bridges in Chapter 4 and typical of concrete cable-stayed bridges (Walther et al. 1999), a total
lead of (D+L)1.5 equates to 1.2D+3LL which already exceeds the ULS1 requirement of the CHBDC
(CSA 2006a).
2.4.4 Shin-Meisei Bridge, Japan

The structure was chosen both for economy and aesthetics, and carries two lanes of traffic in each direction
across the river. The trapezoidal box girder cross-section has two interior webs close to the cable
anchorages centred in the cross-section, and tapered exterior webs with shallow ribs to add visual interest
when observed from beneath the bridge. The tapered exterior webs were used to limit the width of the
bottom slab to give the bridge a lighter appearance (Kasuga 2006). The cross-section was cast-in-place in
balanced cantilever from the piers, and the side spans were assembled by overcantilevering with precast
core segments erected from a crane. The precast core segments measured 6 m wide by 1.8 m in length to
keep their weight below 25 tonnes. After the core segments acheived continuity across the side spans, the
wings were cast-in-place with the same traveller used for the full cast-in-place segments (Iida et al. 2002).
Core parts erected by truck crane Wings constructed by form traveller

Figure 2-14. Shin-Meisei Birdge construction of side spans (Iida et al. 2002).
The tower has a composite steel and concrete cross-section which allows the transfer of tensile stresses
across the tower without heavy prestressing, and allows for assembly without bolting or welding on-site.
The steel shell is assembled from box sections each weighing less than 5 tonnes. The post-cast concrete
36
joint down the centre of the tower, shown in Figure 2-15, alleviates any cracking that would occur from the
elastic strain across the tower as the cables are installed.
a) b) c)
Figure 2-15. Shin-Meisei Birdge a) photo of steel shell of tower; b) elevation of composite tower and c) details of
composite tower (drawings: Iida et al. 2002, photo and rendering: Kasuga 2006).
2.4.5 North Arm Bridge, Canada

The North Arm Bridge is an extradosed bridge carrying the Canada Line LRT from the Vancouver Airport
into the City across the Fraser River North Arm. The extradosed bridge type was chosen to keep the track
profile as low as possible to cross the navigational clearance envelope, while keeping the towers below the
glidepath clearance envelope (Griezic et al. 2006). The main span is constructed from precast segments of
2.8 m maximum length, with a maximum weight of 70 tonnes for transportation and lifting. A deck level
extradosed cable anchorage segment is shown in Figure 2-16a.
There are 6 centrally positioned extradosed 58-16 mm diametre strand tendons per half span, installed
with monostrand jacking equipment. The strands are galvanized, individually sheathed and waxed, and
enclosed in an HDPE pipe. The maximum stress range in the cables due to live load is 73 MPa.
a) b) c)
Figure 2-16. North Arm Birdge a) deck level extradosed cable anchorage; b) precast tower, and c) tower anchor seg-
ment (from Griezic et al. 2006).
The towers are assembled from precast composite sections, as shown in Figure 2-16b, and post-
tensioned vertically with 4 internal 19-15 mm diametre strand tendons. The cables are anchored in a
central steel box to avoid post-tensioning across the towers. Small HSS sections are welded between the
steel web plates to prevent vertical stresses, due to creep and shrinkage strains in the concrete, from
loading the steel web plates over time.
37
The designers of this bridge made two important decisions based on economy. A detailed comparison
was made and anchorages were chosen over saddles in the towers. Secondly, a constant depth girder was
chosen over a variable depth girder at the piers.
2.4.6 Pont de Saint-Rmy-de-Maurienne, France

The bridge crosses over the A43 highway and a river on a curve, at a location with tight geometry where a
very shallow clearance was required, since the roadway surface is only 0.9 m above the highway clearance
envelope. The bridge has two spans of 52.5 and 48.5 m, and is cast-in-place on falsework and post-
tensioned. The bridge cross-section is U shaped and consists of edge girders with transverse cross-beams
at 2.27 m spacing supporting a 220 mm thick concrete deck.
There are 6 34-15 mm dia strand tendons in each girder, which are internal through most of the span
and rise above the girder only around the deviators to become extradosed cables (Grison & Tonello 1997).
With an average girder thickness of 0.65 m, the Saint-Rmy Bridge has a longitudinal prestressing mass
per unit volume of concrete of 52 kg/m3 and a mass per unit area of deck surface of 30 kg/m2. This is
comparable to another short extradosed bridge, the Korong Bridge (Becze & Barta 2006), which has two
spans of 62 and 52 m, an average girder thickness of 0.785 m and a longitudinal prestressing mass of 43
kg/m3 and 33 kg/m2. However, this is quite alot more prestressing than in a conventional box girder bridge
of equivalent spans, which would be expected to have a similar average girder thickness of around 0.6 m
but a longitudinal prestressing mass of only 20 to 30 kg/m3, based on Section 2.3.1.
Compared with other channel bridges, the material quantities in the Saint-Rmy Bridge seem more
reasonable. The Route 302 Bridge over Route 17 in New York State is a channel bridge (Allen & Naret
1998; Shepherd & Gibbens 2004) assembled from precast segments that carries two lanes of traffic over
two spans of 34.1 m. The bridge has an average girder thickness of 0.48 m and a longitudinal prestressing
mass of 51 kg/m3 and 23 kg/m2.
Given that the span to depth ratio of the Saint-Rmy Bridge is 24 and that of the Route 302 Bridge is
22, it is clear that the Saint-Rmy Bridge could have been designed with internaly prestressing only. While
the extradosed prestressing may lead to an optimal alignment for the prestressing, as claimed by Grison &
Tonello (1997), it is unlikely that the cost of the building towers and providing external protection details
for the cables would have been less than the cost of additional prestressing strand. From this comparison,
it is clear that the extradosed form was primarily chosen for the second reason stated by its designers, that
of aesthetics that closely mimic the structural behaviour of the bridge.
38
2.4.7 Viaduc de la ravine des Trois Bassins, Runion
The extradosed bridge form was found to be a good solution for the ravine both
in terms of technological and architectural considerations, and was thought to
integrate harmoniously into the environment (Frappart 2005). A concrete bridge
was favoured due to the local availability of the material and a labour force that
was not familiar with structural steel. The bridge has spans of 126 - 104.4 - 75.6
- 43.2 m with a counterweighted span of 18.6 m adjacent the longest span to
stabilise the bridge transversely against cyclone winds of up to 49 m/s. The
unusual span arrangement was chosen partly because access was restricted to one
side of the ravine only. The bridge was cast-in-place with 60 MPa concrete in
segments of 3.6 m length. For each segment, the form traveler was used to cast
Figure 2-17. Trois
the main box section, while two smaller mobile formwork travelers were used to Bassins Viaduct main pier
install the struts and cast the deck overhang cantilevers in 7.2 m segments, off the (Frappart 2005).
critical path. The bridge was constructed starting with the short spans and ending with the closure of the
longest span.
The webs are inclined outwards to achieve the necessary torsional resistance of the section without
increasing the web thickness, and concurrently limiting the offset between the extradosed anchorages and
the webs (Frappart 2005).
There are double planes of 7 extradosed 37-16 mm dia strand cables across the main tower, as shown
in Figure 2-17, and one plane of 3 extradosed cables of the same size extending across the secondary pier
(Boudot et al. 2007). The strands of the extradosed cables are individually greased and sheathed and
insulated inside an HDPE external sheath, and are deviated across the towers by saddles. Internal 19 and
12-16 mm dia strand tendons were used for cantilevering, with one pair of cables anchored in most
segments, and were also used for continuity between cantilevers. External 19-16 mm dia strand continuity
tendons were draped across two or more spans. The mass of longitudinal prestressing (extradosed cables,
internal and external prestressing) per volume of concrete in the girder is 52 kg/m and the mass per unit
area of deck surface is 46 kg/m.
The deck is transversely prestressed with 3 4-16 mm dia strand tendons at the struts and one 4-16 mm
dia strand tendon per metre length of deck elsewhere.
2.4.8 Sunniberg Bridge at Klosters, Switzerland

The Sunniberg Bridge spans a total of 526 m, with a maximum span of 140 m, over the Landquart River
valley before entering the Gotschna tunnel which is part of a new bypass to Klosters. As a highly visible
structure along the bypass, the owner desired a high aesthetic standard and minimum impact to the valley
39
below during construction (Figi et al. 1997). The deck cross-section consists of a solid slab with
longitudinal edge beams, with a 7% roadway superelevation.
a) 1m 3.5 m b)
3.5 m 1m Stay cable
1.15 m 4 o 22 5 o 26 o 14 e=20 o14/o16 e=15
1.9 m
0. 4 m Longitudinal
Cable anchorage 4 o 22 4 o 22 prestressing o 30 e15/12.5
Figure 2-18. Snniberg Bridge a) deck cross-section and b) prestressing and reinforcement (adapted from Tief-
bauamt Graubnden 2001).
The bridge is curved in plan and connected monolithically at the abutments, which provides full
longitudinal restraint and allows the bridge to deform as a horizontal arch under deformation due to
temperature range. The abutments were designed as earth filled containers to anchor the horizontal
reaction forces (Baumann and Dniker 1999). The pier columns have a parabolic variation in depth, and
flare outwards from the base so that the towers are leaning outwards in order to provide the required
clearance for the cables.
There are two planes of 8 to 10 stay cables per half span. Each cable consists
of 125 to 160 galvanised 7 mm dia wires, prefabricated to length and anchored
by means of button heads in BBR DINA bonded anchorages, for a high fatigue
Steel construction
Stay cables with 125 resistance. The cables have an ultimate tensile strength of 1600 MPa and were
to 160 wires of 7 mm
diametre - cable forces designed for a maximum allowable stress of 0.50 fpu. Each group of four
3850 to 4900 kN
cables were stressed simultaneously. There are 3 12-15 mm dia strand tendons
Figure 2-19. Anchorages in
towers (adapted from Tief- (1900 kN each) in each edge beam through the midspan areas to compensate
bauamt Graubnden 2001). for the decrease in axial force from the cables (Baumann and Dniker 1999).
The flexible deck results in large deflections throughout each stage of construction, and
correspondingly large variations in bending moment, as seen in Figure 2-20. Under permanent loads, the
moment distribution across the deck resembles that of a continuous beam on simple supports, while under
live load a point load is distibuted into nearby cables (Figi et al. 1997). The vertical deflection of the girder
at midspan is 225 mm under a point load of 360 kN with and uniformly distributed load of 2 kN/m3,
approximately L/600 which is under the L/400 limit that was agreed upon with the owner (Tiefbauamt
Graubnden 2001). Of the total deflection, 40% comes from the rotation of the piers while 60% results
from the elastic extension of the cables, resulting in an upwards displacement of 60 mm in the adjacent
spans, 25% of the deflection of the loaded span.
The total cost of the Sunniberg Bridge was SFr. 20 M, corresponding to SFr. 3075 per m2 (Baumann
and Dniker 1999). The major cost items are the foundations, piers, and pylons (20.6%), bridge deck
including form traveller (33.5%) and the stay cables (23.1%). The total mass of the stay cables is given as
320 tonnes, while the mass of longitudinal internal prestressing in the deck is 13 tonnes. The stay cable
system cost around SFr. 14 400 per tonne. The mass of all prestressing (stay cables and internal PT) per
40
Form traveler advanced to Stage 5 Tower CL Midspan

Displacement
Permanent
Axial force from Stay Cables Variable
Deck poured Axial force from Internal Prestressing

Displacement
Permanent
Concrete Variable
Moments in inner edge beam
Stay Cables installed and stressed Displacements due to live load

Displacement
Live load
Figure 2-20. Sunniberg Bridge a) bending moments and deflections of the edge beam through one stage of construc-
tion, and b) forces and deflections of the main span inner edge beam of the final structure due to permanent and live
loads (adapted from Figi et al. 1998).
volume of concrete in the deck is 100 kg/m3 and the mass per unit area of deck is 97 kg/m2. These values
are higher than are typically found in extradosed bridges, such as the viaduc de la ravine des Trois Bassins
described in Section 2.4.7. The deck has an average thickness of only 0.51 m, which is lighter than all
extradosed bridges in this span range, but the mass of reinforcement per unit volume of concrete is over
200 kg/m3.
2.5 Concluding Remarks

This chapter presented the results of a study of 51 extradosed bridges constructed or proposed to date.
Most of the bridges in the study have proportions that are between those suggested by Mathivat (1988) and
those used in the first few extradosed bridges constructed with girders embedded on the piers, designed by
Menn and Kasuga. The girder concrete usage of the extradosed bridges is between typical values of
cantilever constructed girder and cable-stayed bridges, although a large variation was observed amongst
the extradosed bridges. A close examination of prestressing quantities in selected extradosed bridges
indicates that the prestressing usage is around the same as a cantilever girder bridge of the same span,
while reinforcing steel usage is lower. The examples of this chapter illustrate what is typical and what is
achievable for extradosed bridges; they are equally well suited to cast-in-place and precast construction.
In the next chapter, the insight gained from the study of existing extradosed bridges in this chapter
provides a basis for recommendations on the design of cable configuration, girder cross-section, towers,
and piers.
3 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF EXTRADOSED BRIDGES
Chapter 3 presents a comprehensive review of loads, design methodology, extradosed bridge proportions,
stay cable technology, girder cross-sections, cable and tendon layout, erection and analysis. The purpose
of this chapter is to explore the structural behaviour of an extradosed bridge, and determine what should be
considered for its design. This is necessary in order to develop realistic bridge designs in Chapter 4.
3.1 Loads
The CAN/CSA-S6-06 Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CSA 2006a hereafter CHBDC) has been
used throughout this thesis as the basis for all analysis of example extradosed bridges, bridge designs, and
parametric studies. The CHBDC uses the limit states philosophy to satisfy the requirements for
serviceability and fatigue, and to ensure the structure has adequate factored resistance to meet the factored
load effect at ultimate limit states.
Similar to cable-stayed bridges, the extradosed bridge is designed with service loads and allowable
stresses in the stay cables and tendons. In the final stages of design, the capacity of the sections are
verified at the ultimate limit state. The purpose of this section is to assess whether the CHBDC loads are
adequate for the design of extradosed bridges. The load combinations of relevance to this thesis are
summarised in Tables 3-1 and 3-2.
Table 3-1. Load factors and load combinations (CSA Table 3-2. Permanent loads - maximum and minimum
2006a). values of load factors for ULS (CSA 2006a).
Permanent Transitory Dead Load Maximum Minimum
Loads D P L K Factory produced components 1.10 0.95
SLS Combination 1 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.80 Cast-in-place components 1.20 0.90
ULS Combination 1 D P 1.70 0 Wearing surfaces 1.50 0.65
ULS Combination 2 D P 1.60 1.15 Prestress Maximum Minimum
ULS Combination 9 1.35 P 0 0 Secondary prestress efffects 1.05 0.95
Legend:
D - dead load
P - secondary prestress effects
L - live load (including the dynamic load allowance)
K - all strains, deformations, and displacements and their effects - includes those due to temperature change, temperature
differential, concrete shrinkage, differential shrinkage, and creep.
3.1.1 Live Load

The live loading prescribed by the CHBDC has been adopted throughout this thesis. For long spans, the
CHBDC live load is based on traffic loading for long span bridges recommended by the American Society
of Civil Engineers Committee of Loads and Forces on Bridges (Buckland 1981), which was established
after traffic studies were conducted on the Second Narrows Bridge in Vancouver, BC which is considered
to be typical of traffic on most North Americal long span bridges (Buckland 1991). However, there are
differences in vehicle positioning in the lane and multiple lane loading between the two codes which are
described and quantified in this section.
The CHBDC live load model consists of the CL-625 Truck, which consists of a series of axle loads
which total 625 kN, and the CL-625 Lane Load which is made up of the CL-625 Truck reduced to 80% and
41
42
superimposed with a uniformly distributed load of 9 kN/m. Under serviceability limit state (SLS) and
ultimate limit state (ULS), the CL-625 Truck load effect is increased by the addition of a dynamic load
amplification (DLA) factor to account for impact, which varies depending on how many axles are loading
the component under consideration as shown in Figure 3-1. For all axles acting on the bridge, the DLA is
25%. A DLA is not applied to the CL-625 Lane load, as this maximum load condition is assumed to occur
with stationary vehicles on the bridge (CSA 2006b). The CL-625 live load is shown in Figure 3-1.
CL-625 Truck
Dynamic Load
CL-625 Truck Clearance Envelope Modification factor for
Allowance
multiple lane loading
CL-625 Lane Load

Figure 3-1. CL-625 Live Loading: Maximum of CL-625 Truck (including DLA) or CL-625 Lane Load.
For spans up to approximately 50 m, the CL-625 Truck will govern the loading, but at spans beyond
approximately 90 m, the CL-625 Lane load will govern. In between these span lengths, the Truck will
govern in positive moment regions, while the Lane load will govern in negative moment regions. At
SLS1, the live load is reduced to 0.9 of the value of the CL-625 Live load.
Fractions of Basic Lane Load
1 2 3 4 5 6
Multiple Lane Distribution
P = Concentrated Load per Lane

U = Uniform Load per Lane
%H.V. = Average Percentage of Heavy Vehicles in Traffic Flow Lane Loading to Produce Maximum Torque at Location X
Figure 3-2. ASCE Loading (adapted from Buckland 1981)
The CL-625 Lane load is based on the ASCE traffic loading for long span bridges, shown in Figure 3-
2, with an average 30 % heavy vehicles in traffic flow, despite the fact that the Second Narrows Bridge was
found to have an upper limit of 7.5 % average heavy vehicles in traffic flow (Buckland 1981). The 30 %
loading was proposed by the ASCE Committee as an upper limit for some routes with a large number of
43
trucks, and was selected by the CHBDC Subcommittee on Loads to account for an increase in truck
weights in the last 25 years and to allow for future growth in truck traffic (CSA 2006b).
The loading of multiple lanes is not a simple matter, but it is important because it has a significant
effect on the stress range of the cables due to live loading. Buckland (1991) presents a comparison of live
loading between British Standards (BD 37/88, BS 5400 1978) and North American Standards (ASCE,
AASHTO 1983, CAN/CSA-S6-88 1988) with a section on multiple lane loading. While the current
CHBDC CL-625 Lane load is based on the ASCE 30% heavy vehicle curves, the multi-lane factors do not
follow the ASCE recommendations.
The multi-lane loading factors in the CHBDC follow the North American practice of reducing the lane
loads uniformly across all lanes. The multi-lane loading takes into account the reduced probability of more
than one lane being loaded simultaneously, due to actions such as traffic distribution, traffic volume, traffic
speed, accident situations, and decrease of dynamic loads since it is unlikely that vehicles in multiple lanes
vibrate in harmony (CSA 2006b). The CHBDC positions the vehicles biased towards one side of the
design lane to produce the maximum load effect. In contrast, the ASCE loading positions the vehicles
centrally in the design lanes, based on the assumption that over a long span, vehicles will be randomly
spaced with the average position close to the centre of the lane (Buckland 1981).
European practice has been to keep one or two lanes fully loaded while reducing the load on all others.
As noted by Buckland, there is merit to this idea as there is no reason to suppose the most heavily loaded
lane will be less loaded simply because other lanes are open and he emphasizes the importance of
accurately representing the effects of the traffic (Buckland 1991). The ASCE Loading recommends one
lane loaded to the maximum, the second lane loaded to 0.7 of the maximum, and all other lanes loaded to
0.4 of the maximum. The maximum torque on a bridge that is centrally supported is produced by a point
load applied at location X leading in front of the uniform live load with multiple lane load factors applied,
and a uniform load with multiple lane load factors applied up to the point X in lanes of the opposite
direction. This corresponds to the maximum torque that could be produced with vehicles stationary
blocked by an incident at location X. .
Although the basic lane load may be similar, the two codes differ in their treatment of multiple lane
loading, as illustrated in Figure 3-3. Table 3-3 shows the difference in load effect between the CHBDC
and ASCE treatment of multiple lane loading and vehicle biasing in the lane. For a bridge suspended by a
single plane of cables, the CHBDC live load effect is anywhere between 3% and 14% higher than that of
the ASCE loading, for the same basic lane load. For a bridge with two planes of cables, the CHBDC live
load effect is the same as the ASCE load effect on average, but between 8% higher and 6% lower. The
total live load on the cables when a bridge is laterally supported, neglecting torsional redistribution, is up
to 14% higher for CHBDC multiple lane loading, and up to 20% higher for ASCE multiple lane loading,
than if the bridge is centrally supported.
As a bridge deck increases in width, one might expect the live load to dead load ratio to decrease, since
the live load per metre width of deck is lesser. This would in fact be the case if we assume the dead load of
the cross-section to be linearly proportional to the width. From the extradosed bridges examined in
44
5 5
4 4 Lateral Suspension
Multiple of Basic Lane Load
3 3
CHBDC Lateral
Central Suspension
CHBDC Central
2 2
ASCE Lateral
ASCE Central
1 1
CHBDC 2006
2 lanes 3 lanes 4 lanes 5 lanes 6 lanes 7 lanes 8 lanes

0 0
6.0 10.0 13.5 17.0 20.5 24.0 27.5 31.0
Wc, m ASCE 1981
Figure 3-3. multiple lane loading effect by deck width according to CHBDC 2006 and ASCE 1981, for two planes of
cables and for single plane central cable suspension.
Table 3-3. Comparison of multiple lane load effects according to CHBDC (2006a) and ASCE (Buckland 1981) for
the same basic lane load.
Comparison 2 Lanes 3 Lanes 4 Lanes 5 Lanes 6 Lanes 7 Lanes 8 Lanes
CHBDC/ASCE 1.06 1.14 1.12 1.03 1.00 1.04 1.07
Total Load on single cable plane
CHBDC/ASCE 1.08 1.04 1.03 0.99 0.96 0.92 0.94
Total Load on two planes of cables
CHBDC - Ratio of total load of two planes to 1.10 1.07 1.10 1.14 1.14 1.04 1.02
total load on single plane
ASCE - Ratio of total load of two planes to 1.08 1.18 1.20 1.20 1.19 1.18 1.17
total load on single plane
Chapter 2, the wider bridges do appear to have effective thicknesses that are less than the narrower bridges
(average effective thickness of decks 18 m or wider is 13% lower), however the live load to dead load ratio
decreases faster. In a well designed cross-section, the dead load should be a function of the transverse
system and the stiffening system, where only the transverse system is affected by and increase in deck
width, as will be discussed further in Section 3.6.
Two important observations can be made from this discussion of live load:
1. The multiple lane loading factors and lane biasing of the CHBDC will result in larger live load effects
for than those prescribed in the ASCE, specifically for centrally suspended girders and laterally sup-
ported girders with fewer than 5 lanes.
2. The total live load effect on two planes of cables will be between 10 and 20% higher than on a single
plane of cables, which implies that central suspension lead to a lower live load demand in cable sup-
ported bridges.
3.1.2 Temperature
At SLS1, the CHBDC (CSA 2006a) requires that the effects of temperature be considered in combination
with live load. There are three temperature effects that cause forces in an extradosed bridge: temperature
45
gradient in the girder, temperature differential between the cables and girder, and a uniform temperature
range applied to the entire structure. The effects of temperature gradient and temperature differential on
the extradosed bridge become more significant as the stiffness of girder increased and must be considered
and will be discussed in greater detail, while a temperature range mainly affects the piers.
Temperature Gradient in Girder
The CHBDC (CSA 2006a) specifies a linear temperature gradient which is a function of the section
depth. This may provide a reasonable approximation of the curvature induced by the sun shining on the
surface of a bridge deck for short spans, but is overly conservative for deeper cross-sections where
corresponding curvature is primarily due to the strain in the deck slab and its distance to the centroid of the
girder cross-section.
One of the earlier rational models for temperature gradient was proposed by Priestley (1978) based on
experimental and analytical research conducted in the early 1970s. A design gradient was proposed that
would accurately predict the critical conditions for seven bridge sections investigated and was adopted for
all major concrete bridge design in New Zealand (Priestley 1978). This design gradient is specified by a
fifth-order curve with the point of zero temperature difference at 1200 mm below the deck surface.
T, deg C
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0
0
ilevers
webs, cant
voids
bove
0.4 deck a
Zone T1 T2
T = 32 - 0.2h 1 30 7.8
Depth, m
0.8 ty = T (y/1200)5 2 25 6.7

New Zealand concrete deck ty = 5 - 0.05h 3 23 6.0
1.2 New Zealand 90mm asphalt h: asphalt thickness 4 21 5.0
AASHTO Zone 1
1.6 AASHTO Zone 3
New Zealand Gradient AASHTO LRFD Gradient
CHBDC
2
Figure 3-4. Comparison of Temperature Gradients (adapted from Priestley 1978, AASHTO 2004).
The current AASHTO (2004) LRFD temperature gradient is based on a model proposed in the 1985
NCHRP Report 276, which was based on work initially done by Potgieter and Gamble (1983). Roberts-
Wollman, Breene and Carson (2002) describe the development of the current code provisions in greater
detail, and compare the 1994 AASHTO temperature gradient with field measurements of two segmental
concrete bridges over the course of 2.5 years. Their results indicate that the 1994 AASHTO LRFD
positive gradients are conservative for an exposed concrete deck, and appropriate for a deck with 50 mm
asphalt topping, while the negative gradients are slightly conservative. As well, they found the shape of
the temperature gradient to be most similar to the trilinear form specified in the 1989 AASHTO Guide
Specifications for Thermal Effects in Concrete Bridge Superstructures. The current 2004 AASHTO LRFD
temperature gradient is very similar to the 1994 version, except that the reduction of the temperature
gradient for asphalt wearing surface (to 0.8 of the untopped value) has been eliminated. Negative
temperature gradients are obtained by multiplying the positive gradient by -0.3 for a concrete wearing
surface, and by -0.2 for an asphalt wearing surface.
46
The AASHTO (2004) LRFD code specifies a load factor TG for temperature gradient, to be taken as
1.0 at SLS when live load is not considered, and as 0.5 when combined with live load. Since the AASHTO
temperature gradient is a rational model that has been shown to be conservative in its prediction of strains
in concrete bridges, its use and use of partial load factor in combination with live load should be adopted
for any bridge where the effects of temperature gradient are likely to influence the design of prestressing
and reinforcement, such as for an extradosed bridge.
Mondorf (2006) and OBrien and Keogh (1999) provide good explanations of how to calculate the
effects due to nonlinear temperature gradient. Priestley (1978) notes that the effects of temperature
gradients should not be be considered as equivalent forces at ULS, because the force-deformation response
of the girder section is no longer linear, and equivalent forces would incorrectly predict failure, wheras the
only significance of thermal gradient at ULS is a reduction in ductility of the section.
Temperature Differential between Stays and Girder
Sun shining on a bridge will cause steel above the deck to heat up more rapidly than a concrete girder.
Thus the stays will lengthen due to the temperature differential with respect to the girder, and will cause
bending in the girder. The CHBDC (CSA 2006a Clause 3.9.4.1) states that Type A structures (steel
superstructure above the deck) will be subject to temperatures of 25 above the maximum mean daily
temperature, while Type C structures (concrete systems with concrete decks) will be 10 above. This
would imply a temperature differential of 15 between stays and concrete girder, although there is a further
reduction in the temperature of the concrete girder due to depth that would increase this differential.
Eurocode 1-1-5 (CEN 2002a) specifies a temperature differential of 10 for light coloured stays and 20 for
dark coloured stays, which does not take into account girder materials or depth. A temperature differential
of 15 was used in the design of the Pasco-Kennewick Bridge (Mondorf 2006). The effect of temperature
differential indicates a preference for light coloured stays in extradosed bridges.
3.2 Design Concepts

3.2.1 Stiffness of Cables and Girder
The extradosed bridge form allows the designer to select the distribution of live load between the stay
cables and the girder, by changing the stiffness ratio of these two elements. Ogawa and Kasuga (1998)
compare this to the choice a designer has when designing an arch as deck-stiffened or arch-stiffened. Thus
there are two different approaches that have been taken in the design of extradosed bridges. The following
examples of the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge that has a stiff deck, and the Sunniberg Bridge that has a
flexible deck, illustrate these two extremes.
For the concrete design of the Pearl Harbour Memorial Bridge (51 in Table 2-1) to be built in New
Haven, Connecticut (Stroh et al. 2003), the designers proportioned the girder section based on the
maximum depth available given the grade and navigational clearance constraints, as well as transverse
bending requirements. The girder was then dimensioned with the maximum desirable amount of internal
longitudinal posttensioning for the section (Stroh et al. 2003). Extradosed tendons were used to reduce
the bending moment demand to meet the available moment resistance of the box section. This process
47
resulted in a bridge with a span to depth ratio of 31 at the piers and 45 elsewhere. For a 5 lane bridge of
157 m main span, the cable mass required to support half of the main span was 41 tonnes, a mass of 18 kg/
m of the deck surface.
For the design of the Sunniberg Bridge (10 in Table 2-1) (Honigmann & Billington 2003), Menn has
used the same approach as for the design of a cable-stayed bridge: a cable arrangement is selected, cables
are sized according to maximum load for the allowable cable stress, and the girder is designed to resist the
bending moment between cables under dead load, and compatibility moments under live load, caused by
the distribution of axles loads to several adjacent cables. Finally, the cross section was checked for
buckling at the pier under combined bending and axial compression in the deck. This process resulted in a
bridge that has a span to depth ratio of 127. For a 2 lane bridge of 140 m main span, the cable mass
required to support half of the 140 m main span was 43 tonnes, a mass of 49 kg/m of the deck surface,
more than double that of the Pearl Harbour Memorial Bridge.
Most extradosed bridges built to date lie somewhere between these two examples, as is the case for the
North Arm Bridge (48 in Table 2-1), a 562 m long, five span LRT bridge with a 180 m extradosed main
span, recently completed in Vancouver (Griezic et al. 2006). A precast concrete segmental box girder
cross-section was being used on other parts of the project and was a logical choice for the extradosed span.
In addition, the approach spans could be cantilever constructed by varying the depth of the box girder. In
the main span, extradosed tendons were added to extend the useable span of the box girder while meeting
navigational and glidepath clearance requirements above and below the bridge. These constraints resulted
in a bridge with a span to depth ratio of 53. For a bridge with two LRT lines, the cable mass required to
support half of the main span was 22 tonnes, a mass of 23 kg/m of the deck surface. The designers
reported a maximum stress range of 73 MPa due to service live load (Griezic et al. 2006), while an analysis
done for this thesis found a maximum of 61 MPa at SLS under CHBDC live load. While the North Arm
Bridge is an LRT bridge, it can be compared with the other two road bridges based on the maximum live
loading stress in the extradosed cables.
Ogawa and Kasuga (1998) define an index as the distribution of the live load to the stay cables, and
claims that this index also represents the stiffness ratio between stay cables and girders.
Load carried by stay cables
=
Total vertical load
The boundary between extradosed bridges and cable-stayed bridges is suggested to occur at = 0.30,
corresponding to a live load stress range in the cables of around 50 MPa. In practice, the distribution index
is not easily determined since all common live load models consist of both a uniform lane load and point
loads representing vehicle axles. The distribution index is higher for point loads than for uniform loads,
because the girder locally distributes the point load to cables surrounding the point of loading, not to all
cables in the span. The vertical stiffness of a cable anchored at the deck is related to the inverse of its
length and decreases as the length increases (i.e. as we move away from the pier towards the midspan).
Therefore, a point load applied at midspan will distribute more evenly to adjacent cables than a point load
applied closer to the pier. This is demonstrated in the comparison between the Sunniberg Bridge and the
48
North Arm Bridge in Table 3-4, each subjected to point load, uniform load, and CL-625 live load. The
ratios are higher for the Sunniberg Bridge than for the North Arm Bridge, and the ratio for point load at
midspan is higher than for a uniform load in each bridge.
Table 3-4. Comparison between Sunniberg Bridge and North Arm Bridge response to live load.
Sunniberg Bridge, 140 m main span North Arm Bridge, 180 m main span
Axial force and bending moment due to 9 kN/m uniform load across main span
= 0.72 = 0.23
Mmax = 670 kNm Mmax = 9140 kNm
Axial force and bending moment due to 625 kN point load applied at midspan
= 1.00 = 0.43
Axial force and bending moment envelopes due CL-625 live loading
L= 198 MPa* L= 61 MPa*

maximum LL stress in cables maximum LL stress in cables
Mmax = 4500 kNm* Mmax = 28000 kNm*

Mmin = -7930 kNm* Mmin = -39000 kNm*
* Values given are for 2 lanes loaded including multilane reduction and service load factors.
Note: Model geometry and load shading for the two bridges are to the same relative scale.
3.2.2 Stiffness of Superstructure and Substructure

The girder, cables, and tower form the superstructure load resisting system. For all extradosed bridges
considered in Chapter 2, the tower is fixed to the girder, but the superstructure is fixed to the substructure
(piers) in only half of the bridges. In bridges with side spans of less than half of the main span, as is almost
always the case for cable-stayed bridges, the tower can be stabilised by backstay cables. Backstay cables
will not be discussed in this section because very few extradosed bridges rely on backstay cables, but the
topic is explained thoroughly by Leonhardt and Zellner (1980), Menn (1994), Gimsing (1997) and Walther
et al. (1999).
When the superstructure rests on simple supports at the piers (free in rotation), as opposed to being
embedded (fixed in rotation) at the piers, a live load in any one span causes bending in the girder, which
49
causes a downwards displacement in the loaded span and an upwards displacement in the adjacent span(s).
To resist the bending moment in the girder and control displacements, the girder alone must have adequate
bending resistance and stiffness. For these two conditions to be jointly met, a certain section depth is
required to provide stiffness to the system, since the cables simply transfer the load in one span to the
adjacent span(s). A tensile force in a cable due to a point load in one span is distributed through the tower
to multiple cables in the adjacent span.
In the case of a superstructure embedded at the piers, any rotation of the superstructure at each pier will
be partially restrained by the substructure. This will decrease the bending moment in the girder due to live
load, since some of the moment is resisted by the pier. The corresponding displacements are also reduced.
If the girder is flexible, the substructure must provide enough stiffness to control deflections of the girder
due to live load.
Table 3-5. Comparison between monolithic and released connnection at main piers of the North Arm Bridge.
Bending moment due to 625 kN point load on main span
Monolithic Mmin = -8290 kNm
Mmax = 11700 kNm
Released Mmin = -5500 kNm Mmin = -4760 kNm
Bending moment due to 9 kN/m uniform load across main span

Mmax = 9140 kNm

Mmax = 10700 kNm

Mmax = 13300 kNm
Bending moment envelopes due to CL-625 live loading* on main span

Mmax = 28000 kNm

Mmax = 26400 kNm

Mmax = 37800 kNm
Axial force envelopes due CL-625 live loading* on main span
Monolithic PL= 270 kNm PL= 390 kNm
Released PL= 660 kNm PL= 440 kNm

50
Table 3-5. Comparison between monolithic and released connnection at main piers of the North Arm Bridge.
Deflected shape envelope due CL-625 live loading* on main span
Monolithic
d = 20 mm
d = -155 mm
Released d = 67 mm
d = -300 mm
* Values given are for 2 lanes loaded including multilane reduction and service load factors.
Table 3-5 shows the forces and displacements in the North Arm Bridge resulting from live load across
the main span, for both the superstructure embedded on the piers (monolithic as it was constructed) and the
superstructure simply supported (released against rotation) at the piers. The monolitic connection causes a
shift in the moment diagram from positive to negative moment regions, and virtually eliminates any
bending in the back spans. In the released condition, the live load in the main span is reflected in the back
spans, the effect of which is pronounced since the side spans are very long in this bridge.
3.2.3 Prestressing Methodology

From the previous two sections, we observe that there are two separate factors which influence the
magnitude of the bending moments in the girder due to live load. Firstly, the relative stiffness of the cables
and girder which affects the distribution of forces between these two systems, and secondly the connection
between the superstructure and the substructure, which affects the moment distribution between the
superstructure and the piers. Long-term effects lead to changes in the magnitude and distribution of
bending moments in the extradosed bridge, and warrant further discussion before explaining the
prestressing methodology for an extradosed bridge.
Axial shortening of the girder due to creep and shrinkage will cause a decrease in the cables
pretensions that causes long term bending moments, as will be discussed in Section 3.4.9. For a concrete
cable supported structure, it is always desirable to have no net bending moment in the girder under
permanent loads (a bending moment distribution in the girder equivalent to that of a continuous beam on
simple supports) to reduce creep-induced deflections and uncertainties in the deflections over the lifetime
of the structure. This is especially important for cable-stayed bridge with flexible decks, where the live
load moment is a much greater proportion of the total moment than permanent moments. Undulating
internal tendons are installed to exactly balance the self-weight of the slab between anchorages, to
eliminate any net moment under permanent loads. This is sometimes referred to as centred forces under
permanent loads and is the preferred means of keeping geometrical nonlinear effects to a minimum under
permanent loads (Virlogeux 1994).
It is also desirable to have centred forces during construction, as creep deformations will be
accelerated due to the early age of the concrete. This is only possible with cable tensions adjusted to
balance the construction loads: the self-weight of the deck and the weight of the construction equipment.
This creates an apparent contradiction, which is often solved by first stressing the cables to balance
51
construction loads, then restressing the cables to balance the permanent loads, after the superimposed load
is applied to the continuous structure. This is efficient in terms of limiting the bending moment in the deck
at all stages but it requires a laborious restressing operation.
The aforementioned factors lead to the following prestressing methodology for cable-stayed bridges.
The cables are dimensioned to resist all permanent loads, all uniform live load, and concentrated live loads
reduced to account for some distribution into adjacent cables. The cables are first pretensioned to balance
construction loads during construction in balanced cantilever, then they are retensioned to balance all
permanent loads after construction of barriers and asphalt paving. Internal prestressing tendons are
straight and centred to limit creep effects, geometrical nonlinear effects, and uncertainties in the magnitude
of bending moments. Partial prestressing is used in the girder to limit crack widths at SLS (Hansvold
1994; Jordet & Svensson 1994; Wheeler et al. 1994), typically to 0.2 mm. Additional bending capacity at
ULS is provided by reinforcing steel. Full prestressing to keep the girder uncracked at SLS, especially at
midspan where there is no axial force induced in the girder from the cables, would require a prohibitively
high quantity of prestressing. Sometimes, the span is required to remain fully prestressed for a typical
truck, and only partially prestressed for full SLS loads (Bergermann & Stathopoulos 1988).
The challenge of designing an extradosed bridge with stiff girder lies in proportioning the girder,
cables and substructure to control the stress range in the cables due to live load, in order to take advantage
of a higher allowable stress for the extradosed cables. Since the girder is stiff, axial shortening of the
girder due to creep and shrinkage causes long term bending moments of similar magnitude to those due to
live load, which cannot be avoided. Prestressing is required in the girder to resist bending moments due to
both long term effects and live load. This leads to the following prestressing methodology, suggested by
Komiya (1999) and Chio Cho (2000). The cables of an extradosed bridge could be dimensioned to balance
the girder self-weight with an allowance for live load, and pretensioned to balance construction loads
(girder self-weight only). Superimposed dead loads are applied to the continuous structure, but are resisted
mostly by the girder causing only a marginal increase in cable tensions, between 3 and 6% for the bridge
designed in Section 4.3. Instead of restressing the stay cables, these bending moments can be balanced by
internal bottom and/or external draped continuity tendons installed in the final structure. These tendons
provide resistance for the bending moment due to live load and long term effects. Tendon layout will be
discussed in Section 3.7, and bending moment diagrams describing the above load cases can be found in
Section 4.3.2.
For an extradosed bridge with flexible girder, the girder must be as flexible as possible to limit long-
term bending moments due to creep and shrinkage. At the same time, the superstructure and substructure
together must provide enough stiffness to limit deflections due to live load. The prestressing methodology
is the same as for cable-stayed bridges.
52
3.3 Conceptual Design
3.3.1 Fixity of the Girder to the Piers
Fixity of the girder, both at the side span supports and on the main piers, has a significant effect on both the
bending moment in the deck and on the stress range in the cables due to live load. Fixing the girder at the
piers allows the bridge to resist live load as a frame, causing a shift in bending moment in the loaded span
from positive to negative moment regions, where the moment is distributed into the piers. Fixing the
girder decreases the total bending moment in the deck and decreases the displacements, especially in the
spans adjacent to the applied load. Of the extradosed bridges in the Chapter 2 study, 26 out of 50 have
girders that are embedded on the piers.
Figure 3-5 shows the moment envelopes due to the CHBDC (CSA 2006a) CL-625 Live load for a
three span girder bridge of constant cross-section, with a main span of 100 m and side spans of different
length. The envelopes on the left side of the figure are for a case where the girder is fully restrained at the
inside piers, whereas those on the right side are for a girder on simple supports at the interior piers. For the
fixed condition, the moment range at the section of maximum moment in the side spans (difference
between maximum and minimum moment) is 55% of the value for the simply supported condition. When
the girder is embedded on the piers, the moment envelope will be somewhere between the two extremes
shown in Figure 3-5.
-25 Moment, MNm
Girder fixed at interior supports -20 Girder on simple supports
-15
-10
Distance from CL Pier, m -5

100 50 0 -50 0 50 100
0
10
15
20
Figure 3-5. CHBDC CL-625 Live load envelopes for a main span of 100 m.
In a girder bridge, the live load is a small portion of the total moment in the bridge, and embedding the
girder on the piers does not significantly affect the design, since the decrease in total moment is relatively
small (for the cantilever constructed girder bridge in Chapter 4, which is simply supported at the piers, the
live load at midspan is 23% of the total moment demand at SLS). In an extradosed bridge however, the
live load makes up a significant portion of the total moment in the girder (for the stiff girder extradosed
bridge in Chapter 4 which has a girder that is embedded on the piers, the live load at midspan is 44% of the
total moment demand at SLS which is a higher proportion of the total moment than in the girder bridge).
Since the live load is shared between the cables and the girder, any decrease in live load moment is doubly
beneficial since the total moment in the girder is reduced, and the stress range in the cables due to live load
is decreased.
53
The height and configuration of the piers will influence the bending moment at the level of the
foundations, especially due to resp. Piers that are fixed at their base deform in double bending, and thus
the moment at the base will be similar to that at the girder, unless there is a variation in the piers cross-
section. The piers can be proportioned to resist the bending moment due to live load without significant
reinforcement. The lever arm of the pier can be increased more easily than the deck, through a wider pier
or twin pier legs, without detriment to the aesthetics of the bridge. If footing dimensions are constrained, a
simply supported deck will be preferred to eliminate bending at the foundation level due to live load on the
superstructure.
The proportioning of the girder and piers are interrelated and cannot be treated independently. The
decision of whether to fix the girder to the piers in rotation or not should be made early on in the design
process as this significantly affects the forces in the bridge under live load. Both scenarios present no
difficulties in construction, and it appears preferable keep the girder embedded on the piers.
3.3.2 Side Span Length

When the girder is stiff, side spans should be proportioned similar to ordinary girder bridges (Kasuga
2006), generally between 0.6 and 0.8 of the main span, to balance the maximum moments in the side spans
and main span.
Chio Cho (2000) found that side spans of less than half of the main span decrease the bending moment
in the main span, but recommends the use of side spans longer than 0.60 of the main span to produce a
positive bending moment in the side span due to live load that is similar in magnitude to that of the main
span.
3.3.3 Tower Height and Girder Depth

Mathivat (1988) suggests using a constant depth girder with a span to depth ratio of 30 to 35 and a tower
with a span to height ratio of 15. Based on Mathivats semi-fan cable arrangement, with the cables
anchored at each segment and resting on saddles at the deviators, the ratio of span to lever arm is around
15. These span to depth ratios correspond to those typically found in cantilever constructed girder bridges
in France, most of which use external continuity tendons and are simply-supported by bearings on the
piers, and have a span to depth ratio between 30 and 35 at midspan.
Upper and lower bounds for the proportions of an extradosed bridge can be established by looking at
current practice for cantilevered and cable-stayed bridges. Current practice in France, as recommended by
SETRA (2007), is to use a span to depth ratio of 16 to 18 at the supports and 30 to 35 at midspan, with a
minimum cross-section depth of 2.2 m for movement through the box-girder. SETRA provides formulas
for suggested span l to depth h ratios, based on cantilevered bridges constructed in France:
Over Pier: l l At Midspan: l l

----- = 14 + ------ ------ = 19 + ---
hp 45 hm 7
The fib Guidance for good bridge design (2000) claims the that most economical span to depth ratio
for a cantilever constructed girder bridge is approximately 15, but that an increase from 15 to 20 will not
affect the cost signifcantly. The fib guide recommends span to depth ratios at midspan of 35 to 40 for
54
continuous spans simply-supported on the piers, and 40 to 45 for continuous spans embedded (fixed in
rotation) at the piers. As a point of comparison, for cantilever bridges with internal tendons, Menn (1990)
suggests a span to depth ratio of 50 at midspan and 17 at the piers, based on aesthetic and economic
considerations.
The fib (2000) guide also suggests that the pier depth to midspan depth ratio of 3 is aesthetically
pleasing for bridges that are low to the ground but should be closer to 2 for tall structures. There is merit to
this recommendation; tall bridges with large variation in girder depth can look weak at midspan and out of
proportion with their wide piers, as shown in Figure 3-6. However, this awkwardness can be diffused with
twin piers columns.
Cantilever Bridge
Span to Depth: Satisfactory Good
17:1at piers appearance appearance
50:1 at midspan
Cantilever Bridge
Span to Depth: Good Satisfactory
17.5:1at piers
35:1 at midspan
Extradosed Bridge
10:1 Span to Tower Height Good Good
50:1 Span to Depth
Cable-Stayed Bridge
4.5:1 Span to Tower Height Towers Good
100:1 Span to Depth too tall
Figure 3-6. Comparison of span to depth ratio and effect of the roadway height above ground on the overall
proportions of 3 span cantilever, extradosed, and cable-stayed bridges.
In an article on the conceptual design of cable-stayed bridges, Menn (1996) points out that the portion
of towers above the deck, which form the lever arm between cables and deck, cannot be reduced to the
same depth as that required for a cantilever box girder, because the cables have a much lower axial
stiffness than the prestressed deck slab of a box girder which is the tension chord in that system. In the
case of a classical cable-stayed bridge where the girder is slender, the deflections under live load would be
large. Menn claims that a main span to tower height ratio of 7 is possible, provided the towers are stiff
and the girder is restrained longitudinally, which is a reasonable claim given that the Sunniberg Bridge,
with a main span to tower height of 10, was under construction at that time.
A few researchers have studied extradosed bridges and have made recommendations for selecting the
tower height and proportioning the deck cross-section.
Komiya (1999) suggests a span to tower height ratio of 8 to 12. The taller tower results in not more
than 10% savings to the combined cost of the cables and tower. The span to depth ratio of the girder
should be 35 at the piers and 55 at midspan, for girders embedded at the piers. Komiya notes that reducing
the girder stiffness to 0.50 and 0.25 of the gross stiffness results in increases to cable forces of 3 and 8% on
average, while the deflections due to live load increase by a factor of 1.5 and 2.3.
55
Chio Cho (2000) recommends that towers not exceed a span to tower height ratio of 10, in order to
limit the stress range due to live load in the extradosed cables to 80 MPa. Chio Cho claims that the purpose
of a variable depth cross-section is to reduce the cost of the bridge by reducing the girders self-weight,
without reducing the height at the supports. Haunching the deck at the piers reduces the quantity of both
internal and extradosed prestressing. Chio Cho suggests a span to depth ratio of 30 at the piers and 45 at
midspan for girders simply supported at the piers, with the transition occurring over a distance of 0.18 of
the span from the pier, as shown in Figure 3-7b. Increasing the girder depth at the pier reduces the stress
range in the extradosed cables, and increases the bending moment at the supports with a small reduction in
moment at midspan. A larger girder depth at pier to depth at midspan ratio, as shown in Figure 3-7c,allows
the first set of extradosed cables to be anchored farther away from the pier.
a) b) c)
Constant Depth Variable Depth Variable Depth

hpier : hmid = 1.5 hpier : hmid = 2.0
Figure 3-7. Extradosed bridge geometry studied by Chio Cho (2000).
The aforementioned recommended proportions for span to tower height and span to girder depth ratios
are drawn in Figure 3-8 for the Chapter 4 bridge crossing, with a main span of 140 m. When compared to
the cantilever constructed girder bridges, the girder of the extradosed bridge dimensioned with Mathivats
proportions appears heavy at midspan, but the visual effect of the cables is subtle and unobtrusive. The
haunching at the piers recommended by Chio Cho and Komiya, combined with the fan cable configuration
that anchors the first cables beyond the haunch, draws the eye to the piers and emphasizes the verticalilty
of the bridge at this location, giving it a sense of strength. The girder in the extradosed bridge dimensioned
with Komiyas proportions is noticeably more slender than the other two, which shifts the focus onto the
cable system.
Cantilever Constructed Girder Bridge
SETRA/fib recommended
Span to depth ratios: 17:1 at piers, 40:1 midspan
Cantilever Constructed Girder Bridge
Menn recommended
Extradosed Bridge - Mathivat recommended

Span to tower height: 15:1
Span to depth ratio: 35:1
Extradosed Bridge - Chio Cho recommended

Extradosed Bridge - Komiya recommended

Figure 3-8. Girder and extradosed bridge proportions recommended by others.
The span to depth ratios proposed by Mathivat (1988), Komiya (1999) and Chio Cho (2000) can be
used as a starting point for proportioning an extradosed bridge but should not be regarded as hard and fast
56
rules, since they are based primarily on limits imposed on the maximum live load stress range in the cables
of the bridges studied by those individuals. The variety in proportions of the bridges in Figure 2-1 should
be drawn upon for inspiration and to assess the feasibility in developing concepts for an extradosed bridge.
It seems necessary and rational to develop a computer model at an early stage in the design to account for
the interaction between tower, girder, substructure and cables to determine whether a given system
stiffness is adequate to limit the live load stress range in the cables to the desired level. This was the
approach taken in Chapter 4 which resulted in the bridges shown in Figure 3-9.
Cantilever Constructed Girder Bridge - Chapter 4
Span to depth ratios: 17.5:1 at piers, 44:1 midspan
Extradosed Bridge with Stiff Girder- Chapter 4

Extradosed Bridge with Stiff Tower - Chapter 4

Figure 3-9. Bridge proportions used for design in Chapter 4.
In the Chapter 4 designs, a constant depth girder and harp cable configuration were chosen for
constructability and appearance. The constant depth girder provides the greatest continuity across the
entire bridge, while the parallel cables and simple tower shapes give the bridge a uniform texture.
Repetition and consistency of local components, such as ribs and anchorages, give the bridge an orderly
appearance from all vantage points.
3.4 Stay Cables and Anchorages

3.4.1 Cable Arrangement
In a cable supported bridge, the vertical component of force in the cables lifts the continuous girder, while
the horizontal component prestresses the girder. The cable configuration and the height of the tower are
the two factors that influence the cable inclination, and hence the action of the cable on the deck. These
two factors will be discussed in relation to extradosed bridges.
The effect of cable inclination on the force components in a stay cable is examined. For a constant
cable force, the vertical component of force increases almost linearly with an increase in inclination from
0 to 30, but the horizontal force decreases only 13%. If the stay cables are designed to resist 100% of the
dead load at each anchorage, as if the girder were a continuous beam on simple supports at the cables, the
force in each cable for an extradosed bridge will be two to three times larger than is typical for a cable-
stayed bridge, as can be seen in Figure 3-10b. Additionally, the maximum compression force in the girder
of the extradosed bridge (at the piers) will be equivalent to that in a cable-stayed bridge two to three times
as long.
The fan cable configuration consists of cables anchored at a single point at the top of the tower, while
the harp cable configuration consists of parallel cables anchored over the full height of the tower. In
practice, it is difficult to achieve a pure fan configuration because all cables cannot be anchored at one
57
a) Tower Height h / Span Length l b) Tower Height h / Span Length l

0.07 0.13 0.20 0.25 0.07 0.13 0.20 0.25
1 12
Total
Horizontal 10
0.8
Extradosed Cable-Stayed Extradosed Cable-Stayed
Typical Typical 8 Typical Typical
0.6
Force
Vertical
Force
0.4
4
0.2 Total
2
Horizontal
Vertical
0 0
5 9 16 25 30 45 5 9 16 25 30 45
Angle, deg Angle, deg
Figure 3-10. Effect of cable inclination on the force components in a cable for a) a constant total force and b) a
constant vertical force.
point, and thus the cables are often anchored at a constant offset down the tower in a semi-fan
configuration. The semi-fan cable configuration is more effective than a harp configuration in providing a
vertical component of resistance to the deck, but each cable anchorage at the deck level will be at a slightly
different angle and must be detailed separately. With a harp configuration, more cable steel is required,
but the cable anchorages have a common design which is advantageous, since the formwork and
reinforcement are consistent for all anchorage segments. For shorter cables, such as found in extradosed
bridges, the anchorages represent a greater portion of the total cost of the cable system, and they should
contain the maximum number of strand for which they are designed. The additional horizontal force from
the harp cable configuration prestresses the girder near the piers and thus substitutes internal prestressing.
The cost of additional cable steel in the harp configuration is partially offset by the savings from common
detailing of the anchorages.
a) b)
Figure 3-11. Quantity of cable steel as a function of relative height of towers - Comparison between fan and harp
cable configurations in a) 1970 (Leonhardt & Zellner 1970) and b) 1980 (Leonhardt & Zellner 1980).
58
Leonhardt and Zellner (1970) published a chart comparing the stay cable steel consumption of harp
and fan (radiating) cable configurations. From this chart, shown in Figure 3-11a, it can be seen that the
optimum ratio of tower height to main span is around 0.30 considering stay cable steel consumption alone.
In 1970, the optimum height considering the cost of a tower was suggested to be between 0.16l and 0.22l
where l is the main span length, while in a similar chart published in 1980 (Leonhardt & Zellner 1980),
shown in Figure 3-11b, the optimum height was 0.20l to 0.25l. This difference is attributed to the changes
in material preference and relative material costs. In the 1970 article, the tower is assumed to be steel,
whereas by 1980, concrete had become the economical material of choice. For the Brotonne Bridge,
completed in 1977, the cost of stay cable system was 29% of the total cost of the bridge, while the cost of
the tower was only 4% (Mathivat 1983).
A simple model was used to investigate the effect of tower height on steel consumption in stay cables
for a 140 m main span, the results of which are shown in Figure 3-12. There are 10 cables in a half-span
spaced at 6 m, with the first cable 13 m from the pier, and each cable is assumed to resist an equal vertical
load of 0.05 units, for a total of 1 unit of load per span. For the semi-fan configuration, the cable
anchorages are spaced 0.3 m vertically on the tower. The graph bears a close resemblance to those of
Leonhardt and Zellner in Figure 3-11. It is apparent that the harp configuration leads to a larger total cable
force, especially for a tower height below 0.1L.
10
(multiple of vertical load per span)
8
Total Cable Force Per Span
6
Semi-Fan Cable Configuration
2 Semi-Fan
Extradosed Cable-Stayed
Harp Harp Cable Configuration
Typical Typical
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Tower Height H / Span Length L
Figure 3-12. Quantity of cable steel as a function of relative height of towers - comparison between semi-fan and
harp cable configurations for 140 m main span.
In practice, each stay cable will not be detailed with an optimised number of strands as required to load
every cable to its allowable stress. According to Mathivat (1983), the theoretical values should be
increased by 10% because the demand of the cables must be met with real stay cable cross-sections. This
is especially true for the fan configuration, where the theoretical cross-section of the cable decreases
towards the pier as the cable inclination increases. The furthest cable from the pier will be a comparable
size for both harp and fan cable configurations, establishing a maximum anchorage size. In a cable-stayed
bridge, the harp cable configuration presents two main disadvantages: a higher compressive force in the
deck (around 60% higher than the semi-fan configuration) and increased bending in the towers. In an
extradosed bridge these two factors are not problematic: the higher compressive stress in the girder
59
increases the moment resistance of the girder, and the short towers can be easily proportioned to resist the
increased bending.
Based on estimates from the aforementioned model, a harp cable configuration with a tower height of
L/8 requires a similar cable quantity to a semi-fan configuration with a tower height of L/12. For tower
heights of L/8 and L/12, the theoretical cable steel consumption will be 41 and 46 % more for the harp
configuration than the semi-fan while the maximum compression force in the deck will be 58 and 54%
higher.
Since the extradosed bridge has two load carrying systems, it is possible to provide cable support to
only a portion of the span. Figure 3-13 illustrates the effectiveness of providing partial cable support to the
deck, by plotting the ratio of fixed end moments of a partially loaded span to a fully loaded span (Tang
2007). For a section with constant weight and stiffness, it is most efficient to provide the cable support
closest to the midspan, as indicated by the upper line in Figure 3-13. Many of the extradosed bridges
studied in Chapter 2 have cables distributed across 60% of the span. It can be determined from the upper
line Figure 3-13 that cables across 60% of the span will offset 80% of the moment of cables supporting
100% of the span.
1.0
Mfull
Fixed End Moment Ratio, M partial/M full
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Loaded length, b/L
Figure 3-13. Influence of partial cable support (adapted from Tang 2007).
The idea of reducing the length of deck supported by the cables is not new. Mathivat (1983) suggests
offsetting the first cables from the tower by 0.10 of the main span, as was done on the Brotonne Bridge, to
achieve a savings in cable steel of up to 20%. Chio Cho (2000) suggests that an offset of 0.18 of the main
span is optimal in the case of an extradosed bridge with variable depth cross-section since beyond this
length there is no significant savings in extradosed cable material quantity. Komiya (1999) considered
first cable offsets of 0.14, 0.20, and 0.24 of the main span, and found the combined cost of extradosed and
internal tendons for all three arrangements to be within 2% of each other. An offset of 0.20 of the main
span was most economical, with extradosed tendons accounting for 60% of the cost, and internal tendons
for 40%.
60
3.4.2 Stay Cable Protection
There are many systems for protecting the prestressing steel of the stay cables. Most codes and
specifications now require that the corrosion protection system consist of a minimum of two nested
barriers (PTI 2001, SETRA 2001; FIB 2005). The external barrier provides direct protection from
corrosive elements, while the interior barrier provides a backup system if the external barrier is breached.
In certain cases, the external sheath is not considered to be the external barrier. Several sources (Walther et
al. 1999, SETRA 2001; FIB 2005) provide a comprehensive discussion of protection systems and the
advantages and susceptibilities of each. Grouting with cementitious grout is no longer considered to be a
good method for filling the void between the external sheath and prestressing strand in stay cables.
The CHBDC (2006a Clause 10.6.4.3) specifies that the strands of stay cables must be hot-dip
galvanized and encased in a sheath filled with grease or wax. The sheath can be high density polyethylene
(HDPE) or stainless steel. Within the last 10 years, the international trend has beeen to provide further
redundancy in protection by greasing and sheathing the strands individually, and then bundling them in an
external sheath. The external sheath serves as a barrier to rain and UV rays, while the cable protection
occurs at the strand level. This also facilitates replacement of individual strands. Strands can be coated
with epoxy or polyethylene after galvanizing for an additional layer of protection. Epoxy coated strands
have much higher friction coefficients than bare strand that must be accounted for in the design (Taniyama
& Mikami 1994).
3.4.3 Anchorages in Girder

Many sources (Gimsing 1997; Walther et al. 1999; SETRA 2001; PTI 2006), present comprehensive
explanations of cable types and anchorage details. Despite the advantages that are attainable with pre-
fabricated cables, those of superior quality control and a higher fatigue resistance, the current trend is
towards strand-based cables that can be assembled on site and tensioned strand-by-strand with compact
jacking equipment. In the case of stay cable anchorages, restressing is accomplished by stressing the entire
cable unit with a gradient jack and adjusting a ring nut at the bearing plate.
In extradosed bridges where the live load stress range is limited to 80 MPa, conventional prestressing
anchorages can be used to anchor the cables instead of stay cable anchorages that are typically designed for
a stress range of 200 MPa to 250 MPa. The cables anchorage in the girder is almost always the live end
anchorage.
Dywidag-Systems International markets an Extradosed Anchorage, Type XD (-E for epoxy coated
strands), shown in Figure 3-14, that is purposefully designed to combine the anchor head of an external
tendon with the protection details found on their DYNA-Grip and DYNA-Bond Stay Cables (Dywidag
61
2006). For the three aforementioned cable types, an elastomeric bearing is contained within the recess pipe
to prevent bending stresses at the anchor head.
Filler Material
Cap Wedges Sealing Spacer Recess Pipe HDPE Liner Exit Pipe Connection Pipe
Filling Material Shim Anchor Body Epoxy Coated Clamp Elastomeric Bearing HDPE-Sheathing
Strands
Wedge Plate
Figure 3-14. DSI Extradosed Anchorage Type XD-E (Dywidag 2006).
Some bridges in Chapter 2 (Odawara Bridge, Tsukuhara Bridge, Domovinski Bridge) were
constructed with stay cable anchorages even though the stress range due to live load in the cables would
have allowed the use of conventional prestressing anchorages. For these bridges, extradosed anchorages
may not have been available, but they should be used in the future and should reduce the cost of the cable
system.
3.4.4 Cable Anchorage in Towers: Saddles or Anchorages?

A cable can either pass through the tower over a saddle or terminate at an anchorage. If the cable is
anchored in the tower, the horizontal force must be transferred through the tower to the opposite cable,
either by overlapping the cables, or installing post-tensioning or steel plates across the tower. Saddles
provide a simple alternative to anchorages, but must be designed to resist differential forces from opposing
sides of the tower, either through friction, bond or mechanical means. Cables passing over saddles must be
replaceable and corrosion protection must be ensured through the saddle. The cable strands are subject to
flexural stresses and fretting fatigue. The Japan Prestressed Concrete Engineering Association, the PTI,
the SETRA, and fib have published recommendations on the use of saddles that are compared below, along
with a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of using saddles instead of anchorages in a tower.
Cables that are passed through saddles must be dimensioned to account for the bending stress due to
curvature fC determined as follows:
r
f C = E ---
R
where E is the elastic modulus of the wire or strand;
r is the radius of the wire, strand or bundle, and
R is the radius of the saddle bend.
Therefore, the total stress in the cable is:
Er P
f = f C + f A = ------ + ---
R A
For a saddle radius of 5 m and a seven-wire strand of 15.7 mm diameter (area of 150 mm), commonly
used for strand-based stay cables, the maximum bending stress due to curvature is 314 MPa. For an
individual wire, the maximum stress is around 100 MPa. The stress due to axial force in a stay cable is
typically around 0.35 fpu under dead load only, or 650 MPa for strand. Therefore, the curvature of the
62
strand over a saddle with radius of 5 m increases the stress by 48% to 0.52 fpu. The stress due to curvature
in a prefabricated cable would be impractically large when passed over a saddle, but strand-based cables
are normally assembled on site.
Fretting fatigue results from differential strains in strand bundles. Variable axial loads at the cable
ends (due to a fatigue load) cause the strands to slip when the friction between the individual wires and the
saddle under radial pressure is exceeded. The saddle radius must be large enough to avoid the onset of
fretting fatigue. Minimum radii R for common cable sizes (of bundled bare strand) are summarised in
Table 3-6, determined from equations given in the PTI1 (2001) and fib (2005) recommendations:
0.4
n
PTI: R > F ----------- fib: R 30D
90
where F is the mean cable force under fatigue conditions (kN);
n is the number of strands in the bundle, and
D is the diameter of the stay pipe.
Table 3-6. Minimum saddle radii for strand based cables to prevent fretting fatigue.
Number of Strand in Cable 12 19 31 37 55 73 91 109 127 156
Typical diameter of external sheath (mm) 110 140 160 180 200 250 280 315 315
Minimum R* suggested in PTI (m), 2.6 3.4 4.6 5.1 6.5 7.7 8.8 9.8 10.7 12.1
calculated assuming F = 0.35 fpu x Ap
Minimum R required by fib (m) 3.3 4.2 4.8 5.4 6 7.5 8.4 9.5 9.5
Individual sheathing or epoxy coating of strand could be used to reduce interstrand fretting, but any
reduction must be proven by prototype testing of full scale specimens (PTI 2001). Figg Engineering
Group (Figg et al. 2005) designed a cradle system in which each individual strand passes through a
seperate saddle pipe which is contained within an outer centering pipe. Since each strand is deviated over
its own saddle, fretting between strands is eliminated, and the minimum saddle radius is that of an
individual strand, even for large cables made up of 156 strands. In this system, it is possible to remove a
single strand for inspection or replacement.
The SETRA Recommendations (SETRA 2001) discourage the use of saddles because of the
difficulties with future replacement of the cables. If saddles are used, the radius of curvature must be
larger than 125 times the exterior diametre of the strand (2.0 m radius for 15.7 mm diametre strand), and
the ultimate strength of the deviated cable, as determined by test, must be reduced by no less than 5%
unless detailed calculations show that a greater reduction has been allowed for in the design (14.7).
The fib recommendations (fib 2005) require the minimum saddle radius to be larger than 400 times the
diametre of the individual wire of strand (2.1 m radius for 15.7 mm diametre strand) when individual
strands are inside individual tubes.
The PTI Recommendations (PTI 2001) provide specific requirements for saddles. Cable saddles must
have a minimum radius of 3 m if supporting individual strands, and 4 m if supporting bundled multi-strand
cable unless fatigue testing is done on the saddle with axially stressed cables. Saddles must be designed to
1. Tests were conducted at the University of Texas on bare strands in ducts of 2.75 times the area of the cables:
Fretting Fatigue in Post Tensioned Concrete, Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at
Austin, TX, March 3 to April 3, 1998.
63
preclude slip and fretting for 1.25 times the maximum load differential at the strength limit state
(AASHTO equivalent of ULS).
The Japan Prestressed Concrete Engineering Associations Specifications1 allow saddles to be used
when the live load stress range is less than 50 MPa, based on testing of fretting fatigue done on 37-15 mm
diametre strand tendons (Kasuga 2006). The minimum radius required for the saddles is the same as for
external tendons.
Goi (1999) advocates the use of cable saddles to reduce the number of anchors and stressing
operations, to facilitate installation, and to avoid the horizontal force transfer through the pylon. Montens
(1998) points out that saddles are half the cost of anchorages, and saddles become more economical as the
span decreases because the anchorages represent a higher proportion of the total cost of the stay cables.
According to the Figg brochure (Figg 2004) for the stay cradle system, its unit cost is lower than the two
anchorages it replaces. The system was first used for the Maumee River Bridge (Bonzon 2008), a two span
centrally supported cable-stayed bridge with spans of 186.7 m, a tower faced with glass, and cables
consisting of 82 to 156 strands.
Tower width (length in the longitudinal direction of the bridge) is generally used as an argument
against saddles. According to Montens (1998), the minimum radius of saddles presents a drawback as this
dictates a minimum tower width. Figg (2004) claims that without the cradle system to pass strands over
saddles individually, the tower width of the Maumee River Bridge would have had to be 3 m wider. As
constructed, the tower is 4.1 m wide and varies in length from 8.8 to 6.3 m (Bonzon 2008). For most
extradosed bridges however, the tower width is unlikely to be governed by the saddle radius since the total
angle break in the cables is small compared to that in a cable-stayed bridge. Most towers that are detailed
with anchorages require internal chambers for stressing and inspection, but towers of only 3 m width and 2
m depth have been designed with internal stressing chambers (Reis et al. 1999) for main spans of less than
100 m. If the anchorages cross through the tower and anchor on opposite sides, as is the case with the
Chandoline Bridge (Menn 1991) and many cable-stayed bridges with spans less than 100 m (Walther et al.
1999), the tower dimensions can be kept to a minimum, but this requires twin cables on one side to avoid
torsional forces in the tower.
The minimal dimensions of saddles allow for a cable configuration closest to a perfect fan, as is the
case in many of the extradosed bridges constructed in Japan, where the vertical spacing of saddles is as
small as 300 mm (Ogawa et al. 1998). The use of anchorages in the towers requires a larger vertical
spacing, although the Shin-Meisei Bridge has anchorages spaced at 600 mm intervals (Kasuga 2006).
Based on experience to date with towers for cable-stayed bridges, it may seem clear that saddles would
lead to a more economical cable system than anchorages, but anchorages are more commonly used. If the
live load stress range permits, conventional anchorages could be used to anchor the cables instead of stay
cable anchorages, but extradosed bridges constructed to date have mostly used stay cable anchorages. For
the five extradosed bridges (the Odawara, Tshukuhara, Ibi River, Shin-Meisei, and Himi bridges) designed
1. Japan Prestressed Concrete Engineering Association (November 2000). Specifications for Design and Con-
struction of Prestressed Concrete Cable-Stayed Bridges and Extradosed Bridges (in Japanese). Kasuga
(2006) explains the parts of the code relevant to the design of extradosed bridges.
64
by Kasuga, the first two were detailed with saddles, while the latter three with anchorages in the towers,
even though four of the five bridges have a stress range in the extradosed cables of less less than 50 MPa.
Kasuga (2006) claims that the steel boxes for the anchorages allow for inspection of the stay cables from
inside the tower the during maintenance, but gives no other reason for this design choice.
A detailed cost comparison between conventional anchorages and saddles in the towers, carried out for
the North Arm Bridge in Vancouver (Griezic et al. 2006), found anchorages to be more cost-effective.
According to Griezic et al., cable anchorages simplify cable installation and provide greater redundancy
than saddles against cable loss, since the cable loss does not propagate to the other side of the tower.
However, anchorages in the tower lead to larger bending moments in the event of cable rupture and during
cable replacement. Cable saddles eliminate the need for internal inspection access and therefore reduce the
tower dimensions, but require more strand to keep the total stress (the sum of axial and flexural stresses in
the cables over the saddles) below the allowable stress. As constructed, each cable of the North Arm
Bridge has 58 strands, but two additional strands would have been required had saddles been used.
In summary, the use of saddles may lead to cost savings but presents some challenges in design. It is
not apparent why saddles are not preferred in all circumstances. One possible explanation lies in the
prototype testing required by the aforementioned recommendations. Since it is the design engineers
responsibility to detail the saddle, as it is an integral element of the pylon conceptual design and the
geometric layout of the towerhead (PTI 2001), engineers who are unfamiliar with the technology may shy
away from the system.
3.4.5 Equivalent Modulus of Elasticity for Stay Cables

Cable sag effects are one of the sources of geometric nonlinearity in cable-stayed bridges. Cable sag is
usually accounted for by considering a straight chord member with an equivalent modulus of elasticity.
An equivalent modulus, first suggested by Ernst1 in 1965 and described in Figure 3-15, is based on the
assumption that the catenary of a cable with low sag/chord length can be modeled as a parabola (Walther et
al. 1999).
For extradosed bridges, the horizontal projected lengths of the cables are generally short, and the dead
load stress in the cables typically account for 70% or more of the total stress at SLS. For a cable made up
of strand, this corresponds to a permanent stress of at least 550 MPa (0.30 fpu), for which there is very little
sag. For a cable length of 70 metres and a permanent stress of 500 MPa, as would be longest cable in an
extradosed bridge with a 150 m main span, the equivalent modulus of elasticity of the cable is only 0.5%
lower than the effective modulus of elasticity. Thus in the modelling of an extradosed bridge, the cables
can adequately and safely be modelled as linear elements without considering cable sag effects.
1. Ernst, J.H. (1965). Der E-Modul von Seilen unter Bercksichtigung des Durchhanges. Der Bauingenieur,
40(2), 52-55. Ernst presented the equivalent modulus plotted as a function of stress with seperate curves for
different cable lengths. Leonhardt & Zellner (1970) plotted the equivalent modulus as a function of cable
length as in Figure 3-15, which is more useful since all cables in the bridge generally have a similar loaded
tensile stress.
65
1.0 E
f = 600 E eq = ----------------------------
2
-
f = 500
f = 400
( L0 )
0.9
1 + --------------- 3
E
12f
f = 300
Eeq / E
0.8 where
Eeq is the equivalent elastic modulus of inclined cables;
E is the cable effective elastic modulus;
0.7
L0 is horizontal projected length of the cable;
is the weight per unit volume of cable (87 kN/m for
0.6 f = 200
strand inside HDPE sheathing injected with wax), and
0 50 100 150 200
f is the cable tensile stress (MPa).
Horizontal Projected Length, m
Figure 3-15. Ratio of equivalent to initial modulus of elasticity showing the influence of a cables sag on its stiffness
(plot adapted from Leonhardt & Zellner 1970).
3.4.6 Preliminary Design of Stay Cables at Serviceability Limit States
The stress range in a stay cable due to live load is an important consideration for the design of the cables
against failure due to fatigue. This can either be addressed explicitly by considering a fatigue limit state
(FLS), or implicity by designing based on an allowable stress in the cable at SLS.
The first method is consistent with a limit states approach to design. At the fatigue limit state, the
stress range due to the fatigue load must be less than the constant amplitude fatigue threshold, in order to
ensure a 75 year design life of the cables, with some safety factors to account for loading uncertainties.
While this is perhaps the most thorough treatment of cable fatigue, it is difficult to apply in practice
because a representative spatial model of the entire bridge must be available in order to determine the
maximum stress range in each individual cable due to live load at FLS. For this reason, the second method
is preferable for preliminary design of the stays, since the cross-section of both the cables and the girder
will change as the design is refined. Both the SETRA Recommendations (SETRA 2001), and Japan
Prestressed Concrete Engineering Associations Specifications1, present rational approaches to designing
stays based on SLS loads, that consist of limiting the cables allowable axial stress at SLS based on the
maximum axial stress range (the difference between the highest and lowest stress) in the cable due to SLS
live load, as shown in Figure 3-16. The axial stress in each cable at SLS can be determined from a plane
frame model.
The SETRA Recommendations (SETRA 2001) limit the allowable stress of a stay cable fa to between
0.46 and 0.60 of the guaranteed ultimate tensile strength fpu, for a maximum axial stress range due to live
load at SLS L between 140 MPa and 50 MPa:
L 0.25
f a 0.46 ---------- f pu 0.6f pu
140
The Recommendations require one value of the allowable stress to be set for the entire cable system, based
on the maximum stress range due to live load in any cable in the structure. For a girder that is simply
supported on the piers, the highest stress range under SLS live load will generally occur in the backstay
cable, whereas for a girder fixed at the piers, it will occur in a main span cable. These SLS requirements
1. See Footnote 1, page 63.
66
were defined to cover, but not to substitute, ULS and FLS verification (Lecinq 2001) and they offer the
advantage of working with a realistic maximum stress to be expected in the cable at SLS.
The Japan Prestressed Concrete Engineering Associations Specifications transition the allowable
stress from 0.40 to 0.60 fpu for a stress range due to live load at SLS L between 100 MPa and 70 MPa for
a strand system:
0.6f pu L 70MPa

f a = ( 1.067 0.00667 L )f pu 70MPa L 100MPa

0.4f pu L 100MPa
and between 130 MPa to 100 MPa for a prefabricated wire system:
0.6f pu L 100MPa

f a = ( 1.267 0.00667 L )f pu 100MPa L 130MPa

0.4f pu L 130MPa
These values have been established to ensure bridges previously designed for FLS (Kasuga 2006)
would have been conservatively designed with the SLS requirements. The Specifications permit an
allowable stress to be determined for each stay individually, related to the stress caused by live load in that
particular stay.
0.65
0.60
0.55
F SLS /F pu
0.50
SETRA
0.45 Japan Japan
Strand Wire
0.40
0.35
40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Live Load Stress Range, MPa
Figure 3-16. Allowable stress in cable stays as a function of the stress range due to live load at SLS
In cable-stayed bridges, the allowable stress at SLS has traditionally been limited to 0.45 fpu based on a
safety factor of 2.2 against rupture (Gimsing 1997), which takes into account secondary flexural stresses
that are not considered in the analysis (Menn 1990). There does however seem to be a practical limitation
to the allowable stress in the stay imposed by relaxation. Relaxation in low-relaxation strand is
negligeable when the permanent stress in the cable is less than 50% fpu, but accelerates beyond this
threshold (Gimsing 1997). With respect to cable-stayed bridges, relaxation results in a decrease in the
initial prestrain of the cables which causes the girder to deflect downwards and carry more dead load, both
undesirable actions. Walther (1994) suggests that an allowable stress limit of 0.55 fpy (0.50 fpu) is
justifiable given the following reasons: many of the secondary stresses can now be accounted for by
advanced analysis, cables have failed due to corrosion but never to fatigue alone, and modern stay cable
systems have multiple layers of corrosion protection with anchorages that are designed to limit flexural
stresses in the strands. This view has been reflected in specifications by SETRA (2001) and fib (2005),
67
which allow the use of an allowable stress of 0.50 fpu at SLS provided the cables are tested dynamically
with flexural stresses (introduced through shims at the anchorages - cables must resist 0.95 fpu after 2
million cycles of 200 MPa dynamic load at an upper stress of 0.45 fpu). SETRA allows the stress in an
individual strand to be as high as 0.60 fpu, as sometimes required for strand by strand stressing, provided it
falls below 0.55 fpu within a few hours (Lecinq et al. 1999).
According to the CEB-FIP (1993) Model Code, relaxation in low relaxation prestressing strand at 1000
hours is 1% when initially stressed to 0.60 fpu or less, 2% at 0.70 fpu, and approximately 5% at 0.80 fpu.
Given that the relaxation at 50 years is taken as 3 times the initial value, an allowable stress of 0.60 fpu for
an extradosed cable is a reasonable upper limit.
3.4.7 Verification of Stay Cables at the Fatigue Limit State

The PTI Recommendations (PTI 2001) requires that the cable forces comply with a Strength Limit State
and a Fatigue Limit State. For a theoretically infinite fatigue life, the maximum stress range in each cable
must be less than the constant amplitude fatigue threshold stress. The fatigue load consists of a single
design truck, in a single lane, and the load effect is then increased by a Dynamic Load Allowance of 15%
and by a factor of 1.4 to account for longer spans of cable-stayed bridges than those for which the fatigue
provisions of the AASHTO LRFD (AASHTO 2004) were originally designed. The factored load effect
(F) must be less than half the constant amplitude fatigue threshold (F)TH as described by the following
equations.
( F ) ( F )
1
( F ) --- ( F ) TH
2
where (F) is the stress range due to the passage of the fatigue load
(F)TH is the constant amplitude fatigue threshold (taken as 110 MPa for parallel strands)
is the load factor of 0.75
1
0.75 ( F ) --- ( 110 )
2
( F ) 73 MPa
The CHBDC (CSA 2006a) live load at FLS consists of one CL-625 Truck, positioned in the centre of
one travelled lane, and amplified by a dynamic load allowance of 1.25. The CHBDC does not specify a
constant amplitude fatigue threshold stress, but states that the fatigue stress range for cable stays that are
not readily inspectable or replaceable shall not exceed 0.75 of the fatigue stress range established by test,
which is consistent with the PTI Recommendations. For both the AASHTO LRFD and the CHBDC, the
stress range due to the fatigue load (including all amplification factors) must be less than 73 MPa.
Eurocode 1-2 (CEN 2002b) prescribes a FLS that is similiar to AASHTO LRFD, but with different
loads and load factors. There are 5 different fatigue load models that can be selected depending on the
bridge. The fatigue load model 2 is most comparable to the North American practice and consists of one of
several trucks, in a single design lane. The fatigue load model 3, which consists of 4 axles of 120 kN,
spaced at 1.2, 6, and 1.2 m is often used instead for a simplified fatigue verification. The truck axle loads
68
include a dynamic load allowance. The safety factor Mf is made up of a partial safety factor for the steel
cable material, a partial safety factor for qualification testing, and a partial safety factor for execution
imperfections and bending stresses in cables caused by cable vibration (Lecing et al. 2001).
c
Ff E, 2 ---------
Mf
where Ff is the partial safety factor applied to load models (taken as 1.0) ;
E,2 is the equivalent stress range for 2 million cycles;
c is the reference value of the fatigue strength, taken as 0.52 of the tested value TEST , which
is typically required to a minimum of 200 MPa, and
Mf = 1.5 is the partial safety factor for the fatigue strength.
0.52 200
1.0 E, 2 -------------------------
1.5
E, 2 69 MPa
The SETRA Recommendations (SETRA 2001) provide a rational reference value for the fatigue
strength of the cable steel instead of using a partial safety factor. The reference value of fatigue strength is
taken as the endurance limit of the stay cable at 100 million cycles, which is approximately 0.52 of the
dynamic stress range at which the cable is tested for 2 million load cycles (SETRA 2001), assuming a 6 dB
decay between these two points. The resulting stress range due to the fatigue load must be less than 69
MPa, which is comparable to North American codes.
For cable-stayed bridges designed with an allowable stress of 0.45 fpu for the cables, fatigue loading
governs for only a few cables under highway loading, even in structures with light girders (Gimsing 1997).
If an extradosed bridge is designed for the allowable stress as recommended in the previous section, it is
unlikely that any cables will be governed by fatigue when a verification is made at FLS.
3.4.8 Verification of Stay Cables at Ultimate Limit States

According to the SETRA Recommendations (SETRA 2001), the material resistance factor for extradosed
cables is 0.75 if the cables have been mechanically tested to ensure ultimate and fatigue strength according
to SETRA requirements, 0.67 if they have not been tested. The resistance factor for cables in cable-stayed
bridges is 0.70 if they have been tested. The PTI Recommendations (PTI 2001) define a resistance factor
of =0.65 for stay cables at strength limit states (ULS).
The CHBDC specifies a resistance TC=0.55 for stay cables. The value of TC=0.55 was established
from a calibration of existing bridges (with a known distribution of dead and live loads) designed with an
allowable stress design approach (CSA 2006b). As many of the bridges considered were suspension
bridges, and most of the cable-stayed bridges were steel or composite, the value of TC is too low for cast-
in-place concrete cable-stayed bridges, which would have to be designed with an allowable stress of
around 0.40 fpu to meet the ULS requirement. This is a different approach than other limit states codes, as
mentioned in 3.4.6, which impose an SLS limit instead, and define the cable strength at ULS based on
69
partial safety factors for the steel (after undergoing fatigue testing) and for the flexural stresses at the
anchorages.
Since an extradosed cable will have a maximum stress at SLS between that of a stay cable (0.45 to 0.50
fpu depending on specifications) and that of a prestressing tendon (0.70 fpu), the resistance factor at ULS
should also be somewhere between those of the stay cable (TC=0.55) and prestressing tendon (P=0.95).
For a maximum stress at SLS of 0.60fpu in an extradosed cable, linear interpolation between these two
values gives a resistance factor of =0.79 for the extradosed cable at ULS.
3.4.9 Stay Cable Tensioning

The analysis of extradosed bridges is similar to cable-stayed bridges. They are highly indeterminate
structures with the stiffness of the deck, the cables, and the piers affecting the distribution of the forces in
the structure. If only the structures initial geometry is modelled and the dead load is applied, the stays
extend and the structure deforms elastically, resulting in high girder and pylon moments and low cable
forces. By pretensioning the cables, the cables are shortened at the anchorage to counteract the elastic
strains and return the girder to its original undeformed profile (Walther et al. 1999). Since cable-stayed
bridges, and most extradosed bridges, are constructed progressively in cantilever, it is possible to end up
with any distribution of dead load moments. However, for concrete girders it is desirable to select a
moment distribution close to that of a continuous girder on simple supports, also referred to as the natural
moment distribution of the continuous beam (Mondorf 2006), to limit the effects of creep.
For the purposes of modeling, the pretensioning of the cables is applied as a load case consisting of a
strain in each cable which is added to the permanent loads. All methods to determine the cables initial
tensions are either displacement based, or force based.
Displacement based methods seek to reduce the displacements due to dead load on the cable-stayed
system to a specified value. Troitsky (1988) describes a procedure to calculate the forces to reduce these
displacements directly. First, the forces and displacements in the entire bridge are calculated for a unit
force substituted for each cable of the bridge individually. Then, a system of equations is established
requiring that the sum of the displacements, due to the unknown stressing forces in the cables, be equal in
magnitude and opposite in direction to the dead load displacements at each of the locations where
displacement is reduced, which corresponds to the number of unknown cable stressing forces. The cable
stressing forces are determined by solving the system of equations. The reduction of displacements is
described in more detail in Lazar et al. (1972) and a Fortran computer implementation based on the
flexibility method of analysis is described in Troitsky (1988). Wang et al. (1993) present an iterative
version of the same basic procedure to account for geometrical nonlinearities which they call the shape
finding procedure.
Walther et al. (1999) suggest determining the shortening of stays through a series of successive
approximations to bring the girder back to its undeformed position, a method that is known as the zero
displacement method. In each stage of the iterative procedure, the cable is shortened by a length
equivalent to the elongation in the previous iteration, dead load is applied, and a new set of elongations
70
result. Convergence is achieved when the change in bending moment in the deck is sufficiently small,
which can require 10 or more iterations. Because the vertical displacements of the deck are influenced by
bending in the towers, Walther suggests a two-stage process to achieve zero displacements in a cable-
stayed bridge. In the first stage, the towers are fixed, and the cable strains are adjusted in the centre span to
obtain zero deflections. In the second stage, the towers are released and the cable strains in the side spans
are adjusted to obtain zero deflections across the entire girder. This approach assumes that the towers can
be set to their undeformed geometry through a backstay cable. Figure 3-17 shows the cable prestrains and
maximum moments in the girder (of the stiff girder extradosed bridge in Chapter 4 released in rotation at
the piers) for 25 iterations of the zero displacement method. While the girder moments stabilise after 5
iterations, the prestrain in some cables has not yet stabilised after 25 iterations. In order to reach the
undeformed geometry, the cables in the side spans would have to be further released to lower the main
span. In the case of this extradosed bridge with side span lengths of 0.6 of the main span, a zero
displacement moment distribution is not achievable in the side spans unless a very high tensile force is
permitted in the backstay cable.
a) Towers Fixed 100 b) Towers Released 100
4 5 6 7 4
4 89 80 80
Girder Moment, MNm

Girder Moment, MNm
3 Cable Strain, mm/m
Cable Strain, mm/m
10
3 2 60 3 60
Cable 1
40 40
2 2
Side Span
20 20
1 Midspan 1
0 Midspan 0
0 -20 0 -20
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Iteration Iteration
Figure 3-17. Cable pre-strain and maximum moments for 25 iterations of the zero displacement method applied in
two staged process: a) towers fixed, main span cable strains adjusted and b) towers released and side span cable
strains adjusted. Cable 1 is anchored closest to the pier.
Force based methods seek to reduce the bending moments due to dead load on the cable-stayed system,
or to match them to a desired bending moment distribution. One of the first force based methods, the
reduction of maximum bending moment, is described as load balancing for cable-stayed bridges (Lazar
et al. 1972). The procedure reduces the maximum bending moment in the girder by a specified coefficient,
then finds identical unit stresses in all cables to achieve that reduction. Since the force due to dead load
and stressing forces is the same in each cable, the cables can all be stressed to their allowable stress, which
was considered to yield an optimal design of the cables. With the adaptability provided by strand based
cables, which are now standard and where the size and prestressing can be individually varied, achieving a
desired dead load moment distribution in the girder is considered much more important than matching the
force across all cables. For concrete girders, the dead load moments should be close to those of a
continuous beam on simple supports, as discussed in Section 3.2.
The force equilibrium method (Chen 1999) searches for cable forces that will give rise to a desirable
bending moment distribution in the structure. The method considers only the equilibrium of forces, and
assumes that displacements can be controlled by precamber of the girder. For a concrete cable-stayed
71
bridge, the target bending moments to be achieved in the final structure {M0} are usually obtained from a
model of the girder as a continuous beam on simple supports, to which the dead loads and the prestressing
added during construction are applied. The target moments are usually taken at the deck anchorage
locations, but other control sections can be chosen. First, a model of the cable-stayed bridge, with all
cables removed, is used to obtain the bending moments at every control section for a unit load applied
individually to each cable. A matrix [m] of approximate influence coefficients mij contains the bending
moment at the ith control section due to a unit force in the jth cable. An initial estimate of the cable forces
{T0} can be solved from the following equation, where {Md} contains the bending moments at the control
sections due to dead load and construction prestressing on the bridge with cables removed.
o 1 0 d
{T } = [m] ({M } {M })
The interaction between tower, cables, and girder is taken into account by updating girder bending
moments {Mn}, at each iteration n, with the dead load, construction prestressing, and the previously
calculated cable forces. The following equations describe the first two iterations of the method.
1 1 1 0
{ T } = [ m ] ( { M } { M } )
1 0 1
{ T } = { T } + { T }
2 1 2 0
{ T } = [ m ] ( { M } { M } )
2 0 1 2
{ T } = { T } + { T } + { T }
Since the force equilibrium method does not consider the stiffness of the cables, nonlinearity from
cable sag can be considered seperately. The force in a backstay cable anchored directly to the ground,
when present in the system, can be paired with a control section in the tower to reduce or eliminate bending
in the tower (Chen 1999). The notion of superimposing individual prestress bending moment diagrams
was first suggested by Smith (1967).
The unit load method (Bruer et al. 1999; Janjic et al., 2003) is similar to the force equilibrium
method, except that the entire cable-stayed structure (tower, girder and cables) is used to obtain the
bending moments at control sections for a unit load case applied to each degree of freedom (chosen as
cable tensioning or jacking points). The expanded unit load method is implemented in RM2006 (TDV
2006) to include staged construction analysis, nonlinearity due to creep and shrinkage, and nonlinarity due
to cable sag. In each stage of construction, unit loading cases are applied to different structural systems,
and nonlinear effects are taken as linear over any single time interval (Bruer et al. 1999). Loads are
accumulated at each stage of construction, and section forces are taken into account as initial
displacements. At each time step, an approximation of the tension forces in the cables from a linear
analysis is used as a starting point for an iterative procedure to include nonlinearities (Janjic et al., 2003).
Gimsing (1997) states that the distribution of dead load moments in the cable-stayed bridge is fully
described by the moments at the cable anchor points, Mg,i, and the girder dead load, gi,i+1, between each
anchor point, as shown in Figure 3-18. The cable forces, Ti, can be found from the dead load moments and
conversely the dead load moment distribution can be found from cable forces through the following
equation.
72
Mi 1 Mi Mi + 1 Mi 1
T i = --- ( g i 1 ,i i 1 ,i + g i, i + 1 i, i + 1 ) + ------------------------- + ------------------------- -------------
1
2 i 1 ,i i, i + 1 sin i
The equation is derived from an approximate method of analysis, which considers the stiffening girder
as a continuous beam of elastic supports (Troitsky 1988). If shortening of both the tower and girder is
neglected, the elastic support spring constant K (force per unit displacement), is as follows:
Ec Ac 2
K i = T i sin i = ------------ sin i
Li
The solution to the beam on elastic supports analogy forms the basis of the second part of the equation
suggested by Gimsing (1997). The first part of the equation is the tension required to counteract the elastic
extension of the cables.
i-1,i i,i+1 The moment envelope of the girder due to live load is characterised by higher
Ti+1 gi-1,i gi,i+1
positive moments away from the piers and higher negative moments closer to
Ti
the piers. For steel girder cross-sections, it is usually preferable to have larger
Ti-1
positive than negative moments in regions of high compressive force.
Mi-1 Mi Mi+1 Therefore, a more favourable moment distribution under dead and live load
Figure 3-18. Cable force can be achieved by altering the dead load distribution to yield a higher
corresponding to dead load
moment distribution (adapted positive moment demand across the girder, instead of minimizing the bending
from Gimsing 1997). in the dead load condition (Gimsing 1997). This stressing strategy, however,
is not appropriate for concrete girders where creep causes a significant redistribution of dead load bending
moment unless the distribution resembles that of a continuous beam on simple supports.
If the desired dead load moment distribution is that of a continuous beam on simple supports, and the
cable anchor is thought of as a node that must be held vertically, the pretensioning of the cable must
exactly counteract all elastic deformation in the system. As dead load g is applied, the girder deflects
downwards and the cable must be prestrained to raise the girder to its initial position. The prestrain of the
cable will in turn cause an axial shortening of the girder, which will cause the initial anchor point to
displace towards the tower. Similarly, the cable prestrain causes an axial shortening of the tower, which
will cause a downwards displacement of the tower. Therefore, the cable must be shortened by an amount
equal to those displacements. If the geometry and sectional properties of the cables, tower, and girder are
known, this elastic deformation can be calculated explicitly. Assuming a constant girder area, the axial
shortening in the girder gi at point i, will be caused by the force in all cables from i+1 to the outermost
cable n and is
n
L i cos i g j 1 ,j j 1 ,j
gi = -------------------
Eg Ag ---------------------------
tan j
j = i+1
Likewise, the axial shortening in the tower will be caused by the vertical component of force from the
cables and from the self-weight of the tower above. Neglecting the self-weight of the tower, the tower
shortening will be
73
n
L i sin i
ti = ------------------
Et At g j 1 ,j j 1 ,j
j = i+1
Therefore, the total prestrain in cable i will be
1 g i 1 ,i i 1 ,i + g i, i + 1 i, i + 1 gi ti
ci = ------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------- + ------------------- + ------------------
Ec Ac 2 sin i L i cos i L i sin i
n n
1 g i 1 ,i i 1 ,i + g i, i + 1 i, i + 1 1 g j 1 ,j j 1 ,j 1
ci = ------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------- + ------------
--------------------------- + ---------- g j 1 ,j j 1 ,j
Ec Ac 2 sin i Eg Ag tan j E t A t
j = i + 1 j = i + 1
For an extradosed bridge with harp cable configuration and constant section properties, this simplifies to
g g ( n i ) g ( n i )
ci = ----------------------- + ------------------------ + ----------------------
E c A c sin E g A g tan Et At
For the extradosed bridges described in Chapter 4, girder bending moments similar to those of a
continuous girder on simple supports were obtained directly by applying a prestrain to each cable,
calculated from the above equation. This is also a convenient form to estimate long-term strains in the
girder and tower due to creep and shrinkage.
Cable forces will change as the erection proceeds. Initial cable forces to be jacked in during erection
must be determined in order to produce the final permanent load condition. Once the permament load
condition is established, the cable tensions at each stage can be determined by a dismantling procedure,
also referred to as a backwards analysis, which involves the same steps as the erection but in the opposite
direction (Gimsing 1997). Felber et al. (1999) claim that backwards analysis may be valid for cable-stayed
bridges with only steel elements, but is an oversimplification for composite and concrete bridges. The
backwards analysis has a major disadvantage: it cannot account for time-dependent effects such as creep
and shrinkage of concrete. Figure 3-19a shows the cable tensions at each step in a backwards analysis,
while Figure 3-19b shows the cable tensions from a staged construction analysis that includes time-
dependent effects (shown for the stiff girder extradosed bridge of Chapter 4). Each stage is assumed to last
7 days. The final cable tensions from a staged construction are up to 8% lower than the desired tensions,
which are the initial (leftmost) values of the backwards analysis.
5.3 5.3
a) Backwards Analysis b) Staged Construction
5.2 5.2
5.1 5.1
Tension, MN
Tension, MN
5.0 5.0
4.9 4.9
4.8 4.8
4.7 4.7
4.6 4.6
10 5 1 1 5 10
Construction Stage Construction Stage
Figure 3-19. Tensions of main span cables, at each stage of construction up to midspan closure, resulting from a)
backwards analysis and b) Staged construction including time-dependent effects (form traveller not considered).
74
The cables neutral (unstressed) length and its pre-deformation are intrinsic variables which do not
change after initial stressing, unless the cable is restressed (Virlogeux 1994). Therefore, the forces in the
structure at any stage can be determined by applying the cable pre-deformations and the self-weight,
neglecting the creep of the concrete in previous stages. Introducing the cable pre-deformations as the cable
is installed in a staged construction produces permanent forces which are very similar to the case where the
pre-dormations are applied at once to the entire structure. Determining the initial predeformations by
means a displacement method is convenient for input into analysis software since it works with prestrains
directly.
3.5 Towers and Piers

The design of the towers offers great opportunity for creativity and structural expression. A significant
decision in the design for the towers is that of whether to use a single mast or two lateral supports. This
decision have to be made together with the selection of the cross-section, and the cable arrangement. A
harp cable configuration causes significant bending in the tower which necessitates a minimum section
width.
A single mast above the deck will be more economical than two pylons, but the advantage also carries
through to the substructure. The single mast allows for a single pier of relatively narrow width and
supported by a single foundation, as compared with two pylons which are usually extended down to
ground level and anchored in a single large foundation. Some designers have opted to transition lateral
pylons into a single pier column by means of a deep transverse beam which results in a configuration that
resembles a tuning fork. Figure 3-20 shows the variety of pier and tower forms that have been used in
extradosed bridges.
Central support - single mast Lateral support - two towers Hybrid configurations
Cantilever or wall-type piers Twin pier legs Cantilever or wall-type piers Multiple pier legs
Figure 3-20. Tower and pier configurations. From left to right: Barton Creek Bridge, North Arm Bridge (LRT), Kiso
and Ibi Bridges, Sunniberg Bridge, Odawara Blueway Bridge, Tsukuhara Bridge, Shin-Karato Bridge, Hozu Birdge,
Miyakodagawa Bridge and Domovinski Bridge (LRT and road). See Table 2-1 for drawing sources.
The design of the pier is more important for the structural behaviour of the extradosed bridge than the
tower itself. The main decision with respect to the pier is whether to keep the superstructure (girder, cables
and tower) simply supported on the substructure, which keeps bending in the piers to a minimum, or to
embed (fix in rotation) the superstructure on the piers, which is preferable to reduce the live load stress in
75
the cables and allows for a more slender girder but increases the bending moments in the piers. A stiff
girder extradosed bridge can be designed with the girder either embedded or simply supported on the piers,
but a stiff tower extradosed bridge requires moment transfer between the tower and the pier. Depending on
the height of the piers, the bending moment due to temperature range, long-term shrinkage of the girder,
and live load, may be too large to allow a single pier column to be detailed with adequate bending strength.
If a single pier column cannot be used, twin pier legs can be used to provide the desired rotational restraint
and longitudinal flexibility for displacement.
In seismic regions, twin pier legs may be preferable as they can be designed to be more flexible than a
single column or wall-type pier. Transversely, lateral pier columns form a multiple column bent that is
subject to higher response modification factors, resulting in lower seismic force demand since the system
is more ductile.
In summary, the design of towers and piers in an extradosed bridge depends on:
1. central or lateral suspension of the cross-section;
2. the cable configuration;
3. the superstructure fixity with the substructure, and
4. the magnitude of bending due temperature range effects, long-term shrinkage, and live load.
The design of towers and piers for an extradosed bridge does not differ significantly from their design in an
conventional bridge.
3.6 The Girder Cross-Section

The selection of the cross-section will depend primarily on the roadway width, whether it is supported by
one or two planes of cables, and its depth, as determined by span to depth ratios discussed in Section 3.3.3
or otherwise. Aesthetics should play a significant role in the selection and shaping of the cross-section.
For cantilever constructed girder bridges, closed single cell box girder cross-sections are used
unvariably. For cable-stayed bridges, there are two types of deck cross-section that are generally used: the
closed box and the slab. The box section can be either laterally or centrally supported, while the slab
cross-section requires lateral support. The slab cross-section is either unstiffened, or stiffened by
longitudinal edge girders, located inline with the cables or tucked in. For transverse spacing between
cables of 12 m up to 20 m (Leonhardt et al. 1991; Menn 1994), a variable depth solid concrete slab can
span between cables. Above this range, it is more economical to provide transverse ribs at 5 to 7 m
spacing (T-beams) to reduce self-weight. The precompression in the longitudinal direction increases the
moment resistance of the slab allowing it to span between cross-beams with minimal reinforcement.
The ideal extradosed bridge cross-section lies somewhere between the closed box and the slab. There
is an apparent contradiction between the closed box girder section, which is ideal for longitudinal bending
with the webs located at the quarter points, and the stiffened slab which allows for direct support of the
longitudinal edge girders from the cables, and is efficient transversely. However, the aesthetics of the slab
cross-section suffer when the girders are deeper than 2 m, which is rarely a requirement for cable-stayed
bridges. If the deck does not cantilever beyond the girders, the edge girders emphasize the visual depth of
76
the superstructure. Sidewalks should always be positioned on deck cantilever overhangs outside the cables
and main girders, both for transverse structural behaviour of the cross-section and for aesthetics.
Designers have come up with different solutions for extradosed cross-sections. These have been
classified in four categories: centrally supported box girders, laterally supported single cell box girders,
multiple cell box girders, and laterally supported slabs. Box cross-sections have been used in over 36 of 50
extradosed bridges considered in the Chapter 2 study, while only 13 these were centrally supported.
Centrally supported cross-sections can be easily supported by single piers, which is a major advantage
when the piers are tall, but central suspension is appropriate only for bridges a divided roadway with two
or more lanes in each direction.
3.6.1 Centrally Supported Box Girder Cross-Section

The centrally supported box girder cross-sections consist of either two webs, with steel or prestressed
concrete ties linking the cable anchorages to the lower corners of the box, or of two nearly vertical closely
spaced interior webs with cables anchored in a diaphragm between them. Long deck cantilever overhangs
are supported by struts, inclined webs, transverse ribs or a combination of these. For bridges with a
median barrier seperating traffic in each direction, central support is a logical choice, especially in light of
the inherent girder depth and torsional stiffness in most extradosed cross-sections. Inclined webs facilitate
the removal of formwork, can reduce the width of pier heads, and produce an external formed surface of
better quality than a vertical surface (SETRA 2007).
An analysis of bid results of 14 cable-stayed bridges that were tendered as both concrete and steel
design alternatives in North America, conducted by Figg Engineering Inc. (Goni et al. 1999), found that
concrete cable-stayed bridges with central vertical towers, saddles, and a single plane of cables have
always been the low bid compared to steel alternatives. These precast segmental concrete designs have
won over steel composite designs featuring H-type pylons with two planes of cables supporting a cross-
section of edge girders with transverse floorbeams. Additionally, for other bids where the concrete designs
had the same configuration as the steel composite designs, the concrete alternatives were always more
expensive. However, the competitiveness of precast box girders with central suspension may be limited to
wider bridges (with four or more traffic lanes).
Figures 3-21 through 3-26 show examples of centrally supported box girder cross-sections from
extradosed bridges proposed or constructed.
Figure 3-21. Arrt-Darr Viaduct, France (concept 1982-83): main span 100 m, span to depth ratio 27, cantilever
construction with precast segments with voided webs (Mathivat 1988).
77
Figure 3-22. Barton Creek Bridge, United States (completed 1987): main span 103.6 m, span to depth ratio 27 at
midspan, cantilever construction, with the fin poured progressively after completion of 3 segments (Gee 1991).
Figure 3-23. Kiso and Ibi River Bridges, Japan (completed 2001): 275 m maximum spans, span to depth ratio 39 at
piers and 69 at midspan, cantilever construction with precast segments lifted with 600 tonne barge mounted cranes,
and central 95 to 105 m steel sections strand-lifted from barges and made continuous (Casteleyn 1999, Kasuga 2006).
Figure 3-24. Shin-Meisei Bridge, Japan (completed Figure 3-25. North Arm Bridge, Vancouver, Canada
2004): 122.3 m main span, span to depth ratio 35, cast-in- (completed 2008): 180 m main span, span to depth ratio
place cantilever construction (Kasuga 2006). 53, cantilever construction with precast segments
(Griezic et al. 2006).
Figure 3-26. Trois Bassins Viaduct, Reunion (completed 2008): three main spans of 126 - 104.4 - 75.6 m, with cables
overlapping through the middle span, effective span to depth ratio 30 at tallest pier and 50 at midspan, cantilever
construction of central box, and construction of deck cantilevers and struts with mobile carriages (Frappart 2005).
78
3.6.2 Laterally Supported Single Cell Box Girder Cross-Section
In some two lane bridges, the designers have used a single-cell box girder cross-section, where the box is
almost as wide as the cross-section width. Since the vertical component of the cable force is not that large,
it is sometimes possible to anchor the cables in short deck cantilever overhangs without transverse
diaphragms at anchorage points, as would be required in a cable-stayed bridge. The vertical component of
the cable force is transferred in bending to the girder webs, the deck slab thickness is kept to a minimum
with transverse prestressing, and the girder webs are inclined inwards to reduce the width of the bottom
slab. A wide single cell box cross-section was used for the Ganter Bridge (Vogel & Marti 1997) and for
some of the first extradosed bridges such as the Odawara Blueway Bridge (Kasuga 2006), the Tsukuhara
Bridge (Kasuga 2006), and the Korror-Babeldoap Bridge (Oshimi et al. 2002). To provide additional
protection for the cables from the elements, some of the cross sections have a fascia that lowers from the
cantilever overhang to cover the anchorage block outs. When sidewalks are required, they are almost
always located on the deck cantilever overhangs outside of the cables.
Figures 3-27 through 3-28 show examples of wide single cell, laterally supported box girder cross-
sections from extradosed bridges constructed to date.
Figure 3-27. Tsukuhara Bridge, Japan (completed 1997): Figure 3-28. Himi Bridge, Japan (completed 2004): main
main span of 180 m, span to depth ratio of 33 at piers and span of 180 m, span to depth ratio of 45, cantilever
60 at midspan, cantilever construction in 6 m long construction (Kasuga 2006).
segments, transverse tendons in deck (Kasuga 2006).
Figure 3-29. Korror-Babeldoap (Japan-Palau Friendship) Bridge, Palau (completed 2002): main span of 247 m, span
to depth ratio of 35 at the piers and 70 at midspan, cantilever construction of concrete portions of spans, and central
82 m steel section lifted from barges and made continuous (Oshimi et al. 2002).
3.6.3 Multiple Cell Box Girder Cross-Section

Some bridges with wide decks feature box cross-sections with multiple webs, however this is not
recommended for several reasons. Firstly, cantilever construction of multiple box-sections requires form
79
travellers with additional bays and formwork cores which add cost and complexity to the construction
(SETRA 2007). Secondly, flexural strength and stiffness of the cross-section in the longitudinal direction
is related to the radius of gyration I A which is increased by locating more material towards the flanges
(Menn 1990) and eliminating unnecessary webs. Thirdly, the internal webs are not directly supported by
the cables unless transverse diaphragms are used to make the section more rigid, which implies that the
inner webs are subjected to higher bending moments than the outer webs. As well, it is analytically much
more complex to predict the distribution of forces between all webs. For the Ibi River Bridge cross-section
shown in Figure 3-23, the most important design consideration was how to efficiently transmit the cable
force to the main girder without providing diaphragms each cable anchorage (Casteleyn 1999). A
combination of deck ribs and web ribs in each segment, along with three diaphragms in each cantilever
were required to ensure adequate transverse rigidity for the 33 m wide section (Kasuga 2006). Referring to
Figure 2-7, it is apparent that the multiple box girder cross-sections have the largest effective depths of
concrete for their span. It is almost certain that for a similar cost, a more aesthetically pleasing structure
can be built with struts or transverse ribs.
The only advantage that multiple webs present is the potential to maintain a spacing of around 4 m
between webs often found in multiple girder highway bridges, which is efficient for the transverse bending
of the deck slab. The deck slab can be kept to a nominal dimension of around 225 mm with minimal
reinforcement of 15M at 300 mm spacing in each face and in each direction designed with the CHBDC
(CSA 2002a Clause 8.18.4).
Figures 3-30 through 3-35 show examples of multiple cell box girder cross-sections from extradosed
bridges constructed to date.
Figure 3-30. Odawara Bridge, Japan (completed 1994): Figure 3-31. Shin-Karato Bridge, Japan (completed
main span of 122.3 m, span to depth ratio of 35 at the 1998): main span 140 m, span to depth ratio of 40 at piers
piers and 55 at midspan, cantilever construction (Kasuga and 56 at midspan, cantilever construction (Tomita et al.
2006). 1999).
Figure 3-32. Domovinski Bridge, Croatia (completed 2006): 840 m total length, spans of 60 m typical with a main
extradosed span of 120 m, span to depth ratio of 30, cantilever construction in 4 m segments (Bali & Veverka 1999).
80
Figure 3-33. Rittoh Bridge, Japan (completed 2006): main span of 170 m, effective span to depth ratio of 37 at pier
and 61 at midspan, cantilever construction (Yasukawa 2002).
Figure 3-34. Pyung-Yeo Bridge, South Korea (completed 2007): main span of 120 m, span to depth ratio of 34 at
piers and 30 at midspan, cantilever construction with one pair of travellers (Masterson 2006).
Figure 3-35. Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge, United States (under construction): main span of 157 m, span to depth
ratio of 31 at piers and 45 at midspan (Stroh et al. 2003).
3.6.4 Laterally Supported Stiffened Slab Cross-Section

A slab supported by cross-beams between longitudinal edge girders forms an efficient system that can span
any width required and is increasingly used for cable-stayed bridges (Walther et al. 1999). Stiffened slabs
are common for composite cable-stayed bridges, with spans of constructed bridges ranging from 105 m to
600 m (Svensson 1999), and have been used in some concrete cable-stayed bridges such as the East
Huntington Bridge (Walther et al. 1999), the Dame Point Bridge (Gimsing 1997) and the Sidney-Lanier
Bridge (Callicutt & West 1999). The use of stiffened slabs for extradosed bridges has been limited to short
spans or shallow cross-sections.
Figures 3-36 through 3-38 show examples of laterally supported edge girder cross-sections from
extradosed bridges constructed to date.
81
Figure 3-36. Saint-Rmy-de-Maurienne Bridge, France Figure 3-37. Sunniberg Bridge, Switzerland (completed
(completed 1996): spans of 52.4 and 48.5 m, effective 1998): main spans 128, 140, and 134 m, span to depth
span to depth ratio of 35, cast-in-place on falsework ratio of 127, cantilever construction in 6 m stages (Figi et
(Grison & Tonello 1997). al. 1997).
Figure 3-38. Third Bridge over Rio Branco, Brasil (completed 2006): main span of 90 m, span to depth ratio of 36 at
piers and 45 at midspan, cantilever construction (Ishii 2006).
A preliminary design undertaken by the author for Tsable River Bridge near Nanaimo, BC used this
concept of longitudinal edge girders along the outside edges of the deck slab. This resulted in an efficient
use of reinforcing steel in the deck slab. The main spans of the bridge are 130 m long, with cross-beams
spanning 20 m and spaced at 6.0 m, supporting a 250 mm thick deck slab. For 70% of the spans, only 15M
reinforcement top and bottom at 300 mm spacing is required.
3.6.5 Composite Cross-Section

Composite cross-sections consisting of a steel girder with concrete have been considered for extradosed
bridges. An alternative for the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge (Stroh et al. 1999) has been detailed with a
composite cross-section, and the Golden Ears Bridge (Bergman et al. 2007) will be the first composite
extradosed bridge constructed. The problem with a composite cross-section is that the part of the axial
force in the girder, initially resisted by the concrete deck slab, creeps from the concrete into the steel
girders over the long-term. The extent of this creep depends on the initial age of concrete deck slab at
loading and on the relative stiffness of the two components. In cable-stayed bridges, loss of axial force in
the deck slab is mitigated by providing the least amount of structural steel in the longitudinal edge beams,
using high strength steel to provide strength without adding stiffness, and by using precast concrete panels
that are cast three to six months prior to installation to allow some shrinkage to occur before the they are
made composite (Taylor 1994). Compared with a cable-stayed bridge, the girder of an extradosed bridge
of equivalent span is subjected to larger bending moments, which requires more steel in girders, and to an
axial force of two to three times the magnitude that can be resisted by the same concrete slab dimensioned
for transverse behaviour. Thus, the axial force is larger and the stiffness ratio of concrete to overall
82
stiffness would be lower for an extradosed bridge, causing much of the compression initially in the
concrete to creep into the steel.
Figure 3-39. Golden Ears Bridge, Canada (completion 2009): main span of 242 m, span to depth ratio of 54 at piers
and 80 at midspan, cantilever construction with precast deck panels (Bergman et al. 2007).
Takami and Hamada (2001) studied the long-term behavior of a composite extradosed bridge that was
designed with the same width and span lengths as the Odawara Blueway Bridge (Kasuga 2006). Their
study set out to evaluate if a twin girder composite bridge, an economical system for construction, could be
efficiently used for an extradosed design. They were concerned that the composite bridge would have
excessive long-term deflections due to creep, leading to tensile stresses in the deck slab at the supports.
For a bridge with spans of 74 - 122 - 74 m, they applied an instantaneous dead load to the the deck and
compared the deflections and stresses at the initial time and 10000 days. The vertical deflection decreased
up to 40 mm in the side spans and increased up to 40 mm in the main span. The compressive stress in the
deck slab increased considerably to around 3.5 MPa in side spans, and decreased by less than 0.5 MPa to
around 1.5 MPa over the supports. The stress in the steel top flange increased noticeably across the entire
bridge, up to 60 MPa, while the steel bottom flange stress increased by up to 50 MPa at the supports.
Cable forces increased an average of 12% in the main span.
Although Takami and Hamadas (2001) construction sequence is unknown, their main span to web
depth ratio is 30.5, which is not particularly slender. The West Virginia Approach Spans to the Bridge
across the Ohio River and Blennerhassed Island have spans of up to 122.2 m with a web depth of 3.05 m,
resulting in a main span to web depth ratio of 40 (Wollman 2008). For short spans, it would be possible to
erect light steel girders first, pour the deck slab, then install and stress the cables. The benefits of this
system are similar to those of prestressing composite girders with external tendons: it limits tension
stresses, increases yield load, increases ultimate strength, reduces structural steel weight, and reduces
fatigue stresses in the steel (Tong et al. 1992). For short spans, this construction sequence could be more
economical than cantilevered construction.
3.7 Tendon Layout

In Mathivats (1988) concept of the extradosed bridge, the internal cantilever tendons of the box girder are
replaced by the extradosed tendons. The only tendons that are housed within the cross-section are external
tendons, draped between pier diaphragms and deviators in the span, which is reasonable for precast
construction. However, in many extradosed bridges constructed to date, internal cantilever and continuity
tendons have been incorporated into the designs. Thus, there are four types of tendons that can be used in
an extradosed bridge, as shown in Figure 3-40 and described as follows.
83
Extradosed Tendons (Stays) Internal Cantilever Tendons
External Continuity Tendons Internal Continuity Tendons

Figure 3-40. Possible types of tendons in an Extradosed Bridge
Extradosed tendons are anchored in the deck segments and are either anchored in the towers or
deviated through the towers by means of saddles. They resist dead load during cantilevering, and resist
dead and live load in the final condition. As they are located above the deck surface, they require
protection against the elements.
Cantilever tendons are internal tendons installed as construction proceeds and anchored at the face of
the segment. They resist negative moments during construction and in the final condition, and are efficient
since the total prestressing force changes at each section and is built up gradually as cantilevering
proceeds. In an extradosed bridge, typically cantilever tendons are only used for cantilevering out to the
first extradosed tendons.
Internal continuity tendons are installed after span closure and are anchored in block-outs as close to
the bottom slab and webs as allowed given the clearance requirements for jacking. They resist positive
moments that occur during construction due to temporary construction loads, thermal gradient, and
concrete deformations. If external continuity tendons are not used, the internal continuity tendons also
resist positive moment from live load and creep.
External continuity tendons are installed after the structure is continuous and complement the other
tendons. They resist negative moment around the piers and positive moment at midspan under
superimposed dead loads, live load and creep. They are anchored in cross-beams at the piers and are
deviated around the quarter points of the span by smaller cross-beams. These tendons are installed and
stressed from anchorages at the piers.
3.8 Erection
Extradosed bridges are almost always constructed in cantilever, except for short spans. Conventional form
travellers, as used for the construction of cantilevered girder bridges and cable-stayed bridges, can also be
used for extradosed bridges.
The form traveller can produce significant negative bending moments in the deck, depending on the
type used. The first concrete cable-stayed bridges, such as the Brotonne Bridge (Mathivat 1983), were
constructed with conventional form travellers of the same type used for cantilevered girder bridges. For
the Brotonne Bridge, a cable was anchored every two segments, with each segment around 3 m in length.
Three segments had to cantilever from the last installed cable before the next cable could be stressed,
which produced negative bending moments extending up to 5 cables back and required prestressing
tendons to balance these forces. Due to the early age of the concrete when the negative tendons were
84
stressed, the long-term bending moments due to creep of the prestressing forces resulted in problematic
long-term deflections of the girder (Virlogeux 1994).
In subsequent cable-stayed bridges, form travellers were designed to allow stressing of the cables at
the face of the segment before advancing the traveller. For extradosed bridges, form travellers have been
designed to cast segments of 5 to 7 m in length, to match the cable spacing and speed up construction.
Since extradosed cables are often designed not to require restressing, large multistrand stressing jacks can
be used for stressing since they can be mounted on the travellers, as was done for the construction of the
Tsukuhara Bridge (Ogawa et al. 1998).
Typical box girders are stiff, and the erection geometry can be established from the final geometry
(Virlogeux 1994). Flexible decks are subject to uncertainties arising from local longitudinal deflections,
transverse deflections, and thermal effects of concrete hardening (Virlogeux 1994). With flexible decks, it
is more important to balance the permanent loads at all stages of construction, as the final geometry is
more sensitive to creep deformations.
The cable-stayed form traveller is the best solution to limit the bending moments in the bridge during
construction, and is now the preferred method for cast-in-place construction (Virlogeux 1994). The
traveler is supported at its nose either by temporary cables or permanent cables which can be decoupled
from the traveler after the the concrete is set. Each stage is typically between 5 and 7 m in length, and a
cable (or pair of cables) is installed at every stage. This type of traveler was used for the construction of
the Diepoldsau Bridge completed in 1985 (Walther et al. 1999), the Dames Point Bridge in 1989 (Abraham
et al. 1998), the Burgundy Bridge in 1992 (Virlogeux et al. 1994b), the Sunniberg Bridge in 1997 (Figi et
al. 1998) and the Sidney Lanier Bridge in 2003 (McNary 1999). In this system, the cables are stressed to
balance the weight of the traveler after advancement, and in three or four increments through the segment
pour.
For the construction of the Diepoldsau Bridge over the Rhine in Switzerland, precast concrete edge
beams under the main slab cross-section, were installed outwards from the previous stage (Walther et al.
1999). Stay cables were then installed and stressed before placement of concrete. The load of the cast-in-
place concrete was supported by the stays at either end of the given stage. In the Dames Point Bridge
(Abraham et al. 1998), a special coupler joined the form traveller to the stay cables through precast
anchorage blocks, which allowed the permanent cables to support the wet concrete during the segment
pour. After the concrete achieved strength, the stays were uncoupled from the traveller, thus transferring
the cable force to the concrete. This method resulted in a traveller of only 60% of the weight that would
otherwise have been required, and a cycle of 4 to 6 days per stage (Abraham et al. 1998). Upon advancing
to the next stage, the formwork supports folded downwards and the forms lowered to allow the formwork
to clear under the cross beams. In the Burgundy Bridge (Virlogeux et al. 1994b), temporary stays were
anchored on the nose of the traveler, ahead of the given segment. The permanent cables were stressed
simulatenously with the destressing of the temporary cables.
The superstructure of the Sunniberg Bridge (Baumann & Dniker 1999) was constructed in stages of 6
m in length with an unconventional form traveller that extended over two segments. In each stage, the
85
Support Rail HEB 700 Concrete Edge Beam
Section through
Ballast
Edge Beams
Support Frame
Support Rail HEB 700
Section through
Deck Centreline
Support Frame Work Platform

Reaction Point
Outline of Work Platform

Plan View of form traveller on form traveller
Figure 3-41. Sunniberg Bridge form traveller (adapted from Figi et al. 1998).
leading edge beams and the trailing deck slab are poured simultaneously, as shown in Figure 3-41. With
this configuration, the form traveller is better balanced: casting of the deck slab is offset by 1.5 m with the
edge beams, thereby perfectly balancing their dead loads on the stay cable in question. The segment
casting cycle was:
1. Pour edge and deck slab, with simultaneous decrease in ballast;
2. Reposition the support rail of the traveller for the next stage, mount jacks to stay cables for initial
stressing;
3. Stress stay cables in 4 to 6 steps with simulaneous increase in ballast;l
4. Lower and advance the traveller, and
5. Place reinforcement in edge beams and deck slab and install stay cables.
The use of ballast allows for better control and less risk during the deck pour, when problems with
stressing of stay cables could have severe consequences. As well, all measurements of deformations and
surveying can be completed ahead of the deck pour. This sequence resulted in a one-week construction per
pair of segments. The entire bridge deck of 526 m length was constructed with a single pair of form
travellers.
3.9 Verification at the Ultimate Limit States

According to the CHBDC (Clause 5.10.2), cable-stayed bridges must be investigated for non-linear effects
from cable sag, deformation of the deck superstructure, and material non-linearity at the ultimate limit
states. As well, the integrity of the structure must be ensured for the effect of the loss of any stay cable.
In an extradosed bridge, cable sag can safely be neglected as explained in Section 3.4.5. The effects of
non-linear geometry are small and need only be considered in combination with material non-linearity
unless the deck is flexible.
86
Walther et al. (1999) suggest using the static method of the theory of plasticity, using elastic force
fields, to verify the capacity of the girder at the ultimate limit states. While this should be adequate to
prove the resistance at most sections of the girder, the negative moment over the pier from an elastic
analysis will generally exceed the sections resistance. Therefore, a certain level of nonlinear analysis is
necessary to verify that the yielding of the girder section causes an increase in the cable forces that can be
resisted by the cables.
The cable tensions, and corresponding girder moments, can be treated in two different ways at ULS.
In a first method, the forces resulting from the pre-deformations are distinguished from those resulting
from the dead loads. As with internal prestressing, the cable tensions due to the predeformations are
factored differently than those due to dead load, which must be factored by the same coefficient as the dead
loads (Virlogeux 1988). Where D is the total dead load force, and CP is the force due to cable
predeformations, the force at ULS is:
ULSD = DD + 1.0CP
In a second method, the prestress contributes to the strength only (Walther et al. 1999), and the forces
due to dead load and due to cable predeformations can be factored by the same coefficient:
ULSD = D(D + CP)
Menn (1990) explains that this strategy leads to girder moments at ULS that are consistent (of the same
sign) with those at SLS, and thus reinforcement required at ULS will also contribute to SLS behaviour.
The difference between this second method and the first method, (D - 1.0)CP, can be thought of as a
redistribution of moments in the girder at ULS.
The second method appears to be reasonable for an extradosed bridge with a flexible girder, where the
girder would exhibit nonlinear behaviour and redistribute load to the cables. The primary system, the
tension in the cables and compression in the deck slab, resists collapse and the towers ensure stability. The
first method, however, is better suited for extradosed bridges with stiff girders, where the extradosed
cables sometimes yield after the formation of a plastic hinge in the girder close to the piers. This is
explained schematically by Kasuga (2003).
3.10 Concluding Remarks

This chapter reviewed the loading, discussed design concepts related to distribution of live load
between the primary axial load resisting system of the cables and the secondary flexural load resisting
system of the girder, and the influence of rotational fixity at the piers. This was followed by discussions on
proportions of the girder and tower, cable configuration, cable anchorages in the girder and piers, and cable
design at SLS, FLS and ULS. A thorough summary of methods for cable pretensioning was presented to
explain a topic that is discussed only briefly in most sources. For cantilever construction, it is only
practical to pretension the cables at installation to balance the girders self-weight. To balance
superimposed dead load, if desired for a stiff girder and necessary for a flexible girder, the cables have to
be retensioned after closure of the cantilevers.
87
The design of towers and piers will depend mainly on the type of suspension (lateral or central) and the
type of connection with the girder which affects the magnitude of forces in the piers. All types of girder
cross-sections have been used in extradosed bridges, but a single cell box girder is the preferred cross-
section for efficiency in both longitudinal and transverse bending and materials usage for extradosed
bridges with stiff girders. A single cell box girder centrally suspended and supported on a central pier
appears to result in the most economical and constructable designs. However, central suspension is not
practical for a bridge with only two traffic lanes.
In the next chapter, the insight gained from the comprehensive literature review and demonstrations of
this chapter will be applied to the design of two extradosed bridges: one with a stiff girder to resist live
load through the secondary flexural system (and as has been the design strategy used for most extradosed
bridges constructed to date), and one with a flexible girder to resist live load through the primary axial
system.
4 DESIGN OF CANTILEVER CONSTRUCTED GIRDER BRIDGE,
EXTRADOSED BRIDGE WITH STIFF GIRDER, AND
EXTRADOSED BRIDGE WITH STIFF TOWER
In this chapter, three different bridges will be designed for the same crossing: a cantilever constructed
girder bridge, a stiff girder extradosed bridge, and a stiff tower extradosed bridge. Design assumptions are
common for all three bridges, and will be stated up front. The desing procedure varies for each bridge and
is described in separate sections along with the structural behaviour and dimensioning of each bridge.
Drawings of the three bridges can be found in the Drawings section.
A fictional crossing has been assumed which requires a three span bridge with a main span of 140 m
length. Cantilever-constructed concrete bridges are known to be competitive at this span length, since this
is at the upper limit for composite steel plate girder bridges (Dubois 2004), often considered to be the main
competition against concrete bridges for shorter spans, due to the size of flange plates. While other steel
bridge types are feasible, such as composite box girder and tied arch bridges, these are usually more
expensive options. This span is however shorter than is thought to be economical for cable-stayed bridge
construction (Troitsky 1988).
This main span is slightly less than the 150 m average main span of extradosed bridges in the Chapter
2 study. The side spans were chosen as 84 m (0.6 of main span) for the girder bridge and stiff girder
extradosed bridge to keep the positive moment in the side spans similar that that in the main span, as
discussed in Section 3.3.2, and to avoid uplift at the abutments. The side spans were chosen to be 72 m
(0.51 of main span) for the stiff tower extradosed bridge to keep the side span positive moments in the
girder under permanent loads to a minimum. A stiff tower design was attempted with 84 m side spans, but
this entailed an unsupported length of 17 m between the last cable and the abutment, and the resulting side
span girder moments greatly exceeded the its capacity. For this crossing, it is possible to add a short
approach span at either side of the bridge, but for comparison between the three bridges, the main bridge
was kept to three spans. The bridges are continuous, symmetrical about the centre of the main span, with
expansion joints at each abutment.
The roadway cross-section consists of one lane of 3.75
m width in each direction, shoulders of 2.0 m width, and a
starndard MTO PL-2 concrete barrier with a steel railing
(Ontario 2001), shown in Figure 4-1. PL-2 refers to Figure 4-1. Roadway cross-section.
performance level of the barrier required in accordance
with the CHBDC (CSA 2006a), based on an exposure index appropriate for this type of bridge if it had an
AADT (average annual daily traffic) of 2000 vehicles. Since there are only two traffic lanes, lateral
suspension will be used for the two extradosed bridge designs, which adds additional deck width beyond
the barrier walls. According to the CHBDC (CSA 2002a), the 11.5 m wide roadway has 3 design lanes.
88
89
4.1 Design Assumptions
4.1.1 Material Properties and Detailing
Commonly available materials with typical characteristics were chosen for the designs in this section, as
summarised in Table 4-1. In Ontario, new bridges under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transportation
are constructed with High Performance Concrete with a minimum compressive strength of 50 MPa, unless
it is not available at the sites location (Ontario 2001). This concrete has been adopted for these designs.
Table 4-1. Material Characteristics assumed for design.
Material Strength Modulus of Elasticity
High Performance Concrete Compressive strength: Ec = 28 100 MPa
fc = 50 MPa ( 3000 f' c + 6900 ) ( c 2300 )
1.5
Cracking strength:
fcr = 0.4 f' c = 2.83 MPa
Reinforcement - Grade 400R fy = 400 MPa Es = 200 000 MPa
Prestressing Steel: Specified tensile strength: Ep = 200 000 MPa
Seven-wire high-strength, fpu = 1860 MPa
low-relaxation strand Yield strength:
(CEB-FIP Class 2), fpy = 0.90fpu = 1674 MPa
Size 15 (Astrand =140 mm2)
The concrete deck is overlaid with a 90 mm asphalt and waterproofing system. The concrete deck
surface is conservatively considered to be exposed to de-icing chemicals or surface runoff containing de-
icing chemicals. The periphery of the cross-section (the soffit of the deck cantilever overhangs, the
external surface of the webs, and the soffit of the bottom slab) is also considered to be exposed. Minimum
concrete covers and placing tolerances are adopted from the CHBDC (CSA 2006a) for the given exposure
of the surface and are summarised in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2. Concrete Covers and Tolerances specified in the CHBDC (CSA 2006a).
Component Longitudinal Prestressing Transverse Prestressing Mild Reinforcement
Top Surface of Deck Slab 130 15 90 15 70 20
Soffit of Deck Slab Cantilever 70 10 ( 300 mm) - 50 10 ( 300 mm)
80 10 (> 300 mm) 60 10 (> 300 mm)
Interior Soffit of Deck Slab 60 10 60 10 40 10
External Surface of Web 90 10 - 70 10
Internal Surface of Web 80 10 - 60 10
Top Surface of Bottom Slab 60 10 - 40 10
Soffit of Bottom Slab 70 10 - 50 10
Prestressing steel for internal, external and extradosed tendons is high strength seven wire low-
relaxation strand, and both tendons and extradosed stay cables are assumed to have the basic modulus of
elasticity given in the CHBDC (CSA 2006a). Ducts for internal tendons are assumed to be rigid steel,
which have a higher curvature friction coefficient, but lower wobble friction coefficient than plastic ducts.
Plastic ducts are more durable during construction and therefore well adapted to segmental construction,
can be coupled easily by means of half-shell clamps or shrink-wrap couplers, but are more expensive than
steel ducts. External ducts are assumed to be polyethylene with rigid steel pipe deviators. Wobble and
curvature friction coefficients are adopted from the CHBDC and defined in Table 4-3.
90
Table 4-3. Friction Coefficients (per metre length of prestressing tendon)
Sheath Wobble friction, K Curvature friction,
Internal ducts:
Rigid steel 0.002 0.18
External ducts:
Straight plastic 0.000 0
Rigid steel pipe deviators 0.002 0.25
4.1.2 Analysis and Limit States Verification

Frame models of the bridges were developed and analysed with the program SAP2000 (CSI 2005).
Tendons were modelled as tendon elements in order to explicitly account for long-term effects. For elastic
analyses, the external tendons were modeled as internal tendons, which is valid for small curvatures.
Relaxation of tendons was included in all analyses of long-term effects according to values given in the
CEB-FIP (1993) MC90 for class 2 relaxation: improved relaxation characteristics for wires and strands.
Accordingly, the long-term relaxation after 50 years is assumed to be three times the relaxation at 1000
hours. The ability of SAP2000 to model tendon relaxation was validated using a model of a 1 m long
tendon, subjected to different stress levels for 1000 hours and 50 years. Relaxation at 1000 hours is 1.1%
for stress levels under 0.6 fpu, 2% for a stress of 0.7 fpu, and 5% for a stress of 0.8 fpu. At 50 years,
relaxation is three times the relaxation at 1000 hours.
For the the extradosed bridges, there is a difference between the girder area for structural response and
the effective girder area for calculating its self-weight, due to the presence of transverse ribs. Since the
internal functionality of SAP2000 was used to calculate the self-weight of the girder, the structural area of
the girder was specified as its section property, and the unit weight of the girder concrete was increased to
include the additional weight of the transverse ribs.
The SETRA formula, given in Section 3.4.6, was used to determine the allowable stress at SLS for the
extradosed cables in the stiff girder extradosed design.
At SLS I, the CHBDC (CSA 2006a) requires the load case K for all strains, deformation, and
displacements to be factored by 0.8 (see Table 3-1). With a structure built in stages, long-term effects
(relaxation, creep and shrinkage) are calculated explicitly for each element starting from the time they are
introduced into the model. It is difficult to isolate the long-term effects into a single load case because a
portion of the effects will have already occurred before the structure is completely assembled.
In lieu of factoring the portion of load case K due to long-term effects by 0.8, long-term effects were
accounted for by verification at SLS1 of the forces in the structure at 50 years, an age at which most losses
have occurred. It is assumed that the bridge will undergo maintenance work within the first 50 years of its
service life, at which time the actual deflections of the structure would be taken into account, and
additional prestressing could be added if necessary to correct the deflections and/or increase capacity. The
structure is also verified at SLS1 for the forces in the structure immediately after construction.
It is difficult to calculate the bending moments at ULS in a structure built in phases. One approach is
to take the permanent moments from the SLS load case, and add the difference in loads between SLS and
91
ULS, as taken from the continuous structure. The following summation of load cases at SLS and ULS
illustrates this approach.
SLS1perm,0 is the combination of permanent moments following the construction sequence equivalent to:
SLS1perm,0 = 1.0SW + 1.0B + 1.0A + 1.0CP + 1.0P
SLS1perm,50 is the combination of permanent moments after 50 years, effectively:
SLS1perm,50 = 1.0SW + 1.0B + 1.0A + 1.0CP + 1.0P + 1.0K
SLS1 = SLS1perm,0 / SLS1perm,50 + MAX/MIN(0.9L, 0.5TG + 0.5L, 1.0TG)
ULS1 = 1.2SW + 1.2B + 1.5A + 1.0CP + 1.0P + 1.7L
= SLS1perm,0 + 0.2 SW + 0.2B + 0.5A + 1.7L
ULS2 = 1.2SW + 1.2B + 1.5A + 1.0CP + 1.0P + 1.6L + 1.15K
= SLS1perm,0 + 0.2 SW + 0.2B + 0.5A + 1.6L + 1.15(SLS1perm,50 - SLS1perm,0)
where SW is the self-weight of the girder (cable load is lumped with girder SW);
B is the barrier load;
A is the asphalt load;
CP is the cable pretensioning (prestrain) load;
P is the secondary prestress effect;
L is the live load;
TG is the temperature gradient;
K is the load effect of relaxation of prestressing, concrete shrinkage and creep
The load cases added to the SLS1 load combination are calculated from the continuous structure. This
will result in a conservative design, since more load is added to the positive moment regions where there is
less reserve in bending capacity of the girder than in the negative moment regions at the piers.
4.1.3 Temperature Gradient

The AASHTO (2004) LRFD nonlinear thermal gradient for Zone 3 was adopted for design since the
CHBDC (CSA 2006a) linear gradient simplistic and overly conservative for girder depths above 2 metres,
as explained in Section 3.1.2. The procedure used to model the nonlinear temperature gradient at each
girder section is as follows.
Determine temperature forces in a restrained system subjected to strains due to the nonlinear tempera-
ture gradient (in a spreadsheet);
Calculate a curvature corresponding to the temperature forces of the restrained system (i.e. restraint is
released and the temperature forces are applied to the system);
Calculate a linear temperature gradient corresponding to the above curvature and apply to the com-
puter model.
The total stress due temperature gradient is the summation of the primary or self-equilibrating stress
(made up of stresses from the restrained system and stresses from the released system) and the secondary
or continuity stresses. The resulting stress from the computer model only accounts for the released stress
and the continuity stress.
At SLS, the temperature gradient is considered as a load case, and factored by 0.5 when considered
simultaneously with live load, and by 1.0 when considered alone, as specified in the AASHTO (2004)
92
LRFD code. When the temperature gradient is combined with live load, the live load is factored by 0.5.
The temperature gradient has not been considered at ULS.
4.1.4 Construction Sequence and Segment Construction Cycle

The construction sequence was used in preliminary design and later in refined nonlinear analysis. A
standard construction sequence was adopted, and assumed to proceed symmetrically about the centreline
of the bridge. The major steps are summarised in Figure 4-2. The construction sequence for the
extradosed bridges is the same as for the girder bridge with cantilever tendons replaced by extradosed
tendons.
Figure 4-2. Construction sequence.
Construction of piers and pier tables.
Cantilever construction of segments. Tendons are stressed

two per segment.
Construction of cast-in-place portion of side spans between

the cantilevers and abutments, stressing of side span conti-
nuity tendons.
Closure pour at midspan segment linking the two cantile-

vers, stressing of main span continuity tendons, and removal
of form travellers.
Installation and stressing of additional continuity tendons or

external tendons, followed by asphalt paving and construc-
tion of barrier walls.
A construction cycle of seven days per segment pair (5 working days and 2 weekend days for curing)
has been used for staged anlaysis. At the beginning of the cycle, the traveler is advanced into position, the
reinforcement is placed, and at the end of the week the concrete is poured. The concrete is left to gain
strength over the weekend allowing two to three days for the concrete to achieve the required strength
(Mondorf 2006). Then, the tendons are stressed and the traveller is advanced to the next segment position,
and the cycle is repeated. Normally, one crew will be sufficient to handle all operations in both travellers,
leading to a rate of construction of approximately 1.0 m per day per pair of travellers.
For the extradosed bridge, a cycle of 7 days is maintained for each 6 m segment. Longer segments
leads to a faster rate of construction, but would require a larger crew or preassembly of reinforcement
cages.
In the analysis, 28 days is provided between pouring of the pier tables and construction of the first pair
of segments with the travellers. The pier tables normally take a long time to construct because they are
completed in several pours to limit pour volumes and allow reuse or removal of formwork.
93
4.2 Cantilever Constructed Girder Bridge
4.2.1 Layout and Cross-Section
A single cell box girder cross-section was chosen which is consistent with standard practice for a bridge of
this width. The two webs intersect the deck slab beyond the quarter points, resulting in 2.5 m deck
cantilever overhangs. Inclined webs were chosen for aesthetic reasons.
The depth of the cross-section varies parabolically from 8.0 m at the pier to 3.2 m at the centre of the
main span, which corresponds to span to depth ratios of 17.5 and 43.8 respectively, based on
recommendations from various sources as discussed in Section 3.3. The girder is simply supported on
bearings at the piers.
The segment length was chosen as close to 3.5 m as possible. Given the desire to maintain a 2 m
closure segment between cantilevers, and a pier table projecting approximately 4 m beyond the pier
centreline, the cantilever length was divided into 19 segments of 3.42 m length.
The approximate size of cantilever tendons was determined from an initial estimate of cantilever
moment, and used to detail the deck slab haunches for adequate spacing and cover of prestressing ducts.
The bottom slab has a minimum thickness of 250 mm to accommodate internal tendons given cover
requirements. The girder cross-section in shown in Figure 4-3, and the general arrangement of the bridge
can be found in Drawings, CANT-S1.
Figure 4-3. Girder cross-section of

cantilever constructed girder bridge.
4.2.2 Longitudinal Prestressing

Two prestressing schemes were designed for this bridge. The first scheme uses cantilever tendons, bottom
slab continuity tendons, and external tendons. The second scheme uses only cantilever and bottom slab
continuity tendons. The two prestressing strategies will be compared on the basis of net moment in the
girder and material quantity.
Starting in the 1980s, it has become standard practice in France and some other European countries to
use external tendons, in combination with internal tendons, as a replacement for internal tendons
94
previously draped inside the webs (SETRA 2007). The use of external tendons for cantilever constructed
girder bridges presents several advantages such as reduced cross-sectional dimensions, ease of installation,
controlled stressing, future replaceability of external tendons, reduced shear demand in webs, and fewer
blockouts for bottom continuity tendons. In North America, external tendons are not commonly used for
cast-in-place construction.
After appropriate cross-section dimensions were established, a preliminary design was used to size the
remaining tendons, following the construction sequence. The main steps are outlined below, and follow
the steps outlined by SETRA (2007).
1. Cantilever tendons were determined to keep the section over the pier uncracked in the determinate can-
tilever system during construction, for the moment caused by casting of the final segment. A form
traveller self-weight of 400 kN was assumed, which is between 35 and 60% of the maximum and min-
imum segment weights.
2. The pier section was checked to ensure it remains uncracked at casting of the midspan closure segment
(weight is added but continuity is not yet acheived). This does not normally control the design since
the closure pour is small and the weight is distributed between the two cantilevers.
3. Continuity prestressing for the midspan closure segment was determined in order for it to remain
uncracked for positive moment due to the temperature gradient. The form traveller and wet concrete
load of the of the final segment are added to the determinate system, and the weight of the form travel-
ler is removed from the continuous system, resulting in a negative moment (this is done first so that the
secondary prestress moments from the midspan closure are known when sizing the side span continu-
ity tendons).
4. Continuity prestressing for the side span closures was determined to keep the construction joint
uncracked a) for positive moment due to the dead load of the cast-in-place girder after falsework
removal and b) for the additional positive moment due to temperature gradient after the structure is
fully continuous between the piers.
5. The critical moments were found at the critical design sections, as listed in Table 4-4, for the continu-
ous bridge subjected to dead load, superimposed dead load (asphalt and barrier walls), temperature
gradient (as before), and live load (envelope). Additional continuity prestressing or external prestress-
ing was added as required to keep the girder uncracked at the side span section of maximum positive
moment, and at midspan. The top stresses at the pier, and just beyond the pier table in the side spans
were checked to ensure the concrete top surface remains uncracked.
Table 4-4. Critical sections for design and corresponding load cases to produce the maximum load effect.
Critical Moment Load Case to Consider
Section Design Check Max Min DL SDL LLmin LLmax Temp Creep
Side span closure 9 9 9 9 9
Side span max. moment 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Over pier 9 9 9 9 9
Midspan closure 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
95
The above preliminary design resulted in the tendon arrangement in Table 4-5. A detailed model was
then developed with the tendons from the preliminary design. The tendon layout and anchorage locations
were modified to give a reasonable distribution of net bending moment and to keep the bottom concrete
fibre uncracked at all sections. The net bending moments, immediately after construction and after 50
years, are shown for tendon schemes in Figure 4-4, along with the moments due to temperature gradient
and live load. Calculation of stresses from the results of the detailed model found one pair of main span
external tendons to be unnecessary in the case of the mixed tendon arrangement, and one pair of main span
internal continuity tendons was added to the internal tendon design. The final tendon arrangement can be
found in Drawings, CANT-A-S2 and CANT-A-S3 for the mixed tendon scheme, and CANT-B-S2 and
CANT-B-S3 for the internal tendon scheme.
Mixed Tendons Staged Construction Internal Tendons Staged Construction
Permanet Loads + PT (at End of Construction) Permanet Loads + PT (at End of Construction)
Mixed Tendons Staged Construction Internal Tendons Staged Construction

Permanet Loads + PT (at 50 years) Permanet Loads + PT (at 50 years)
AASHTO Temperature Gradient Live Load Moment Envelope (all lanes loaded)
Critical SLS Moment = Permanent Loads + PT + Max (1.0 TG, 0.9 Live Load, 0.5 TG + 0.5 Live Load)
Figure 4-4. Bending moment in cantilever girder bridge (SAP2000 diagrams at the same relative scale).
Table 4-5. Preliminary and final tendons for cantilever constructed girder bridge.
Internal and external tendons Internal tendons only
Cantilever prestressing 19 - 2x15-15 tendons 19 - 2x19-15 tendons
Continuity prestressing 1 - 2x19-15 top tendon 1 - 2x19-15 top tendon
in main span 5 - 2x19-15 bottom tendons 4 - 2x22-15 bottom tendons at closure
6(7) - 2x22-15 bottom tendons after con-
crete has reached 28 day strength.
External prestressing 8(6) - 27-15 draped tendons installed after None
in main span structure is continous and all concrete has
reached 28 day strength.
Continuity prestressing 2 - 2x19-15 3 - 2x22-15 bottom tendons at closure
in side spans
External prestressing 2 - 27-15 draped tendons installed after struc- None
in side spans ture is continous and all concrete has reached
28 day strength.
Note: Numbers in paranthese (X) are final tendons used after checking stresses with a detailed model.
96
4.2.3 Verification at SLS and ULS
The net moment and the top and bottom stresses in the concrete, at the critical sections in the bridge, are
shown in Table 4-6 for the mixed tendon design, and in Table 4-7 for the internal tendon design. Only the
stresses after 50 years are shown since these controlled the design at SLS. The temperature gradient load
case was found to govern the design of the continuity prestressing in the main span at SLS, while live load
governed in the side spans. Detailed results can be found in Appendix B.
For the calculation of section resistance at ULS, the stress in the external tendons is taken as the stress
at 50 years at SLS1. Any increase in stress that might occur due to elongation of the tendon at ULS is
neglected. Section resistance was calculated with Response 2000, with axial compression and primary
moment of the external tendons included as an external load..
Table 4-6. SLS Forces and Maximum Stresses in the Girder - Internal and External Tendons
Side Span Main Span
Critical Sections Closure Max Mlive Pier CL 0.3 of span 0.4 of span CL span
SLS Forces after 50 years (Forces include Mp, units are MNm, MN and MPa)
SLS Mmin (t=50 years) -10.28 -0.55 -84.0 14.95 -5.0 -10.2
SLS Mmax (t=50 years) 18.25 48.6 43.0 86.2 64.2 57.2
SLS Axial Force -22.2 -38.7 -138.0 -61.8 -59.0 -62.0
Top Stress - Mmin -1.7 -4.5 -7.7 -8.2 -6.7 -6.7
- Mmax -4.8 -9.0 -11.6 -13.9 -13.7 -14.1
Bottom Stress - Mmin -4.4 -4.6 -12.5 -5.5 -7.9 -9.4
- Mmax 0.1 1.3 -8.8 1.8 1.6 1.2
Forces at ULS1 (DD + 1P + 1.7L over pier) or ULS2 (DD + 1P + 1.6L + 1.15K in positive moment regions)
Mf 81.7 65.5 -702 137.3 181.3
Mr 80.1 69.4 -1125 137.l 180.4
Mf / Mr 1.02 0.95 0.62 1.00 1.00
The moment resistance at the side span closure section is inadequate, but can be increased sufficiently
by increasing the bottom slab reinforcement from 15M to 20M.
Table 4-7. SLS Forces and Maximum Stresses in the Girder - Internal Tendons
Side Span Main Span
Critical Sections Closure Max Mlive Pier CL 0.3 of span 0.4 of span CL span
SLS Mmin (t=50 years) 2.0 -5.6 -179.0 13.7 3.4 -2.3
SLS Mmax (t=50 years) 30.6 43.9 -53.0 86.5 72.6 63.9
SLS Axial Force -17.3 -42.4 -105.0 -60.6 -61.0 -66.0
Top Stress - Mmin -2.4 -4.5 -2.4 -7.9 -7.8 -8.1
- Mmax -5.3 -9.0 -6.2 -13.8 -14.8 -15.4
- Mmax 2.6 0.3 -9.5 1.9 2.5 1.7
Forces at ULS1 (DD + 1P + 1.7L over pier) or ULS2 (DD + 1P + 1.6L + 1.15K in positive moment regions)
Mf 88.8 64.9 -714 154.8 203
Mr 109.4 129.3 -1226 282 351
Mf / Mr 0.81 0.50 0.61 0.55 0.58
For both designs, the deck surface remains precompressed from the end of construction to 50 years at
SLS, and the bottom surface remains uncracked. The bridges have adequate bending resistance at ULS.
97
Based on an elastic analysis, the design with internal tendons appears to have a larger reserve capacity than
that with external tendons.
4.3 Extradosed Bridge with Stiff Deck

The objective of this design was to make the girder as slender as possible, but stiff enough relative to the
cables to keep the stress range due to live load in the cables below 50 MPa, the limit at which SETRA
allows the extradosed cables to stressed to 0.60 fpu in a conventional prestressing anchorage. In keeping
with the notion of extradosed tendons as prestressing the deck, retensioning of extradosed cables is
avoided, and the girder is designed to remain fully prestressed (uncracked) at SLS. Extradosed cables are
anchored in the towers.

A harp cable configuration was chosen for the reasons discussed in Section 3.4.1, with a span to tower
height ratio of 10. This results in a cable slope of 0.2. Each cantilever consists of 10 segments of 6 m
length, with a 6 m closure pour between the two cantilevers and an initial pier table segment projecting 7 m
beyond the pier centreline.
Several alternatives were considered in the selection of a cross-section for the bridge; each alternative
is shown in Table 4-8 with its advantages and disadvantages. Cross-section depths of 4 m and 2 m were
considered, to gain insight into how each alternative would work in a variable-depth configuration as well
for a constant depth. The dimensions of the deck slab, webs and bottom slab are determined based on
cover requirements, standard practice for detailing, and reference cross-sections from Section 3.6. The
deck slab is haunched at the webs to allow adequate cover for internal prestressing ducts and anchorages.
Some cross-sections feature details such as strut connections and ribs intersecting cables which require
careful detailing but which have been previously constructed and are considered feasible.
The chosen cross-section consists of a box girder with vertical webs located at the quarter points of the
section. There are transverse ribs spanning the full width of the cross-section between the anchorages and
spaced at 6.0 m to correspond with the segments. The depth of the cross-section was chosen as a constant
2.8 m to give a span to depth ratio of 50. This is higher than recommended by some studies mentioned in
Section 3.3, but was chosen on the basis of aesthetics: it is desirable to keep the girder as slender as
possible. To use the extradosed cables most efficiently however, the stress range in the cables due to live
load had to be kept under 50 MPa, low enough that there would be no reduction in allowable stress in the
cables at SLS. Initial plane frame models indicated that if the girder was simply supported at the piers, the
maximum stress range in the backstay cable at SLS would be 114 MPa, far greater than the 50 MPa limit.
If however, the girder was on fixed supports, the maximum stress range in the cables at the quarter points
of the main span would be 58 MPa, for which there is only a minor reduction in allowable stress at SLS.
Therefore, the girder span to depth ratio of 50 was accepted and the girder was embedded on the piers.
This resulted in the cross-section in Figure 4-5, and the general arrangement for the bridge can be found in
Drawings, EXTG-1.
98
Figure 4-5. Girder cross-section of

stiff girder extradosed bridge.
At segments where extradosed cables are anchored, 2 transverse 19-15 mm diametre strand draped
tendons are required in the ribs. At other segments, there is a single 12-15 mm diametre strand tendon.
4.3.2 Longitudinal Prestressing

After appropriate cross-section dimensions were established, a preliminary design was used to size the
remaining tendons, following the construction sequence, and assuming that the prestressing moments were
not affected by the presence of the cables. The main steps are outlined below, and follow a similar
methodology to those of the cantilever girder bridge. The form traveller is assumed to weigh half of the
self-weight of one segment, in this case 600 kN.
1. Extradosed tendons were determined to balance the dead load of one segment with an allowable stress
of 0.6 fpu. This resulted in 19-15mm diametre strand tendons. Several pretensioning strategies were
investigated of those discussed in Section 3.4.9, but simply pretensioning to 0.6 fpu to balance the self-
weight of a 6 m section of the girder was found to produce minimal net moments in the girder.
2. Internal cantilever tendons were dimensioned, additional to extradosed tendons, as required for the
section over the pier to remain uncracked in the determinate cantilever system, for the moment caused
by casting of the first cantilevered segment, before the extradosed cable is installed. A single pair of
19-15mm diametre strand tendons was required across the pier table.
At this stage, a simple plane frame model was used to obtain the critical moments at the critical design
sections for the continuous system subjected to dead load, superimposed dead load (asphalt and barrier
walls), temperature gradient, and live load (envelope).
3. Continuity prestressing for the midspan closure segment was dimensioned to keep it uncracked for
positive moment due to the temperature gradient. The form traveller and wet concrete load of the of
the final segment are added to the determinate system, and the weight of the form traveller is removed
from the continuous system, resulting in a negative moment. Three pairs of 19-15mm diametre strand
bottom tendons and a single pair of top tendons were required across the midspan joint. The shortest
pair is anchored across 5 segments (30 m length) in order to better balance the midspan moment that
results from superimposed loads.
4. Continuity prestressing for the side span closures was dimensioned to ensure the closure joint remains
uncracked a) for positive moment due to the dead load of the cast-in-place girder after falsework
removal and b) for the additional positive moment due to temperature gradient after the structure is
fully continuous between the piers. Two pairs of 19-15mm diametre strand tendons were required.
99
Table 4-8. Evaluation of alternative cross-sections for lateral support by planes of cables.
Cross-Section Advantages Disadvantages

Wide box girder Cable force transferred directly to all webs. High out-of-plane bending of webs.
Consistent internal cross-section. High moments around corners of box.
High stiffness for given section depth. Viewed in profile,box girder looks heavy
without deck cantilever overhangs.
= 0.66, 0.63
Wide box girder with Cable force transferred directly to all webs. In variable depth section, each strut connec-
interior struts Struts decrease transverse span of deck tion is different.
slab. External tendons are difficult to
Struts are precast or of steel and easy to Decrease in dead load can be minimal of
incorporate into forms. box girderd components are governed by
Cable force transferred directly to all webs. other factors (cover, PT ducts, anchorages).
= 0.66, 0.63
Viewed in profile, box girder looks heavy
without deck cantilever overhangs.
Struts are not visible to the users.
Multiple cell box girder Additional web decreases transverse span of Additional web adds weight, additional line
deck slab, reduced thickness and reinforce- of PT, and vertical reinforcement.
ment. Cross-section is less efficient.
Transverse PT not required. High transverse deformability.
Distribution of force between webs is diffi-
= 0.66, 0.64
cult to predict.
Additional bay and internal core form
required in form traveller.
Typical box girder with Narrow flange is more efficient at midspan, Ribs restrict access through box girder.
transverse ribs raises the centre of gravity of the concrete. Ribs restrict height of external tendons at
Ribs allow for a larger deck width without the pier.
an additional web. Rythm from the ribs could conflict with the
Ribs ensure uniform sectional behaviour. cables.
Structural behaviour is exposed. Ribs complicate construction: the soffit
= 0.62, 0.61 Viewed from below, ribs add visual interest formwork must be lowered beneath ribs to
and rhythm to plain concrete box girder. advance the traveller.
Box girder with Narrow flange is more efficient at midspan, In variable depth section, each strut connec-
transverse struts raises the centre of gravity of the concrete. tion is different.
Struts allow for a larger deck width with If struts are anchored at the bottom flange,
minimal additional weight and without an transverse prestressing must be added which
additional web. increases depth of flange or adds a cross-rib.
Struts transfer vertical cable force directly Struts complicate construction: some disas-
= 0.66, 0.62
to webs. sembly of forming surface is required in order
Unobstructed access through box girder. to advance the traveller.
Structural behaviour is exposed.
Viewed from below, add visual interest and
rhythm to plain concrete box girder.
Double T section or Efficient at midspan, raises the centre of Poor negative bending resistance.
U section gravity of the concrete. Form traveller must be cable-stayed or split
Appropriate for depths less than 2 m. across two segments to limit the bending in
Viewed from below, add visuals interest and the girder.
rhythm to the girder if transverse ribs are
= 0.39, 0.33 used.
5. Additional continuity prestressing or external prestressing was added as required to keep the girder
uncracked at the side span section of maximum positive moment, and at midspan. Four 19-15mm
100
diametre strand tendons were provided at the side spans, and 8 were provided across the main span.
The side span and main span external continuity tendons overlap across the pier table.
Since the cross-section features transverse ribs, the external tendons cannot be raised into the top slab at
the pier, but reach their highest point at 1.0 m below the deck surface. Since the girder centroid is only 1.3
m below the surface, the external tendons are ineffective in reducing the negative moment demand. While
pockets could be detailed to pass the external tendons through the ribs, this would have required special
detailing of reinforcing steel and transverse tendons for 16 of the ribs, which was considered to be
undesirable.
The prestressing from this preliminary design is summarised in Table 4-9.
Table 4-9. Preliminary and final tendons for extradosed bridge.
Preliminary Design Final Design
Extradosed prestressing 10 - 2x19-15 tendons 10 - 2x19-15 tendons
Cantilever prestressing 1-2x19-15 tendons
Continuity prestressing 1 - 2x19-15 top tendons 1 - 2x19-15 top tendons
in main span 3 - 2x19-15 bottom tendons 6 - 2x19-15 bottom tendons
External prestressing 8 - 19-15 draped tendons installed after struc- 6 - 27-15 draped tendons installed after struc-
in main span ture is continous and all concrete has reached ture is continous and all concrete has reached
28 day strength. 28 day strength.
Continuity prestressing 2 - 2x19-15 4 - 2x27-15
in side spans
External prestressing 4 - 19-15 draped tendons installed after struc- 2 - 27-15 draped tendons installed after struc-
in side spans ture is continous and all concrete has reached ture is continous and all concrete has reached
28 day strength. 28 day strength.
Note: Numbers in paranthese (X) are final tendons used after checking stresses with a detailed model.
4.3.3 Comparison with Bending Moments in a Girder Bridge

To assess the feasibility of the chosen cross-section, it is desirable to have an idea of the bending moment
capacity of that section. For this purpose, the bending moment of the extradosed cross-section was
compared with that in a girder bridge with a box girder cross-section of similar depth. Although most of
the superimposed dead load moment in the extradosed girder will be balanced by internal prestressing, it is
useful to get a sense of whether these bending moments could be accommodated in the initial cross-
section.
Five girder bridges were analysed for the purpose of determining maximum bending moments, both in
negative and positive bending, likely to occur in a box girder section of given depth at SLS and ULS. They
have maximum spans of 50, 75, 100, 150, and 200 m. The first two have constant depth cross-sections
with side spans of 0.8 of the main span, while the others are variable depth with side spans of 0.6 of the
main span. Cross-sections were given typical dimension based on references and the recommendations
that were summarised in Section 3.3. They have the same roadway width, asphalt thickness and barriers as
in the cantilevered post-tensioned bridge in Section 4.2. The maximum moments are summarised in
Table 4-10.
101
Table 4-10. Maximum Bending Moments in a Typical Box Girder Bridge
Span (m) 50 75 100 150 200
Area (m2) 3.60 3.74 3.98 3.98 3.57 5.38 3.95 6.76 4.41 8.09
Inertia (m ) 3.1 4 6.8 3.3 27 6.4 51 10 139
Load Case Moments (MNm)
Self-weight 18.62 -35.38 46.34 -88.00 58.3 -192.1 152.6 -507.0 260.0 -1093.0
Asphalt 2.62 -4.98 5.90 -11.20 7.4 -23.0 16.7 -51.7 25.0 -96.6
Barriers 1.40 -2.66 3.15 -5.99 3.9 -12.3 9.0 -27.6 13.4 -51.6
Live Load 11.70 -9.83 21.04 -18.79 20.9 -39.5 39.6 -76.6 56.0 -134.0
SLS Moment 33.2 -51.9 74.3 -122.1 88.4 -263 214 -655 349 -1362
ULS Moment 47.9 -69.8 104.0 -161.5 121.3 -347 286 -849 461 -1746
Mself / Msls 0.56 0.68 0.62 0.72 0.66 0.73 0.71 0.77 0.75 0.80
Mself / Muls 0.47 0.61 0.53 0.65 0.58 0.66 0.64 0.72 0.68 0.75
1800 500
ULS
1600
Maximum Moment, MNm
Maximum Moment, MNm
1400 ULS 400

SLS +ve
1200
300
1000
SLS -ve ULS
800
200
600
ULS SLS -ve
400 100
200 SLS +ve
0 0
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 2 3 4 5 6
Length of Main Span, m Depth of Box Girder, m
Figure 4-6. Maximum bending moment in a typical girder bridge of 12.4 m width: a) as a function of longest span,
and b) as a function of girder depth.
The maximum moments in the five girder bridges considered are shown in Figure 4-6a as a function of
their maximum span lengths. As the span length increases, the negative moment increases more rapidly
than the positive moment. However, when the moments are shown in Figure 4-6b as a function of the
girder depth, the positive moments are typically twice as large as the negative moments. This is not
surprising since the centroid in a box girder is located closer to the deck surface than to the soffit, making
the box section more favourable for positive bending.
The extradosed bridge in this section has a maximum bending moment at SLS of around 110 MNm
over the pier and at midspan. From Figure 4-6, the maximum SLS moment in a girder bridge with girder
depth of 2.8 m is around 75 MNm in negative bending and 130 MNm in positive bending. Since the
precompression in the girder will be higher for the extradosed section of 2.8 m depth, the moments in the
extradosed girder are reasonable.
102
4.3.4 Detailed Model
A detailed plane frame model was developed for the extradosed bridge to properly model the staged
construction, secondary effects, and long-term effects. The staged construction includes P-delta effects,
although these were found to be small for this extradosed bridge. The form traveller was included in the
staged construction since it imposes a significant negative moment on the girder when it is advanced. The
weight of the form traveller was assumed to be centred 2 m beyond the previous segment.
Self Weight (SW) Staged Construction = Permanent Loads + PT
(at End of Construction)
Cable Prestrain (CP) Staged Construction

(after 50 Years)
Net Self Weight AASHTO Temperature Gradient

(SW+CP)
Permanent Loads Live Load Envelope

(SW+CP+SDL+PT)
Figure 4-7. Bending moment in extradosed bridge (SAP2000 diagrams at the same relative scale).
The prestressing described in Section 4.3.2 was used as a starting point for the detailed model. Top
and bottom stresses at SLS were checked at critical sections, both at the end of construction and after 50
years, to ensure they remained below the cracking stress of the concrete. Due to the presence of the
extradosed cables, the prestressing is not 100% effective in offsetting the moment demand in the girder,
and the girder stresses were considerably higher than anticipated. Additional tendons were added to
oppose the permanent moments. The final tendon arrangement can be found in Drawings, EXT-S2 and
EXT-S3.
Moment diagrams for the extradosed bridge are shown in Figure 4-7.

The bending moments and stresses at SLS are summarised in Table 4-11. The moments in the girder under
permanent loads, at the end of construction and after 50 years, are of particular interest. There is a very
103
large shift in bending moment in the girder over the long-term, which results from relaxation of the cables
and prestressing combined with shrinkage and creep of the girder. At midspan, this change in forces
results in a 7.7 MPa decrease in the bottom stress of the girder and downwards displacement of 93 mm.
The live load moment range causes stress of 7.8 MPa in the bottom slab. To keep the girder uncracked at
50 years, an effective prestress after losses of 10 MPa was provided at midspan. .
Table 4-11. SLS Forces and Maximum Stresses in the Girder
Side Span Main Span
Critical Sections At closure Max Mlive beyond PT Pier CL 0.4 of span CL span
SLS Forces at the end of construction (Forces include Mp, units are MNm, MN and MPa)
Mmin (end of const.) -26.5 -22.8 12.2 -58.4 11.62 -2.61
Mmax (end of const.) 2.97 16.9 47.6 -1.95 47.7 35.0
Axial Force (end of const.) -50.2 -63.0 -62.9 -95.0 -93.6 -89.2
Top Stress - Mmin -4.0 -6.2 -10.3 -3.5 -14.5 -12.2
- Mmax -7.4 -10.8 -14.4 -9.8 -18.7 -16.6
- Mmax -6.4 -5.2 1.6 -10.3 -2.7 -4.9
SLS Mmin (t=50 years) -9.95 -7.42 7.31 -99.5 25.1 21.2
SLS Mmax (t=50 years) 19.57 32.2 42.8 -43.1 61.2 58.8
SLS Axial Force -33.2 -50.2 -47.1 -82.0 -71.0 -68.6
Top Stress - Mmin -3.5 -6.2 -7.5 2.5 -12.9 -12.1
- Mmax -7.0 -10.8 -11.6 -3.8 -17.1 -16.5
- Mmax -0.4 0 2.8 -14.2 2.8 2.8
In a first verification at ULS, the demand was calculated by starting with the bending moments at SLS
at the end of construction, and adding additional bending moments, calculated from the loads applied to the
final system, to produce the full ULS load combination, as explained in Section 4.1.2. The axial force in
the girder is also increased to correspond with the external loads.
The difference between the state of stress at 50 years and the state of stress at the end of construction
was considered as the load case K to group all long term effects due to relaxation of prestressing, shrinkage
and creep of concrete, and redistribution of the structure from the as-constructed state to the final state. As
the long-term effects are considerable, ULS2 (1.6 Live + 1.15 Long-term effects) is more significant than
ULS1 at all sections.
Table 4-12. ULS Forces in the Girder
Side Span Main Span
Critical Sections At closure Max Mlive beyond PT Pier CL 0.4 of span CL span
Forces at ULS2 (DD + 1P + 1.6L + 1.15K)
Mf 107.3 125.1 58.1 -212.4 210.4 227.5
Axial Force to calculate Mr -8.65 -24.1 -49.4 -80.3 -41.2 -30.7
Mr 152.8 164.6 58.8 -156.9 210.5 229.0
Mf / Mr 0.70 0.76 0.99 1.35 1.00 0.99
The utilisation ratios of the girder at ULS are summarised in Table 4-12. At some sections, the
resistance is either just adequate to cover the demand, or is insufficient in the case of section over the pier.
104
However, as the load increases and girder loses stiffness due to inelastic response (cracking of concrete
followed by yielding of reinforcement), the cables will take up increasingly more load. The moment in the
pier will not reach the value predicted by a purely elastic model. Meanwhile, the forces in the cables
cannot exceed their factored resistance. A nonlinear analysis is required to get more realistic values of the
moment in the girder and the forces in the cables.
The extradosed cable tensions, both immediately after construction and after 50 years, are shown in
Figure 4-8.
a) After construction b) After 50 years
6 6
allowable = 0.58 A fpu = 5.7 MN
5 5 Live Load Positive

Permanent Loads
4 4
Cable Force (MN)

Cable Force (MN)
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
1010
1008
1006
1004
1002
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
1010
1008
1006
1004
1002
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
Figure 4-8. Tension in cables of stiff girder extradosed bridge.
The pier capacity was also investigated for critical loading (maximum moment and axial force) both
during construction and in the final condition. During construction, the maximum moment in the piers
occurs at ULS4 (maximum wind) where the final segment is constructed at the end of one cantilever, and
wind acts upwards on the opposite cantilever. Temporary prestressing installed between the foundation
and the pier table would be required for strength during construction.
The piers were jacked apart by 110 mm, corresponding to a force of 2000 kN, to displace the piers
outwards by approximately half the value of the displacement due to shrinkage and creep of the girder after
50 years, thus reducing the long-term moments in the piers by half.
4.4 Extradosed Bridge with Stiff Tower

For this design, the objective was to make the girder as slender as possible so that live load is transferred
directly to the piers, as an axial force couple between the cables and girder, similar to a cable-stayed
bridge. An upper limit of 200 MPa has been set for the stress range in the cables due to live load at SLS,
which corresponds to the tested value of strand-based stay cable anchorages (for an upper stress of 0.45 fpu
at 2 million load cycles). The girder is designed to be as light as possible in order to achieve economy by
reducing material quantities in the girder. Stay cables are anchored in the towers.

The same harp cable configuration and tower height to span ratio of 10 as the Stiff Girder Extradosed
Bridge were adopted for the Stiff Tower Extradosed Bridge. The segment lengths were also maintained:
105
each cantilever consists of 10 segments of 6 m length, with a 6 m closure pour between the two cantilevers
and an initial pier table segment projecting 7 m beyond the pier centreline.
Preliminary Investigations
Instead of starting with a cross-section as is usually done in the design of a bridge, the maximum stress
range that would be permissible in a stay cable was used as the criteria to find a flexible cross-section that
would keep the stress range in the cables due to live load to below 200 MPa. To accomplish this, a model
of the main span girder, shown in Figure 4-9, was used to obtain forces in the cables due to the CHBDC
live load. The girder is fixed in rotation at its ends to simulate the stiff piers, and is supported by springs
representing the cables. Each spring coefficient was given a stiffness Ki based on the cable size and length.
Ki Ec Ac 2
K i = T i sin i = ------------ sin i
Li
Figure 4-9. Simplified model of main span used to obtain the maximum live load stress range in the cables.
As a starting point, the girder moment of inertia was assumed to be 0.10 m4 per single plane of 19-
16mm diametre strand cables. The resulting maximum stress range in the cables was 319 MPa, much
larger than the 200 MPa limit. Thus for the same girder stiffness, a cable of 319/200 19 = 30 strand
would be required. The next anchorage size up, for 31-16mm diametre strand cables, was selected.
Based on the given anchorage size and an allowable stress of 0.45 fpu at SLS, the maximum live load was
subtracted from the working load of the cable to give the force available for permanent loads. Since the
barriers and asphalt are known loads, they too were subtracted leaving the force available to resist the
girders self-weight, which corresponded to a girder cross-sectional area of around 7 m2. There is no
structural advantage to selecting a girder that is lighter than this.
A A = 3.15 m2 (structural) B A = 3.15 m2 (structural)
A = 3.45 m2 (for sef-weight) A = 3.45 m2 (for sef-weight)
I = 0.47 m4 I = 0.20 m4
Figure 4-10. Two basic girder cross-sections considered for the stiff tower extradosed bridge.
Two cross-sections, both with the same basic shape, were considered for the design. Each cross-
section has a different depth, but the width of the edge beams was modified in order to keep the cross-
sectional area approximately the same, as shown in Figure 4-10. Both cross-sections were introduced into
the model of the girder supported by springs, to see if there was any advantage to using the slightly stiffer
cross-section (moment of inertia twice as large).
For cross-section B, the stress range due to live load at SLS is 200 MPa in the most heavily loaded
cable, and deflects a maximum of 198 mm (L/710). For cross-section A, the stress range is 170 MPa and
the maximum deflection is 170 mm, 85% of the values for cross-section B. The maximum moment due to
live load at SLS in girder A is 47% higher than B, which is approximately equal to the increase in lever
arm. An equal concentric prestress would be required in either girder to oppose the stress caused by
moment due to live load (-P/A + ML/Sb = 0). Based on these findings, there appears to be no advantage to
106
using any stiffer cross-section than the minimum permitted by the limit on the stress range in the cables.
A more detailed comparison was made with full frame models of each bridge, but led to the same
conclusion.
Final Girder Cross-Section
The chosen girder cross-section consists of a slab, stiffened with edge beams at the interior of the cable
anchorages. There are transverse ribs spanning between the edge beams spaced at 6.0 m to correspond
with the segments. The depth of the cross-section is 1.0 m, which corresponds to a span to depth ratio of
140. This resulted in the cross-section in Figure 4-11, and the general arrangement for the bridge can be
found in Drawings, EXTT-1.
Figure 4-11. Girder cross-section of stiff tower extradosed bridge.

At segments where extradosed cables are anchored, a single transverse 19-15 mm diametre strand
tendon is draped through the rib between the edge beams. The rib is designed as a reinforced concrete
beam during construction (under self-weight of the deck only) and a partially prestressed beam in the final
condition. Thus, the tendons can be stressed from the fascia off the critical path.
4.4.2 Detailed Model

A plane frame model was developed for the extradosed bridge to model staged construction, secondary
effects, and long-term effects. The full cross-section has been used for the calculation of gross section
properties. The moments are assumed to be distributed uniformly between both edge beams, which will
not in fact be the case for live load.
The form traveller was included in the staged construction since it imposes a significant negative
moment on the girder when it is advanced. The weight of the traveller was assumed to act 2 m beyond the
previous segment and was modeled as a force couple at the two previous cable anchorages. The weight of
the cast segment was assumed to be carried by the cable anchored at the end of it, as would be achieved
through a cable-stayed traveller, or a traveller supported at its nose by the final cables, as is the standard for
construction of flexible girders as discussed in Section 3.8.
In a first attempt at staged construction, the cable prestrains were selected to balance all permanent
forces at SLS. During construction, however, this resulted in positive moments as high as 4200 kNm one
segment back from the cable being stressed, which would cause wide cracks in the soffit of the edge
beams. The girder at the same location has a factored resistance of 5800 kNm. P-delta effects amplify the
moments in the girder during construction by 5% at one segment behind the stressed cable, and by up to
30% at 30 m from the piers in the final cantilevered stage. Since each cable is prestrained too much at
107
installation, the girder curls upwards, and at each stage positive moment is accummulated in the girder.
These forces are locked in at closure and result in high positive moments in the permanent condition.
In a second attempt at staged construction, the cables were prestrained during cantilevering to balance
the self-weight only, and after closure, the cables are prestrained to balance the superimposed dead loads
added after. This retensioning was sufficient to give a moment distribution similar to that of a continuous
beam on simple supports at the end of construction. Similar to the case of the stiff girder extradosed
bridge, the cantilevers were jacked apart 70 mm, corresponding to a force of 700 kN, to counteract the
shrinkage and creep of the girder in the main span.
Self Weight (SW) Net Permanent Loads
(SW+CP+SDL)
Cable Prestrain (CP)

Net Self Weight (SW+CP)
After 50 years
Temperature Gradient Live Load Envelope

(AASHTO)
Temperature Differential Temperature Range

(17C Stays) (-46C)
Figure 4-12. Bending moment in stiff tower extradosed bridge (SAP2000 diagrams at the same relative scale -
bending moments in the tower and rigid links have not been shown for clarity in all diagrams except temperature).
Since it is known that the desired moment distribution in the girder at the end of construction is that of
a continuous beam on simple supports, permanent moments at SLS were determined from the load cases
applied to the continuous structure. To account for long-term effects, a nonlinear load case was created to
model the permanent loads at 50 years, starting from the above permanent load condition. Long-term
moments due to creep and shrinkage of the girder are small compared to live load moments. The moments
induced by temperature gradient, temperature differential between stays and girder (17 C), and a constant
temperature decrease (41 C) from the effective construction temperature are small in comparison to the
live load and have not been included in this design. Moment diagrams for the extradosed bridge are shown
in Figure 4-12.
108
The stresses at the top and bottom of the girder were calculated under SLS forces. Although the cables
provide an axial prestress to the girder that increases linearly from 0 MPa at abutments and midspan to 10
MPa at the piers, this is only sufficient to keep the girder uncracked over 20 m at either side of the pier.
Full prestressing of the girder is not feasible, as revealed in the following simple calculation. Since
only concentric prestressing can be used locally in the girder (eccentric prestressing causes a secondary
moment as large as the primary moment), an effective prestress force after losses of 100 000 kN would be
required at midspan to keep the girder uncracked. This would require 2427-15 mm diametre strand
tendons, approximately double the quantity in the stiff girder extradosed bridge at midspan.
Partial prestressing was thus chosen to limit crack widths to 0.2 mm under SLS loads, as required by
the CHBDC (CSA 2006a Clause 8.12.3), and consistent with the design of girder prestressing for cable-
stayed bridges as explained in Section 3.2.3. Envelopes of the bending moments in the girder between
each pair of cables were calculated at SLS and ULS based on elastic analysis. Prestressing and reinforcing
steel were provided to meet crack width limitations and provide the required bending resistance,
respectively. This resulted in a maximum of 6-219-15 mm diametre strand tendons at midspan.
The final tendon arrangement can be found in Drawings, EXTT-S2 and EXTT-S3. The longitudinal
reinforcement in the edge beams is also shown since it is considerable.
The cable tensions immediately after construction and after 50 years are shown in Figure 4-13.
a) After construction b) After 50 years
Live Load Positive
Permanent Loads
8 Live Load Negative 8 allowable = 0.45 A fpu = 7.8 MN
7 7
6 6
Cable Tension (MN)
Cable Tension (MN)
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
1010
1008
1006
1004
1002
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
1010
1008
1006
1004
1002
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
Figure 4-13. Tension in cables of stiff tower extradosed bridge.

With the chosen span configuration and construction sequence, there is no uplift at the abutments at
SLS, but a large abutment diaphragm provides additional ballast which prevents uplift at ULS.
4.5 Design Comparison

4.5.1 Girder Cross-Section
The dimensions of the cantilever constructed girder bridge cross-section are mostly governed by durability
requirements, those of meeting minimum cover of reinforcement and prestressing ducts, and therefore it
cannot be made much lighter.
109
The extradosed girder cross-sections, on the other hand, could be made lighter. The area of stiff girder
bridge cross-section could be reduced by around 10%, while that of the stiff tower bridge could be reduced
by 15%. However, this would not offer any advantage with respect to structural behaviour of the cables or
girder. The same size cables would still be required to meet limits on the stress range in the cables, and the
magnitude of the moments in the girder would not change substantially. The bending in the girder, in the
case of the stiff girder bridge, is due mostly to superimposed dead load and live load, while in the case of
the stiff tower extradosed bridge, it is entirely due to live load.
At some span range, there is a high premium for the dead load of the box girder in the girder bridge,
which implies an economical transition to the extradosed form.
4.5.2 Material Quantities

The material quantities in the girder, for the three bridges designed in this Chapter, are summarised in
Table 4-13. The reinforcing steel ratios have been calculated based on typical sections, but reinforcing
steel that varies significantly by section (shear reinforcement in girder bridges and longitudinal bottom
reinforcement in stiff tower extradosed bridge) was calculated separately and smeared into a typical
section. A detailed breakdown of prestressing tendon lengths and sizes can be found in Appendix C.
Table 4-13. Material quantities in girder and cables.
Girder Bridge Cantilever Bridge Stiff Girder Stiff Tower
Materials Internal Prestressing Mixed Prestressing Extradosed Bridge Extradosed Bridge*
Concrete (m3) 2985 1.00 2985 1.00 2570 0.86 1825 0.66
Prestressing Steel (Mg) 161.7 1.00 146.6 0.91 178.4 1.10 159.4 1.06
Internal PT 161.7 109.8 49.1 31.1
External PT 36.8 36.3
Stays/Extradosed Cables 68.2 119.1
Transverse PT 24.9 9.2
Anchorages 224 212 432 492
Duct Couplers 1184 916 204 240
Length of Duct / Sheath 7486 7726
Reinforcing Steel (Mg) 373 1.00 269 0.72 231 0.62 219 0.63
Ratio (kg/m3) 120 90 90 120
* Relative factors for the stiff tower extradosed bridge are multiplied by 1.078 to account for its shorter total length.
The mixed tendon arrangement for the cantilever constructed girder bridge uses around 90% of the
prestressing and 70% of the reinforcing steel of the same bridge designed with internal tendons only. The
total number of anchorages is approximately equal.
The stiff girder extradosed bridge requires 10% more prestressing steel, but has only 85% of the
concrete and 60% of the reinforcing steel of the girder bridge with internal tendons. The stiff tower
extradosed bridge requires 6% more prestressing steel, but has only 66% of the concrete and 60% of the
reinforcing steel of the girder bridge with internal tendons. The stiff girder and stiff tower extradosed
110
bridges require approximately the same prestressing and reinforcing steel, but the stiff tower bridge has
only 70% of the concrete of the stiff girder bridge.
Table 4-14. Average material quantities in girder and cables.
Girder Bridge Cantilever Bridge Stiff Girder Stiff Tower
Materials Internal Prestressing Mixed Prestressing Extradosed Bridge Extradosed Bridge
Deck Surface Area (m) 3822 3822 4338 4001
Average Concrete thickness (m) 0.78 0.78 0.59 0.46
Prestressing Steel
per volume of concrete (kg/m) 54 49 59 80
per deck surface area (kg/m) 42 38 39 41
Reinforcing Steel (kg/m) 120 90 90 120
The average material quantities are summarised in Table 4-14, for comparison with bridges in the
Chapter 2 study. Figure 4-14 shows that these designs have relatively low average concrete depths
compared with those of the study. The ratios of prestressing (per volume of concrete) in the cantilever
bridges correspond very closely with Menns (1990) estimate of 49 kg/m for a 140 m span.
Based on material quantities alone, the cantilever girder bridge with mixed tendon arrangement uses
the least amount of prestressing, while the stiff tower extradosed bridge uses the least amount of concrete.
Material quantities reflect design efficiency, but a cost estimate is needed to determine if lower material
quantities translate to lower costs.
Menn's Estimate
Cantilevered Regression
1.1 SETRA Estimate Cantilever Constructed Girder
Extradosed
Cable-Stayed
1.0
0.9
Extradosed Regression
0.8
0.7
Cable-Stayed
0.6
Regression
0.5
0.4
0.3
0 100 200 300 400 500
Longest Span, m
Figure 4-14. Average girder concrete thickness of Chapter 4 bridge designs compared with Chapter 2 study bridges.
4.5.3 Cost Comparison

The combined cost of cables and prestressing is expected to account for a considerable portion of the total
cost of the structure, up to 25% of the total cost of each bridge based on published cost breakdowns of
similar sized structures. Similarly, the total cost of the prestressing, girder concrete and reinforcing steel
could amount to 60% of the total cost of the structure.
Given that the total quantities of prestressing steel do not vary significantly between the designs, the
costs have been broken down according to tendon type. The assumed costs per unit of concrete,
prestressing, and reinforcing steel are given in Table 4-15, and were determined based on costs of recent
111
cast-in-place concrete structures built in Ontario. At first glance, it seems unusual that the extradosed
cables would cost more than the stay cables, but there is a reason for this. The cost of the stay/extradosed
cables was calculated based on estimates of individual components of the system, and the supply and
delivery, engineering, and installation are assumed to add an additional 40 to 45% of the cost of the
materials alone. While the cost of strand is proportional to the total weight, the cost of the ducts and
connections are mostly influenced by cable length. Cost estimates for each bridge are given in Table 4-16.
Table 4-15. In-place costs of materials in girder and cables.
Materials Unit Unit Cost ($)
Concrete m 1000
Stay Cables Mg 13100
Extradosed Cables Mg 13800
Internal Longitudinal Tendons Mg 6500
External Longitudinal Tendons Mg 8700
Internal Transverse Tendons Mg 10000
Reinforcing Steel Mg 4000
Table 4-16. Cost estimate of bridges (costs in $1000).
Component Girder Bridge Cantilever Bridge Stiff Girder Stiff Tower
Internal Prestressing Mixed Prestressing Extradosed Bridge Extradosed Bridge*
Concrete 2985 2985 2571 1825
Stay/Extradosed Cables 941 1557
Internal Longitudinal Tendons 1051 713 319 202
External Longitudinal Tendons 320 316
Internal Transverse Tendons 249 92
Reinforcing Steel 1493 1075 926 876
Total 5530 5090 5010 4550
Cost per m of Effective Deck* 1450 1330 1310 1285
Relative Cost 1.13 1.04 1.02 1.00
* Effective deck area is calculated based on the travelled lanes and barriers.
Based on this simple estimate, both extradosed girders appear to have a lower cost than the girder
bridges. This estimate is most sensitive to the cost of the concrete. If the cost of concrete increases by
50% to $1500/m, the girder is 10% more expensive than the siff tower extradosed bridge. If on the other
hand the cost of concrete decreases by 100% to $500/m, then the stiff girder extradosed bridge is 4% more
expensive than the girder bridge. In all cases, the girder bridge with internal tendons is the most expensive.
These estimates do not take the cost of the tower and piers into consideration. Twin piers are more
expensive than single piers, and although the cost of short towers is not considerable, these two factors are
likely to make the girder bridges more economical than the extradosed bridges.
5 CONCLUSIONS
This chapter summarises the conclusions of the preceeding chapters, highlights key factors which must be
considered in the design of an extradosed bridge, and suggests future studies.
5.1 Review of Extradosed Bridges

The study of existing extradosed bridges in Chapter 2 reveals that extradosed bridges have been built for
spans from 66 to 275 m, and there is a large variability in the proportions adopted. Span to depth ratios of
between 30 and 35 are most common at the piers, while span to depth ratios of up to 60 are common at
midspan. As the main span length increases, designers have opted for variable depth cross-sections with
larger span to depth ratios, and a larger ratio of pier depth to midspan depth.
It is clear from the litterature that the term extradosed bridge is used to describe a cable-stayed bridge
with a stiff girder that carries live load through flexural behaviour. Bridges have been designed with low
towers but flexible girders and stiff piers, and they rely on the axial force couple between stays and girder
to carry live load. In this thesis, they are referred to as stiff tower extradosed bridges.
5.2 Design Considerations

Loads that must be considered for the design of an extradosed bridge, as determined from Chapter 3, are
live load, temperature gradient in the girder, and temperature differential between girder and stays. Stays
should be of light colour to minimize temperature differential. Central suspension is preferable as it leads
to a lower total live load in the cables. Extradosed bridges, like cable stayed bridges, should be designed
with an allowable cable stress at SLS, and then verified at FLS and ULS. The live load stress range in an
extradosed cable is the primary factor used to set the allowable stress range at SLS that can be used to
produce a design that will satisfy FLS and ULS requirements.
The stress range due to live load in the cables is affected by the girder stiffness and the fixity of the
support on the piers. When the girder is stiff, the stress range in the cables due to live load will be small in
comparison with permanent loads. To reduce the magnitude of this stress range, the girder should be fixed
at the piers unless foundations or thermal movements dictate otherwise. Span to depth ratios should be
chosen to limit the stress range to a value that is acceptable for the type of anchorage chosen.
Recommendations for span to depth ratio can only be considered rough guidelines, as they are specific
to the amount of live load for which they have been developed. As the stress range due to live load in the
cables is the primary concearn with extradosed bridges, the live load model has a significant effect on the
design.
Cable pretensions can be determined by one of the commonly used methods for cable-stayed bridges,
to achieve a moment distribution close to that of a continuous girder on simple supports at cable locations.
Retensioning to adjust the moment distribution before or after superimposed dead load is applied can be
avoided for a stiff girder extradosed bridge, but not for a stiff tower extradosed bridge.
112
113
5.3 Comparison between Extradosed and Cantilever Constructed Girder Bridges
A design comparison in Chapter 4 of a stiff girder extradosed bridge, a stiff tower extradosed bridge, and
two cantilever constructed girder bridges (one with internal tendons and one with internal and external
tendons) found that extradosed bridges require a comparable amount of prestressing as in a girder bridge,
but a reduced quantity of concrete. A cost estimate found that neglecting the costs of towers, the
superstructure cost of an extradosed bridge is on par or less than that of a girder bridge. Since concrete
accounts for a significant portion of the superstructure cost, the extradosed bridges are at an advantage as
the span increases. Already for a span of 140m, an extradosed bridge is a competitive bridge form. If side
spans of longer than 50% of the main span area required, a stiff tower extradosed bridge cannot be used. In
the case of the stiff girder extradosed bridge, creep and shrinkage in the concrete and relaxation in the
extradosed cables cause long term moments in the girder at midspan of similar magnitude to the moment
due to live load. Overall, the stiff girder form of extradosed bridge does not offer any huge advantage over
the stiff tower form, other than its ability to span multiple piers on simple supports.
There are different approaches to designing extradosed bridges. The design may start with a specific
cross-section that is already in use elsewhere on the project, in which case the designer would like to find
an optimal extradosed solution for a given girder stiffness. If, however, the design is not constrained, the
choice of girder stiffness should be made for other reasons than that of economy alone, since an extradosed
bridge will be competitive. The cost of the cables may be largely determined by the stress range, as this
will determine the type of anchorages required.
6 REFERENCES
AASHTO (1994). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, SI Units. Washington, DC.
AASHTO (2004). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, SI Units, 3rd ed. with 2006 Interim
Revisions. Washington, DC.
Abraham, Dulcy M., Halpin and Daniel W. (1998). Simulation of the construction of cable-stayed
bridges. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 25.
Allen, C.J. and Naret, F. (1998). The First Channel Bridges. Public Roads, FHWA, 62(2), http://
www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/septoct98/channel.htm (accessed Aug 6, 2008).
ASCE (1977). Tentative Recommendations for Cable-Stayed Bridge Structures. Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE, 103, ST5, 929-959.
Astiz, M.A., Troyano, L.F. and Manterola, J.M. (1999). Evolution of design trends in cable-stayed
bridges. Cable-Stayed Bridges - Past, Present and Future, IABSE Conference. Malm, Sweden, 2-4
June.
Bali, M. and Veverka, R. (1999). Domovinski Bridge over the River Sava in Zagreb. fib Symposium
1999: Structural Concrete - The Bridge between People, Prague.
Baumann, K. and Dniker, J. (1999). Sunniberg Bridge, Klosters, Switzerland. Cable-Stayed Bridges -
Past, Present and Future, IABSE Conference. Malm, Sweden, 2-4 June.
Becze, J. and Barta, J. (2006). Korong Prestressed Extradosed Bridge. Structural Engineering
International, 16(1), 28-30.
Bergermann, R. and Stathopulos. (1988). Design of Evripos Bridge in Greece. Seminar on Cable-Stayed
Bridges, Bangalore, October 3-5. Indian National Group of the International Association of Bridge and
Structural Engineering, New Delhi.
Bergman, D., Radojevic, D. and Ibrahim, H. (2007). Design of the Golden Ears Bridge. Improving
Infrastructure Worldwide, IABSE Symposium, Weimar, September 19-21.
Billington, D. and Nazmy, A. (1991). History and Aesthetics of Cable-Stayed Bridges. Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, 117(10), Oct. 1991, 3101-3134.
Billington, D. (2003). Christian Menn: Structural Art in Bridges. The Art of Structural Design: A Swiss
Legacy. Princeton University Art Museum, Princeton, New Jersey, 185-192.
Binns, J. (2005). Extradosed Bridge Distinguishes Tollway Project in India. Civil Engineering, 75(2).
Bonzon, W.S. (2008). The I-280 Veterans Glass City Skyway: New Landmark Cable-Stayed Bridge,
Ohio. Structural Engineering International, 18(1).
Boudot, E., Bonnefous, V. and Charlon, P. (2007). Louvrage dart exceptionnel de franchissement de la
ravine des Trois Bassins la Runion. Travaux, 839.
Breuer, A., Pircher, H. and Bokan, H. (1999). Computer Based Optimising of the Tensioning of Cable-
Stayed Bridges. Cable-Stayed Bridges - Past, Present and Future, IABSE Conference. Malm,
Sweden, 2-4 June.
Buckland, P.G., Chmn. (1981). Recommended Design Loads for Bridges. Journal of the Structural
Division, ASCE, 107, ST7, July 1981, 1161-1213.
114
115
Buckland, P.G. (1991). North American and British Long-Span Bridge Loads. Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, 117(10), Oct. 1991, 2972-2987.
Calatrava, S. (2004). Calatrava Alpine Bridges. Wolfau-Druck AG, Weinfelden.
Callicutt, E. and West, B. (1999). Main Span Construction of the Sidney Lanier Bridge. ASBI 1999
Convention Proceeedings, Amelia Island Plantation, Florida. American Segmental Bridge Insititute.
Canadian Standards Association (2006a). CAN/CSA-S6-06: Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code.
CSA, Mississauga, Ontario.
Canadian Standards Association (2006b). S6.1-06: Commentary on CAN/CSA-S6-06, Canadian Highway
Bridge Design Code. CSA, Mississauga, Ontario.
Casteleyn, P. (1999). Le kisosansen poject au japon - Deux viaducs sur les rivires Ibi et Kiso.
Travaux, 749, 75-80.
CEB-FIP (1993). CEB-FIP Model Code 1990. Thomas Telford Services Ltd., London for the Comit
Euro-International du Bton, Lausanne, Switzerland.
CEN: European Committee for Strandardization (2002a). prEN1991-1-5, Eurocode 1: General Actions
Thermal actions. CEN, Brussels, Belgium.
CEN: European Committee for Strandardization (2002b). prEN1991-2, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures
- Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges. CEN, Brussels, Belgium.
Chen, D.W., Au, F.T.K., Tham, L.G. and Lee, P.K.K. (1999). Determination of initial cable forces in
prestressed concrete cable-stayed bridges for given design deck profiles using the force equilibrium
method. Cable-Stayed Bridges - Past, Present and Future, IABSE Conference. Malm, Sweden, 2-4
June.
Chilstrom, J. et al. (2001). Extradosed Bridge Technology in Japan and the New Pearl Harbor Memorial
Bridge. Federal Highway Administration / U.S. Department of Transportation and The Connecticut
Department of Transportation. Washington, DC.
Chio Cho, G. (2000). Comportamiento Etructural y Criterios de Diseo de los Puentes con Pretensado
Extradosado thesis, presented to Escuela Tcnica Superior de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y
Puentos, Universidad Politcnica de Catalua, Barcelona in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, under the supervision of Angel. C. Aparicio Bengoechea.
Chio Cho, G., and Aparicio Bengoechea, A. (2002). El Puente Pretensado Extradosado. Un Nuevo Tipo
Estructural. Uis Ingenierias, 1(1), 67 - 73.
Computers and Structures (CSI) (2005). SAP2000 Linear and Nonlinear Static and Dynamic Analysis and
Design of Three-Dimensional Structures - Basic Analysis Reference Manual (version 10.0).
Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley, California.
Dubois, R. (2004). Composite twingirder bridges with long spans and large width. Steelbridge 2004:
Steel bridges extend structural limits, Millau, June 23-25. Office technique pour luntilisation de
lacier.
Dywidag-Systems International Canada Ltd. (2006). DYWIDAG Multistrand Stay Cable Systems.
<http://www.dsicanada.ca/en/downloads/brochures-canada.html> (April 1, 2008).
116
Fang, Q. (2004). Wuhu Doule-Deck Cable-Stayed Bridge. Structural Engineering International, 14(1).
fib. (2000). Guidance for good bridge design, Guide to good practice prepared by fib Task Group 1.2,
Bridges. International Federation for Structural Concrete (fib), Lausanne, Switzerland.
fib. (2005). fib Bulletin 30 - Acceptance of stay cable systems using prestressing steels, Recommendation
prepared by Task Group 9.2, Stay cable systems. International Federation for Structural Concrete
(fib), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Felber, A., Taylor, P., Griezic, A., Bergman, D. and Torrejon, J. (2001). Erection Geometry and Stress
Control of Composite Decked Cable-Stayed Bridges. Cable-Supported Bridges - Challenging
Technical Limits, IABSE Conference, Seoul 2001. Korean Group of IABSE and Korea Highway
Corporation.
Figg Engineering Group (2004). New Cable-Stay Cradle System, Technology Spotlight. <http://
www.figgbridge.com/pdf/cradle.pdf> (Feb. 28, 2008).
Figg, E.C., Figg, L., Pate, W.D. (2005). (To Figg Bridge Engineers), Cable-stay cradle system. U.S.
Patent 6880193, April 19, 2005.
Figi, H. et al. (1998). Sunnibergbrucke eine Dokumentation. Schweizer Ingenieur und Architekt, 44
(29).
Figi, H., Menn, C., Banziger, D. and Bacchetta, A. (1997). Sunniberg Bridge, Klosters, Switzerland.
Structural Engineering International, 7(1).
Frappart, J. (2005). Louvrage dart exceptionnel de franchissement de la ravine des Trois Bassins - Un
pont en bton prcontrainte extradosse. Travaux, 823.
Gee, A.F. (1991). Concrete fin-back bridge in USA. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,
Part 1. 90 (Feb), 91-122.
Gimsing, N. (1997). Cable Supported Bridges - Concept and Design, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester, UK.
Griezic, A., Scollard, C. and Bergman, D. (2006). Design of the Canada Line Extradosed Transit Bridge.
7th International Conference on Short and Medium Span Bridges, Montreal, Canada.
Grison, A. and Tonello, J. (1997). A 43 - Pont de Saint-Rmy-de-Maurienne (Savoie) - Un parti original :
la prcontrainte extradosse. Travaux, 733, 16-20.
Goi, J., Moreton, A. and Pate, W. (1999). Pylon Designs for Concrete Cable-Stayed Bridges, USA.
Structural Engineering International, 9(1), 63-66.
Hansvold, C. (1994). Skarsundet Bridge. International conference A.I.P.C.--F.I.P. : ponts suspendus et
haubans : cable-stayed and suspension bridges. Deauville, October 12-15, 1994. Bagneux, France.
Hirano, M., Ikeda, H., Kasuga, A. and Komatsu, H. (1999). Composite Extradosed Bridge. fib
Symposium 1999: Structural Concrete - The Bridge between People, Prague.
Honigmann, C. and Billington, D. (2003). Conceptual Design for the Sunniberg Bridge. Journal of
Bridge Engineering, 8(3).
117
Iida, J., Nakayama, H., Wakasa, T., Kasuga, A. and Mizuno, K. (2002). Design and Construction of Shin-
Meisei Bridge. Proceedings of the 1st fib Congress: Concrete Structures for the 21st Century, Osaka,
Japan.
Ishii, M. (2006). Sistemas estruturais de pontes extradorso thesis, presented to Departamento de
Engenharia de Estructuras e Geotcnica - Escola Politcnica da Universidade de So Paulo in partial
fulfillment of the requirements a Master degree.
Janjic, D., Pircher, M., Pircher, H. (2003). Optimization of Cable Tensioning in Cable-Stayed Bridges.
Journal of Bridge Engineering, 131.
Jaques, J.A.L. and Fort, J.R. (2005). Puente sobre el ro Deba (Autopista Vitoria - Eibar). Revista de
Obras Pblicas, 3459, 71-74.
Jordet, E. and Svensson, H. (1994). Helgeland Bridge, A Slender Concrete Cable-Stayed Bridge Located
in A Severe Environment. International conference A.I.P.C.--F.I.P. : ponts suspendus et haubans :
cable-stayed and suspension bridges. Deauville, October 12-15, 1994. Bagneux, France.
Kasuga, A., Shirono, Y., Nishibe, G. and Okamoto, H. (1994). Design and construction of the Odawara
Port Bridge - the first extradosed prestressed bridge. FIP - XIIth International Conference, May 29th
- June 2, Washington.
Kasuga, A. (2003). Extradosed Bridges in Japan. Role of Concrete Bridges In Sustainable Development,
Proceedings of the International Symposium dedicated to Professor Jiri Strasky, University of Dundee,
Scotland, 17-30.
Kasuga, A. (2006). Extradosed bridges in Japan. Structural Concrete, 7(3), 91-103.
Kato, T., Norio, T., Fukunaga, Y. and Uehira, Y. (2001). Design and Construction of Extradosed Bridge -
Miyakodagawa Bridge - in the New Tomei Expressway. Cable-Supported Bridges - Challenging
Technical Limits, IABSE Conference, Seoul 2001. Korean Group of IABSE and Korea Highway
Corporation.
Kikuchi, H., Monichiro, T. and Nakamura, T. (2002). Construction of the Lao-Nippon Bridge over the
Mekong in Laos. Proceedings of the 1st fib Congress: Concrete Structures for the 21st Century,
Osaka, Japan.
Komiya, M. (1999). Characteristics and Design of PC Bridges with Large Eccentric Cables. Extradosed
Bridge Technology in Japan and the New Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge. Federal Highway
Administration / U.S. Department of Transportation and The Connecticut Department of
Transportation, Washington, DC. 55-80.
Kumarasena, Sena (2005). A Comparison of Cable-Stayed vs. Extradosed Bridges. Sixth International
Bridge Engineering Conference: Reliability, Security, and Sustainability in Bridge Engineering. July
17-20, 2005.
Kutsuna, Y., Kasuga, A., Morohashi, A. (2002). Non-linear Beahior of the Ibi River Bridge under
Ultimate Loads. Proceedings of the 1st fib Congress: Concrete Structures for the 21st Century,
Osaka, Japan.
Lacaze, J-J. (2002). Autoroute A90 - Le viaduc du Pays de Tulle. Travaux, 782.
118
Lecinq., B, Bouchon, E., Chaussin, R. and Chabert, A. (2001). French Recommendations for Stay
Cables. Cable-Supported Bridges - Challenging Technical Limits, IABSE Conference, Seoul 2001.
Korean Group of IABSE and Korea Highway Corporation.
Leonhardt, F. and Zellner, W. (1970). Cable-Stayed Bridges: Report on latest developments.
Proceedings, Canadian Structural Engineering Conference. University of Toronto and Canadian Steel
Industries Construction Council, Toronto, Canada.
Leonhardt, F. and Zellner, W. (1980). Cable-Stayed Bridges. IABSE Surveys, S-13/80.
Mandataire Projet Poya (2005). Pont de la Poya - FRIBOURG. <http://www.pont-poya.ch/2005-2006/
ouvrage.php> (June 18, 2008).
Masterson, I. (2004). Taking to the wing. Bridge Design & Engineering, 35, 32-33.
Masterson, I. (2006). Slender Solution. Bridge Design & Engineering, 43, 28.
Mathivat, J. (1983). The Cantilever Construction of Prestressed Concrete Bridges. (English translation by
C. J. M. Emberson). Pitman Press Ltd., Bath, Avon.
Mathivat, J. (1987). Lvolution rcente des ponts en bton prcontraint. Festschrift Christian Menn zum
60 Geburtstag, ETH Zurich.
Mathivat, J. (1988). Recent developments in prestressed concrete bridges. FIP Notes, 1988(2), 15-21.
McNary, S. (1999). Construction Engineering for the Sidney Lanier Bridge - Brunswick, Georgia. ASBI
1999 Convention Proceeedings, Amelia Island Plantation, Florida. American Segmental Bridge
Insititute.
Menn, C. (1987). Consistent Design and New Systems for Concrete Bridges. International Conference
on Cable-Stayed Bridges, Bangkok, Thailand, 833-840.
Menn, C. (1991). An approach to bridge design. Engineering Structures, 13(2).
Menn, C. (1990). Prestressed Concrete Bridges. Birkhuser Verlag, Basel, Switzerland.
Menn, C. (1994). Conceptual Design of Cable-Stayed Bridges. International conference A.I.P.C.--
F.I.P.: ponts suspendus et haubans : cable-stayed and suspension bridges. Deauville, October 12-15.
181-194.
Mondorf, P. (2006). Concrete Bridges. Taylor & Francis, Oxon.
Montens, S. (1998). Towers for Short-Span Cable-Stayed Bridges. Structural Engineering
Mutsuyoshi, H. and Witchukreangkrai, E. (2004). Recent Techniques and Durablity Design for
Prestressd Concrete Bridges in Japan. The First T.Y. Lin Forum, pp. 13-28. <http://www.eit.or.th/
article/data/01010002.pdf> (May 15, 2008).
Nishimura, M., Mochizuki, H., Iizuka, Y. and Akiyama, T. (2002). Design and Construction of
Santanigawa Bridge - PC Extradosed-type Bridge. Proceedings of the 1st fib Congress: Concrete
Structures for the 21st Century, Osaka, Japan.
Nunoshita, H., Hasegaqa, M., Kawabe, T. and Kibe, H. (2002). Design of the Yukisawa-Ohashi Bridge
and Experimental Function Test of its Saddle Systems. Proceedings of the 1st fib Congress: Concrete
Structures for the 21st Century, Osaka, Japan.
119
OBrien, E. and Keogh, L. (1999). Bridge Deck Analysis. E & FN Spon, London.
Ogawa, A. and Kasuga, A. (1998). Extradosed bridges in Japan. FIP Notes, 1998(2).
Ogawa, A., Matsuda, T. and Kasuga, A. (1998). The Tsukuhara Bridge near Kobe. Structural
Engineering International, 8(3).
Ontario, Ministry of Transportation (2001). Structural Manual. Quality and Standards Division.
Oshimi, H., Nobuyuki, S., Kashiwamura, T. and Ichiro, O. (2002). Design and Construction of the Japan
Palau Friendship Bridge. Proceedings of the 1st fib Congress: Concrete Structures for the 21st
Century, Osaka, Japan.
Otsuka, H., Wakasa, T., Ogata, J., Yabuki, W. and Takemura, D. (2002). Comparison of structural
characteristics for different types of cable-supported prestressed concrete bridges. Structural
Concrete, 3(1), 3-21.
Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI). (2001). PTI Guide Specification: Recommendations for Stay Cable
Design, Testing and Installation.
Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI). (2006). Post-Tensioning Manual, 6th ed. Phoenix.
Priestley, M. J. N. (1978). Design of Concrete Bridges for Temperature Gradients. ACI Journal, 75(5),
209-217.
Reis, A. and Pereira, A. (1994). Soccoridos Bridge: A Cable-Panel Stayed Concept. International
conference A.I.P.C.--F.I.P.: ponts suspendus et haubans : cable-stayed and suspension bridges.
Deauville, October 12-15. 343-350.
Reis, A., Pereira, A., Pedro, J. and Sousa, D. (1999). Cable-Stayed Bridges for Urban Spaces. Cable-
Stayed Bridges - Past, Present and Future, IABSE Conference. Malm, Sweden, 2-4 June.
Revelo, C.K., Arriola, J., Chauvin, A. (1994). Design and construction of the cable-stayed Quetzalapa
Bridge on the Mexico City/Acapulco Highway. FIP - XIIth International Conference, May 29th -
June 2, Washington.
Roberts-Wollman, C., Breen, J. E. and Cawrse, J. (2002). Measurements of Thermal Gradients and their
Effects on Segmental Concrete Bridge. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 7(3), 166-174.
Santos, D. M. dos (2006). Comportamento estrutural de pontes com protenso no extradorso thesis,
prestented to Departamento de Engenharia de Estructuras e Fondaoes - Escola Politcnica da
Universidade de So Paulo in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Master degree.
Schlaich, J. (1991). On the detailing of cable-stayed bridges. Cable-Stayed Bridges: Recent
Developments and their Future, Yokohama, Japan: 10-11 December 1991.
SETRA. (2001). Haubans - Recommendations de la commission interministrielle de la prcontrainte.
Service dtudes techniques des routes et autoroutes.
SETRA. (2007). Prestressed concrete bridges built using the cantilever method - design guide (English
translation of Ponts en bton prcontraint construits par encorbellements successifs published in
2003). Service dtudes techniques des routes et autoroutes.
120
Shepherd, B. and Gibbens, B. (2004). The evolution of the concrete channel bridge system and its
application to road and rail bridges. Concrete Structures: The Challenge of Creativity, CEB-FIP
Symposium 2004, Avignon, France.
Smith, B.S. (1967). The Single Plane Cable-Stayed Girder Bridge: A Method of Analysis Suitable for
Computer Use. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 37(July), 183-194.
Stroh, S., Stark, W. and Chilstrom, J. (2003). First of Its Kind. Civil Engineering, 73(8), 54-87.
Sumida, T., Makita, J., Arai, H. and Saito, K. (2002). Rebar cage application to cast-in-place cantilever
box girder, Hozu Bridge. Proceedings of the 1st fib Congress: Concrete Structures for the 21st
Century, Osaka, Japan.
Svensson, H.S. (1999). The Development of Composite Cable-Stayed Bridges. Cable-Stayed Bridges -
Past, Present and Future, IABSE Conference. Malm, Sweden, 2-4 June.
Takami, K. and Hamada, S. (2001). Long-Time Behavior of Extradosed Composite Birdges. Cable-
Supported Bridges - Challenging Technical Limits, IABSE Conference, Seoul 2001. Korean Group of
IABSE and Korea Highway Corporation.
Taniyama, S. and Mikami, Y. (1994). External cable systems in Japan using epoxy coated strands. FIP -
XIIth International Conference, May 19th - June 2, Washington.
Tang, Man-Chung (2007). Rethinking Bridge Design: A New Configuration. Civil Engineering, 77(7),
38-45.
Taylor, P. (1994). Composite Cable-Stayed Bridges. International conference A.I.P.C.--F.I.P. : ponts
suspendus et haubans : cable-stayed and suspension bridges. Deauville, October 12-15, 1994.
Bagneux, France.
TDV GesmbH. (2006). RM2006 - Technical Description. Graz, Austria.
Tiefbauamt Graubnden (November 1998). Info. 33e. http://www.tiefbauamt.gr.ch/projekte/
pdf_klosters.htm. Accessed: Jan 2007.
Tomita, M., Tei, K. and Suda, T. (1999). Shin-Karato Bridge in Kobe, Japan. Structural Engineering
Troitsky, M.S. (1988). Cable-Stayed Bridges: Theory and Design, 2nd ed. BSP Professional Books,
Oxford.
Trimbath, K. (2006). Hybrid Extradosed Bridge Under Way in British Columbia. Civil Engineering,
76(2), 28-30.
Tzonis, A. and Donadei, R. (2005). Santiago Calatrava - The Bridges. Universe Publishing, New York.
Virlogeux, M. and Fontaine, J.-F. (1988). Second Order Analysis of Concrete Cable-Stayed-Bridges -
The Example of The Evripos Bridge, in Greece. Seminar on Cable-Stayed Bridges, Bangalore,
October 3-5. Indian National Group of the International Association of Bridge and Structural
Engineering, New Delhi.
Virlogeux, M. (1994a). Erection of Cable-Stayed Bridge - the control of the desired geometry.
International conference A.I.P.C.--F.I.P. : ponts suspendus et haubans : cable-stayed and
suspension bridges. Deauville, October 12-15, 1994. Bagneux, France.
121
Virlogeux, M. et al. (1994b). Contrle de la gomtrie de construction du pont to Bourgogne a Chalon-
sur-Sane. International conference A.I.P.C.--F.I.P. : ponts suspendus et haubans : cable-stayed
and suspension bridges. Deauville, October 12-15, 1994. Bagneux, France.
Virlogeux, M. (1999). Recent Evolution of Cable-Stayed Bridges. Engineering Structures, 21, 737-755.
Virlogeux, M. (2000). New Trends in Prestressed Concrete Bridges. Transportation Research Record, 1
(1696), 238-272.
Virlogeux, M. (2002a). New trends in prestressed concrete bridges. Structural Concrete, 3(2).
Virlogeux, M. (2002b). Les ponts haubans : lefficacit technique allie llgance architecturale.
Bulletin Ponts mtalliques no 21. Office Technique pour lUtilisation de lAcier. Ateliers Donnadieu.
Virlogeux, M. (2002c). Design and Designers. Proceedings of the 1st fib Congress: Concrete Structures
for the 21st Century, Osaka, Japan.
Virlogeux, M. (2004). The Viaduct over the River Tarne at Millau. Steelbridge 2004: Steel bridges
extend structural limits, Millau, June 23-25. Office Technique pour lUtilisation de lAcier.
Vogel, T. and Marti, P., ed. (1997). Christian Menn - Brckenbauer. Birkhuser Verlag, Basel,
Switzerland.
Walther, R. (1994). Development of Modern Cable-Stayed Bridges. International conference A.I.P.C.--
F.I.P. : ponts suspendus et haubans : cable-stayed and suspension bridges. Deauville, October 12-
15, 1994. Bagneux, France.
Walther, R., Houriet, B., Isler, W., Moa, P. and Klein, J. (1999). Cable Stayed Bridges (2nd Edition).
Thomas Telford Publishing, London.
Wang, P.H., Tseng, T.C. and Yang, C.G. (1993). Initial Shape of Cable-Stayed Bridges. Computers &
Structures, 47(1), 111-123.
Wilcox, T., Guarre, J. and Berger, F. (2002). Bridge in Flight: Harmony of Style and Structure.
Proceedings of the 1st fib Congress: Concrete Structures for the 21st Century, Osaka, Japan.
Wheeler, K., Lothringer, S. and Bennett, M. (1994). Glebe Island Bridge - Australias New Cable-Stayed
Bridge. International conference A.I.P.C.--F.I.P. : ponts suspendus et haubans : cable-stayed and
suspension bridges. Deauville, October 12-15, 1994. Bagneux, France.
Yasukawa, Y., Miyauchi, H., Kato, H. and Nakazono, A. (2002). Planning and Design of Rittoh Bridge.
Proceedings of the 1st fib Congress: Concrete Structures for the 21st Century, Osaka, Japan.
DRAWINGS
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
APPENDIX A
Chapter 2 Supplementary Information
134
135
Table A-1. Extradosed Bridges in Chapter 2 Study. Units of m
Name and Location Operational -Girder Depth h x Width w Brief Description Reason for Selection of Longest Tower L:H L:h L:h Ac Ac Ixx Ixx Pier Box Central Dwg in Sources
Date -Span Lengths Extradosed Bridge Type Span Height mid pier mid pier mid pier Fix. Gird. Susp. Fig 2-1
1 Ganter Bridge, Switzerland 1980 2.5 - 5 x 10 Wide single cell concrete box girder, cable-panel stayed. Visual strength, curved roadway. 174 14.9 11.7 69.6 34.8 7.17 11.6 7.29 45 Vogel & Marti 1997, Kasuga 2006
127 + 174 + 127
2 Arrt-Darr Viaduct, France Proposed 3.75 x 20.5 Single cell concrete box girder with voided webs and struts supporting Economy in materials. 100 8 12.5 26.7 26.7 9 12 16.1 26 Mathivat 1986, Mathivat 1988, Virlogeux 2002a
60 + 4 x 100 + 52 deck cantilevers.
3 Barton Creek Bridge, Austin, USA 1987 3.7 - 10.7 x 17.7 Single cell concrete box girder with webs inclined inwards into a Visual signficance from road marking 103.6 28 9.7 7.17 11.6 8.15 82 Gee 1990
47.6 + 103.6 + 57.9 central fin above the deck level, and transverse struts supporting the entrance into Estates.
deck slab.
4 Socorridos Bridge, Madeira, Portugal 1993 3.5 x 20 Single cell concrete box girder, cable-panel stayed. Tall piers. 106 30.3 30.3 12.3 12.3 19.7 20 Reis & Pereira 1994
54 + 85 + 106 + 86
5 Odawara Blueway Bridge, Japan 1994 2.2 - 3.5 x 13 Wide double cell concrete box girder. Navigational clearance, height restriction 122.3 10.7 11.4 55.6 34.9 9 15.4 6.4 26 Taniyama et al. 1994, Kasuga et al. 1994
73.3 + 122.3 + 73.3 from airport.
6 Saint-Rmy-de-Maurienne Bridge, 1996 2.2 x 13.4 U shaped concrete deck with transverse ribs between edge beams. Shallow clearance over roadway. 80 5.9 13.6 36.4 36.4 8.7 8.7 2.49 2.5 Grison & Tonello 1997, Kasuga 2006
Savoie, France 52.4 + 48.5
7 Tsukuhara Bridge, Japan 1997 3 - 5.5 x 12.8 Wide single cell concrete box girder. Fit with adjacent CS pedestrian bridge. 180 16 11.2 60 32.7 7.87 17.7 10.4 73 Ogawa et al. 1998
65.4 + 180 + 76.4
8 Kanisawa Bridge, Japan 1998 3.3 - 5.6 x 17.5 Concrete box girder. 180 22.1 8.1 54.5 32.1 Kasuga 2006
99.3 + 180.0 + 99.3
9 Shin-Karato Bridge, Kobe, Japan 1998 2.5 - 3.5 x 11.5 Two and three cell concrete box girder. Shallow depth girder spans over unstable 140 12 11.7 56 40 8.57 13.8 7.57 23 Tomita et al. 1999
74.1 + 140.0 + 69.1 slope.
10 Sunniberg Bridge, Switzerland 1998 1.1 x 12.375 Concrete slab with edge stiffening beams. Tall piers, emphasis on aesthetics. 140 15 9.3 127 127 6.14 8.3 0.25 0.5 Figi et al. 1997, Figi et al. 1998, Menn 1998,
59.0 + 128.0 + 140.0 + 134.0 + 65.0 Baumann & Dniker 1999
11 Santanigawa (Mitanigawa) Bridge, Japan 1999 2.5 - 6.5 x 20.4 Double cell concrete box girder. 115 12.8 9 46 17.7 38.8 180 Nishimura et al. 2002, Stroh et al. 2003
57.9 + 92.9
12 Second Mandaue - Mactan (Marcelo 1999 3.3 - 5.1 x 18 Three cell concrete box girder. Height restriction from airport. 185 18.3 10.1 56.1 36.3 Kasuga 2006
Fernan) Bridge, Mactan, Philippines 111.5 + 185.0 + 111.5
13 Matakina Bridge, Nago, Japan 2000 3.5 - 6 x 11.3 Single cell concrete box girder. 160 26.4 6.1 45.7 26.7 Kasuga 2006
109.3 + 89.3
14 Pakse (Lao-Nippon) Bridge, Laos 2000 3 - 6.5 x 13.8 Single cell concrete box girder. Long navigational span of long viaduct. 143 15 9.5 47.7 22 7.74 12.8 10.4 90 Nakamura 2001, Kikuchi et al. 2002, Kasuga 2006
52.0 + 123.0 + 143.0 + 91.5 + 34.5
15 Sajiki Bridge, Japan 2000 2.1 - 3.2 x 11 105 12.3 8.5 50 32.8 Kasuga 2006
60.8 + 105.0 + 57.5
16 Shikari Bridge, Japan 2000 3 - 6 x 23 Concrete box girder. 140 10 14 46.7 23.3 Stroh et al. 2003
94 + 3 x 140 + 94
17 Surikamigawa Bridge, Japan 2000 2.8 - 5 x 9.2 85 16.5 5.2 30.4 17 Kasuga 2006
84.82
18 Wuhu Yangtze River Bridge, Wuhan, 2000 15 x 23.4 Double-decker steel truss with composite deck slab on top roadway, Navigation clearance, height restriction 312 33 9.5 20.8 20.8 Fang 2004
China 180 + 312 + 180 two rail lines on bottom level. from airport.
19 Yukisawa-Ohashi Bridge, Japan 2000 2 - 3.5 x 15.8 Two cell concrete box girder with wide sidewalks on deck cantilever 107 11.5 9.3 53.5 30.6 10.7 17.1 6.09 31 Nunoshita et al. 2002, Kasuga 2006
70.3 + 71.0 + 34.4 overhangs outside of cable planes.
20 Hozu Bridge, Japan 2001 2.8 x 15.3 Single cell concrete box girder. 100 10 10 35.7 35.7 11.6 14.6 12.2 17 Sumida et al. 2002, Kasuga 2006
33 + 50 + 76 + 100 + 76 + 31
21 Ibi River Bridge, Japan 2001 4.3 - 7.3 x 33 Hybrid cross section: four cell concrete box girder near piers and steel Economy, heavy prefabrication. 271.5 30 9 63.1 37.2 23.1 32 49.9 243 Hirano et al. 1999, Casteleyn 1999, Kutsuna et al.
154 + 4 x 271.5 + 157 box girder in central 100 m with moment and shear connection. 2002, Kasuga 2006
22 Kiso River Bridge, Japan 2001 4.3 - 7.3 x 33 Hybrid cross section: four cell concrete box girder near piers and steel Economy, heavy prefabrication. 275 30 9.2 64 37.7 23.1 32 49.9 243 Hirano et al. 1999, Casteleyn 1999, Kasuga 2006
160 + 3 x 275 + 160 box girder in central 100 m with moment and shear connection.
23 Miyakodagawa Bridge, Japan 2001 4 - 6.5 x 19.9 Parallel double cell box concrete box girders. Landmark structure with good seismic 214 20 10.7 53.5 32.9 16.3 32 39.8 193 Kato et al. 2001, Terada et al. 2002
134 + 134 resistance.
24 Nakanoike Bridge, Japan 2001 2.5 - 4 x 21.4 97 11.8 8.2 38.8 24.2 Kasuga 2006
60.6 + 60.6
25 Fukaura Bridge, Japan 2002 2.5 - 3 x 13.7 90 8.5 10.6 36 30 Kasuga 2006
62.1 + 90.0 + 66 + 45.0 + 29.1
26 Korror Babeldoap Bridge, Palau 2002 3.5 - 7 x 11.6 Hybrid cross section: wide single concrete box girder near piers and Navigational clearance, height restriction 247 27 9.1 70.6 35.3 10.5 16.6 20 122 Oshimi et al. 2002, Ewert 2003
82 + 247 + 82 steel box girder in central 82 m. from airport.
136
Table A-1. Extradosed Bridges in Chapter 2 Study (continued). Units of m
Name and Location Operational -Girder Depth h x Width w Brief Description Reason for Selection of Longest Tower L:H L:h L:h Ac Ac Ixx Ixx Pier Box Central Dwg in Sources
Date -Span Lengths Extradosed Bridge Type Span Height mid pier mid pier mid pier Fix. Gird. Susp. Fig 2-1
27 Sashikubo Bridge, Japan 2002 3.2 - 6.5 x 11.3 Concrete box girder. 185 22 8.4 57.8 28.5 Kasuga 2006
114 + 114
28 Shinkawa (Tobiuo) Bridge, Hamamatsu, 2002 2.4 - 4 x 25.8 Three cell concrete box girder. 130 13 10 54.2 32.5 16.9 21.7 12.5 51 Kasuga 2006
Japan 38.5 + 45.0 + 90.0 + 130.0 + 80.5
29 Deba River Bridge, Gipuzkoa, Spain 2003 2.7 x 13.9 U shaped concrete deck with transverse ribs between edge beams. Clearance under bridge. 66 24.4 24.4 Jaques 2005
42 - 66 - 42
30 Himi Bridge, Japan 2004 4 x 12.45 Single cell doubly composite box girder with corrugated steel webs. 180 19.8 9.1 45 45 8.6 12.4 24.1 34 Kasuga 2006
91.8 + 180.0 + 91.8
31 Korong Bridge, Budapest, Hungary 2004 2.5 x 15.85 Three cell concrete box girder stiffened with transverse ribs, on 40 deg 90 9.45 9.5 36 36 12.4 12.4 5.19 5.2 Becze & Barta 2006
52.26 + 61.98 skew. Barriers form structural edge beams, deck is supported by 3
cables deviated on girder, anchored at abutments.
32 Shin-Meisei Bridge, Japan 2004 3.5 x 19 Three cell concrete trapezoidal box girder. 122.3 16.5 7.4 34.9 34.9 12.3 16.4 17.2 26 Iida et al. 2002, Kasuga 2006
89.6 + 122.3 + 82.4
33 Tatekoshi Bridge, Japan 2004 1.8 - 2.9 x 19.14 90 10.5 8.6 50 31 Kasuga 2006
56.3 + 55.3
34 Sannohe-Boukyo Bridge, Aomori, Japan 2005 3.5 - 6.5 x 13.45 Concrete box girder. Span of 200 m to cross protected River 200 25 8 57.1 30.8 Kasuga 2006
99.9 + 200.0 + 99.9 and train line.
35 Domovinski Bridge over the River 2006 3.55 x 34 Five cell concrete box girder supports light rail between cable planes. Long span of viaduct to cross the river. 120 12 10 33.8 33.8 27.2 27.2 41.1 41 Bali & Veverka 1999
Sava, Croatia 48 + 6x60 + 72 + 120 + 72 + 2x60 + 48
36 Kack-Hwa First Bridge, Gwangju, South 2006 - x 31.1 Multiple cell concrete box girder. 115 Structurae
Korea 55 + 115 + 100
37 Nanchiku Bridge, Japan 2006 2.6 - 3.5 x 20.55 110 11 10 42.3 31.4 Kasuga 2006
68.1 + 110.0 + 68.1
38 Rittoh Bridge, Japan 2006 4.5 - 7.5 x 19.6 Three cell doubly composite box girder with corrugated steel webs. Gateway structure to reflect cultural 225 30.5 7.4 50 30 11.5 20.1 45 200 Wilcox et al. 2002, Yasukawa et al. 2002, Masterson
140 + 170 + 115 + 70 (Tokyo bound) Towers are shaped to reflect a japanese crane in flight. context of Kansai District. 2004
39 Tagami Bridge, Japan 2006 3 - 4.5 x 17.8 128 14.5 8.8 42.7 28.4 Kasuga 2006
80.2 + 80.2
40 Third Bridge over Rio Branco, Brasil 2006 2 - 2.5 x 17.4 Deck slab with L shaped edge beams (appears as single box girder with 90 12 7.5 45 36 6.25 9.85 2.34 9.2 Ishii 2006
54 + 90 + 54 incomplete bottom slab) that taper to I beams at midspan.
41 Tokuyama Bridge, Japan 2006 4 - 6.5 x 17.4 220 24 9.2 55 33.8 Stroh et al. 2003
139.7 + 220.0 + 139.7
42 Yanagawa Bridge, Japan 2006 4 - 6.5 x 17.4 210 24 8.8 52.5 32.3 Kasuga, 2006
130.7 + 130.7
43 Brazil-Peru Integration Bridge, Brazil 2007 2.35 - 3.35 x 16.8 Wide single cell concrete box girder. 110 15 7.3 46.8 32.8 7.78 12.5 7.55 23 Structurae
65 - 110 -65
44 Gum-Ga Grand Bridge, 2007 - x 23 Mulitple cell concrete box girder. 125 8.85 14.1 Structurae
Chungcheongnam-do, South Korea 85.4 + 5 x 125.0 + 85.3
45 Pyung-Yeo 2 Bridge, Yeosu, South 2007 3.5 - 4 x 23.5 Four cell concrete box girder. 120 10.5 11.4 34.3 30 19.5 29 36.4 63 Masterson 2006
Korea 65 + 120 + 65
46 Second Vivekananda Bridge over the 2007 3.5 x 28.6 Wide single cell trapezoidal box girder with internal struts (Bang Na Navigational clearance, height less than 110 14 7.9 31.4 31.4 Binns 2005
Hooghly River, Calcutta, India 55 + 7 x 110 + 55 cross section). nearby temple.
47 Cho-Rack Bridge, Dangjin, South Korea 2008 - x 14 Multiple cell concrete box girder. 130 Structurae
70 + 3 x 130 + 70
48 North Arm Bridge (Canada Line 2008 3.4 x 10.31 Single cell concrete box girder for LRT, precast segmental construction. Navigational clearance, height restriction 180 22 8.2 52.9 52.9 6.3 8.1 10.6 15 Griezic 2006
Extradosed Transit Bridge), Canada 139 + 180 + 139 from airport.
49 Trois Bassins Viaduct, Reunion, France 2008 4 - 7 x 22 Single cell concrete box girder with steel struts supporting long deck Tall piers, access from one side of gorge 200 19 10.5 50 28.6 12.4 18.6 26.7 137 Frappart 2005, Boudot et al. 2007
18.6 - 126.0 - 104.4 - 75.6 - 43.2 cantilevers. only.
50 Golden Ears Bridge, Canada 2009 2.7 - 4.5 x 31.5 Steel box girders at edge of deck with transverse floor beams Most economical for span length. 242 40 6 89.6 53.8 Trimbath 2006, Bergman et al. 2007
121 + 3 x 242 + 121 composite with precast concrete deck.
51 Pearl Harbor Memorial (Quinnipiac) 2012 3.5 - 5 x 33.7 Parallel five cell concrete box girders with inclined exterior webs. Wide navigational clearance, height 157 22.6 6.9 44.9 31.4 24.5 27.5 42.3 95 Stroh et al. 2003
Bridge, New Haven, USA 75.9 + 157.0 + 75.9 restriction from airport.
137
Table A-2. Contilever Constructed Girder Bridges in Chapter 2 Graphs.
Name and Location Operational -Girder Depth h x Width w (m) Girder Description Tendon Description Total Cant Cant Longest L:h L:h hpier: Q Conc Q PT Q PT Q Sources
Date -Span Lengths (m) Spans Spans Length Span (m) mid pier hmid (m) Long (t) Trans (t) Reinf (t)
1 Felsenau Bridge 1975 3 - 8 x 26.2 Single cell box girder with wide deck 17 4 512 144 48 18 2.7 10130 0 0 0 Menn 1990
38 + 5x48 + 94 + 12 + 144 + 12 + 144 + 12 + 94 + 6x48 + 38 cantilevers partially prestressed.
2 Chinon Bridge, Indre-et-Loire 1984 2.8 - 4.5 x 10.9 cantilever PT: 2x9 - 12T15 tendons 3 3 166 70 25 15.6 1.6 1385 50 0 205 SETRA 2007
48 + 70 + 48 continuity PT: 2x4 - 12T15 tendons
external PT: 2x7 - 12T15 tendons
3 Nantura Viaduct (A40) 1986 3 - 6.65 x 12.15 Single cell box girder. internal PT using 12T15 tendons 10 10 967 113.5 37.8 17.1 2.2 9800 430 0 1250 SETRA 2007
124.3 + 113.5 + 113.5 + 104 + 93.7 + 93.1 + 91.7 + 90.1 + 88.4 + 54.9
4 Poncin Viaduct (A40) 1986 4 - 10 x 19.6 Single cell box girder. cantilever PT: 2x27 - 19T15 tendons 6 3 365 155 38.8 15.5 2.5 11270 516 77 1267 SETRA 2007
40 + 70 + 79 + 117 + 155 + 105 continuity PT: 2x7 - 12T15 tendons
5 Tacon Viaduct 1986 3 - 6 x 19.5 Single cell box girder, parallel structures. internal PT using 12T15 tendons 6 2 170 90 30 15 2 4820 185 0 554 SETRA 2007
25 + 40 + 55 + 90 + 80 + 30
6 Beaumont sur Oise bridge 1988 3 - 6.6 x 10.7 Single cell box girder. 9T15 and 12T15 internal tendons and 3 3 180 120 40 18.2 2.2 1793 73 0 226 SETRA 2007
30 + 120 + 30 19T15 external tendons. Short end spans
counterweighted with 9 m long solid concrete.
7 Bridge over the Loch d'Auray 1989 2.5 - 5.2 x 20.4 cantilever PT: 12T15 tendons 6 3 0 84 33.6 16.2 2.1 0 0 0 0 SETRA 2007
(Kerplouz Bridge) 46 + 84 + 51 + 39 + 39 + 34.8 continuity PT: 2x6 - 12T15 tendons
8 Champ du Comte Viaduct (RN90) 1989 2.9 - 5.8 x 19.1 Single cell box girder, parallel structures. cantilever PT: 2x13 - 12T15 and 2 x 1 -19T15 12 12 1040 100 34.5 17.2 2 17000 850 0 3800 SETRA 2007
60 + 5x100 + 60 + 60 + 3x100 + 60 tendons
continuity PT: 2x5 - 12T15 tendons
external PT: 2x3 - 19T15 and 2 x - 12T15
9 Doubling of the General Audibert 1989 1.8 - 3.8 x 18 Parallel single cell box girders connected to 18 12T13 tendons 3 3 163 67 37.2 17.6 2.1 2150 85 0 338 SETRA 2007
Bridge over the Loire, Nantes 51 + 67 + 45 m total width.
10 Bourran Viaduct at Rodez 1991 3 - 6 x 12 cantilever PT: 2x16 - 12T15 tendons 5 3 0 100 33.3 16.7 2 3000 119 0 365 SETRA 2007
44 + 75 + 100 + 74 + 29 continuity PT: 2x3 - 12T15 tendons
11 Bridge over the Saint-Denis River, 1991 2.5 - 4.5 x 16.8 cantilever PT: 2x14 - 12T15 tendons 4 4 254 76 30.4 16.9 1.8 3100 166 0 437 SETRA 2007
Reunion 50 + 76 + 76 + 50 continuity PT: 2x2 - 12T15 tendons
12 Bridge over the Seine, Gennevilliers 1992 3.5 - 9 x 18.06 Single cell box girder. 5 5 568 169 48.3 18.8 2.6 13900 969 0 1711 SETRA 2007
110 + 169 + 96 + 169 + 114
13 Limay Viaduct, Yvelines 1992 2.7 - 5.3 x 14.2 cantilever PT: 20 to 30 - 12T15 tendons 7 7 0 90 33.3 17 2 4680 222 0 769 SETRA 2007
50 + 90 + 75.2 + 59.5 + 75.2 + 90 + 58 continuity PT: 2 to 14 - 12T15 tendons
external PT: 8 to 12 - 19T15 tendons
14 Auxonne and Maillys Viaducts, Cote 1993 3.2 - 6.5 x 24 Parallel single cell box girders. cantilever PT: 12T15 tendons 8 3 290 136 42.5 20.9 2 10300 585 0 1520 SETRA 2007
d'Or 52 + 77 + 136 + 77 + 55 + 55 + 55 + 45 continuity PT: 12T15 tendons
external PT: 19T15 tendons
15 Bridge over Truyre at Garabit, 1993 3 - 8 x 20.5 cantilever PT: 2x35 - 19T15 tendons 3 3 308 144 48 18 2.7 362 5 10350 SETRA 2007
Garabit 82 + 144 + 82 continuity PT: 2x7 side; 2x2 main - 19T15
tendons
16 Piou Viaduct 1994 5 x 21 Single cell box girder with strutted deck 6 6 0 90 18 18 1 6500 228 92 819 SETRA 2007
45 + 81 + 90 + 84 + 72 + 42 cantilevers.
17 Corniche Bridge, Dole 1995 2.5 - 5.5 x 14.5 Single cell box girder with corrugated steel 7 7 496 80 32 14.5 2.2 4100 190 0 0 SETRA 2007
45 + 5 x 80 + 48 webs.
18 Rivoire Viaduct (A51), Isre 1996 - x 20 Concentric twin single cell box girder. 3 3 0 113 4000 174 0 690 SETRA 2007
64 + 113 +70
19 Viaur Valley Viaduct 1997 4.5 - 12 x 19 cantilever PT: 19T15 tendons 5 3 0 190 42.2 15.8 2.7 650 0 3900 SETRA 2007
50 + 70 + 130 + 190 + 132 continuity PT: 19T15 tendons
20 Bridge over the Rhine, Strasbourg 2002 4.5 - 9 x 14.75 Single cell box girder. 3 3 457 205 45.6 22.8 2 7750 598 0 913 SETRA 2007
121 + 205 + 131
21 Tulle Viaduct, Ville de Tulle, A89, 2002 4 - 10 x 19.3 Single box girder with transverse ribs at 3.533 6 5 786 190.8 47.7 19.1 2.5 17500 930 70 2500 Lacaze 2002
Correze 68.3 + 123.7 + 180 + 10.8 + 180 + 10.8 + 180 + 100.1 m spacing.
138
Table A-3. Cable-Stayed Bridges in Chapter 2 Graphs. Units of m
Name and Location Operational -Girder Depth h x Width w (m) Girder Description Stayed Stayed Total L:h Ac Ac Ixx Ixx Q Conc Effective Sources Girder Cross-Section
Date -Span Lengths (m) Spans Span Length mid mid pier mid pier (t) Depth
1 Brotonne Bridge, France 1977 3.8 x 19.2 Single cell box girder, centrally suspended with 3 320 880 84 9.46 12.61 20.8 31.1 8534 0.505 Mathivat 1983
58.5 + 58.5 + 143.5 + 320 + 143.5 + 70 + 55.5 + 30 prestressed diagonal ties to webs.
2 Ed Hendler Birdge (Pasco- 1978 2.15 x 24.33 Slab supported on transverse ribs between 3 299 722 139 11.3 11.65 2.55 2.55 8180 0.465 Mondorf 2006
Kennewick), Washington 39.93 + 123.9 + 299 + 123.9 + 45.2 + 45.2 + 45.2 triangular edge box girders, lateral suspension.
3 Diepoldsau Bridge, Switzerland 1985 0.55 x 14.5 Solid slab laterally suspended. 3 97 250 176 6.33 0.13 1583 0.437 Walther et al. 1999
15 + 18 + 19.5 + 40.5 + 97 + 40.5 + 19.5
4 East Huntington Bridge, West 1985 1.53 x 12.6 Slab supported on transverse steel ribs between 2 460 460 301 6.2 1.41 2850 0.492 Walther et al. 1999
Virginia 274.3 + 185.3 concrete edge beams.
5 Sunshine Skyway, St. Petersburg, 1987 4.3 x 28.85 Single cell box girder, centrally suspended with 3 366 695 85 16.1 38.8 11190 0.558 Gimsing 1997
Florida 164.6 + 365.8 + 164.6 prestressed diagonal ties to webs.
6 Akkar Bridge, Sikkim, India 1988 0.8 x 11.1 Slab supported on transverse ribs between 2 154 154 192 3.74 0.08 576 0.337 Schlaich 1991
77 + 77 concrete edge beams.
7 Dame Point Bridge, Jacksonville, 1989 1.5 x 32.3 Slab supported on transverse ribs between 3 396 792 264 15.23 2.29 12062 0.472 Gimsing 1997
Florida 198 + 396 + 198 concrete edge beams.
8 Chandoline Bridge, Sion, Switzerland 1990 2.5 x 27 Single cell box girder, centrally suspended with 3 140 284 56 11.3 8 3209 0.419 Menn 1990
72 + 140 + 72 prestressed diagonal ties to webs and struts
supporting wide cantilever overhangs.
9 Skarnsundet Bridge, Norway 1991 1.2 x 13 Two cell triangular box girder, laterally suspended. 3 530 530 442 8.53 16.1 4521 0.656 Hansvold 1994
20 + 3 x 27 + 190 + 530 + 190 + 3 x 27 + 4 x 20
10 Helgeland Bridge, Norway 1991 2.1 x 11.95 Slab supported on transverse ribs between 3 425 780 202 7.98 0.99 6224 0.668 Jordet & Svensson
177.5 + 425 + 177.5 concrete edge beams. 1994
11 Burgundy Bridge, Chalon-sur-Soane, 1992 1 x 15.54 Slab supported on transverse ribs between 3 152 352 152 6.28 0.58 2207 0.404 Virlogeux et al. 1994b
France 17 + 27.6 + 44.85 + 151.8 + 44.85 + 27.6 + 21.1 + 16.7 concrete edge beams, with sidewalks on cantilever
overhangs from beam soffit.
12 Evripos Bridge, Euboea, Greece 1992 0.45 x 14.1 Solid slab of constant depth laterally supported. 3 215 395 478 6.35 0.11 2508 0.450 Bergermann &
90 + 215 + 90 Strathopulos 1988
13 Quetzalapa Bridge, Mexico 1993 1.6 x 21.4 Slab supported on transverse ribs between precast 3 213 424 133 11.04 2.31 4681 0.516 Revelo et al. 1994
11 + 94.5 + 213 + 94.5 + 11 concrete edge beams.
14 Cheasapeake & Delaware Canal 1995 3.65 x 38.8 Parallel precast box girders supported on centrally 3 229 503 63 19 30 9555 0.490 Goni et al. 1999
Bridge, Delaware 45.72 + 45.72 + 45.72 + 228.6 + 45.72 + 45.72 + 45.72 suspended delta frame.
APPENDIX B
Chapter 4 Supporting Calculations
139
140
Cantilever Constructed Girder Bridge Preliminary PT Design A - Mixed Tendons
Side Span Length 84 m

Half Span Length 70 m Deck width 12.41 m
Segment Length 3.42 m
Closure Segment 2 m
PT Cover Top of Top Bot of Top Ext side Int side Top of Bot Bot of Bot
Long PT 130 60 60 60
Trans PT 90 60
L&T Reinf 70 40 70 60 40 40
Comp at transfer fci = 30 MPa Comp comp at SLS f'c = 50 MPa

Comp limit 0.6fci = 18 MPa Comp limit 0.6f'c = 30 MPa
Tensile limit 0.5fcri = 1.10 MPa Tensile limit fcr = 2.83 MPa
Section Properties
For PT design For +ve M Check
Variable midspan at pier side span max LL Description
h 3.2 8 3.68 m height of cross-section
g 0.25 1 m thickness of bottom slab
2
Ag 7.935 13.459 8.65 m Area
yt 1.312 3.719 1.6035 m distance from cgc to top
yb 2.003 4.281 2.0765 m distance from cgc to bottom
4
I 11.9 127.2 18 m Moment of Inertia
3
St 9.07 34.20 11.23 m
3
Sb 5.94 29.71 8.67 m
0.571 0.594 0.625 geometric output
Moment on pier during the casting of the final segment

Weight Lever Arm Moment Description
Mg = 13414.1 x 34.5 = 462787 kNm Constant area
3112.8 x 23 = 71594 kNm Variable area
Mtraveler = 400 x 67.29 = 26916 kNm Assumed to be 40 Mg
Mconst = 428.1 x 34.5 = 14771 kNm 500 Pa construction load
Mself cantilever = 576068 kNm
Cantilever Tendons
Assume the segments over the pier have reached the 28 day strength by the time the last segment is cast.
Segments Tendons Strand Strand Ap Effective fpu (MPa) duct diam duct e
18 2 15 140 0.6 1860 105 20
etop = 3.557 m = yt - cover - duct/2 - 25mm duct eccentricity
P 78607 kN P required to limit top concrete stress below cracking stress
Pprovided = 84370 kN ft (MPa) = 1.80 MPa OK
Pe = 300060 kNm = 0.52 of Mcant
Stress Check at casting of the closure segment

Mself = 13608.5 x 35 = 476298 Constant area
3157.9 x 23.333333 = 73684 Variable area
Mtraveler = 200 x 69 = 13800 kNm Assumed to be 40 Mg
Mconst = 434.4 x 34.5 = 14985 kNm 500 Pa construction LL
Total Cantilever Moment = 578767 kNm
P= 89057 kN
-P/A +Mcant/S -Mp/s Total
ft (MPa)= -6.6 16.9 -9.3 1.0 2.83 OK
fb (MPa)= -6.6 -19.5 10.7 -15.4 -30 OK
141
Continuity Prestressing for the Closure Segment
The continuity tendons must take up the forces resulting from the removal of the form traveler and the
effects of the thermal gradient. Assume the side spans are already closed and continuous.
Mtraveler = -6082 kNm +ve Removel of traveller - From SAP model of continuous structure, two point loads upwards
Mtempgradient = 67800 kNm +ve Positive moment due to nonlinear temperature gradient - CHBDC Gradient
Mmid,max = 61718 kNm +ve
Tendons Strand Strand Ap Effective fpu (MPa) duct diam duct e

2 19 140 0.6 1860 105 20
P e Mp lc Mps Mptot
Top pair 5937 1.110 6587 15.68 -738 5849
Pair 1 5937 -1.871 -11105 22.52 1786 -9319
Pair 2 5937 -1.871 -11105 29.36 2329 -8776 Mps = -Mp* Ltendon/Lspan
Pair 3 5937 -1.871 -11105 36.2 2872 -8234 Mptot = Mp + Mps
Pair 4 5937 -1.871 -11105 43.04 3414 -7691
Pair 5 5937 -1.871 -11105 56.72 4499 -6606
Pair 6 -1.871 0 63.56 0 0
Pair 7 -1.871 0 15.68 0 0
P= 35623 -48940 14162
Mp + Mps = -34777
-P/A +Mtrav/S -Mp/S Total
ft (MPa)= -4.5 0.7 3.8 0.0 1.10 OK
fb (MPa)= -4.5 -1.0 -5.9 -11.4 -18 OK
-P/A +Mmid/S -Mp/S Total
ft (MPa)= -4.5 -6.8 3.8 -7.5 -18 OK
fb (MPa)= -4.5 10.4 -5.9 0.0 1.10 OK
Continuity Prestressing at Side Span Closures

The continuity prestressing must take up the forces from the removal of the falsework
CIP section 15 m Rpier = 260 kN
Dead load 194.4 kN/m Rabut = 2656 kN -1 1 3 5 x (m)
7 9 11 13 15
x ratio x M 0
0 0 0 2000
4000
0.2 3 7092
Moment (kNm)
6000
0.4 6 12435 8000
10000
0.6 9 16028 12000
0.8 12 17872 14000
0.9 13.5 18137 16000
18000
1 15 17965 20000
Mself = 18137 kNm
Pairs provided Tendons Strand Strand Ap Effective fpu (MPa) duct diam duct e
2 2 19 140 0.6 1860 125 25
ebot = -1.856 m
P 1860 kN
Pprovided = 11874 kN OK
Pe = Mp cont side = -22033 kNm
After falsework removal of end spans - stresses at side span maximum moment section
-P/A +Mself/S -Mp/S Total
ft (MPa)= -1.5 -2.0 2.4 -1.1 1.10 OK
fb (MPa)= -1.5 3.1 -3.7 -2.2 -18 OK
After midspan closure - add stresses from midspan continuity tendons and temperature gradient
Mself = 18137
MTgradient = 12107
Mtotal = 30244 kNm
Continuity PT (from above)
Mp cont side = -22033
Mp cont mid = 2529 = Mps cont mid x (Lcip / Lside)
Mp cont = -19504
-P/A +Mtotal/S -Mp/S Total
ft (MPa)= -1.5 -3.3 2.2 -2.7 -18 OK
fb (MPa)= -1.5 5.1 -3.3 0.3 1.10 OK
Creep
As an initial estimate, reserve a margin of 2 Mpa for the stress in the lower axis over the pier, find corresponding moment.
Mcreep = 59425 kNm Mcreep = 2 MPa * Sb
142
External Prestressing Design
Moments at critical sections due to external loads and temperature gradient

Side Span Side Span
Location Closure Max LL +ve 4.02 m Pier Midspan
x= -140 -119 -74.02 -70 0
Mself cant 15990 -33000 -512803 -543800 0
Mtraveler 1290 3220 7350 7720 -6080
Mself cont 34020 12700 -379000 -434300 108800
Mbarriers 2020 647 -20069 -23161 6252
Masphalt 4090 1310 -40640 -46901 12660
Mtemp AASHTO 11300 28250 59745 67800 67800
Mlive, max 21000 33174 12000 12000 33160
Mlive, min -10010 -25200 -65600 -72100 -10300
Mcreep 9904 24761 56581 59425 59425
Mmin 14381 -50503 -625203 -671032 3562
Mmax 52194 27649 -449836 -478917 140057
Mmin = Mself cant + Mtravrem + Mbarriers + Masphalt + Ml,min

Mmax = Mself cant + Mtravrem + Mbarriers + Masphalt + Mtemp + Mcreep + Ml,max
Prestressing at Midspan
Pcont = 35623 kN
Mp cont = -34777 kNm
External PT
Deviator to Pier = 44.6 m
Tendons Strand Strand Ap Effective fpu (MPa) duct diam duct e Pier offset Mid offset
10 19 140 0.6 1860 125 25 250 300
Primary PT Moment Secondary PT Moment
Pext = 29686 kN x= 30.89 m x = Me1 / (Me1 + Me2) * Deviator
epier = e2 = 3.3815 m 2 * S1 = 3101000
emid = e1 = -1.5005 m 2 * S2 = -610597
Me2 = 100382 kNm S3 = -2262797
Me1 = -44543 kNm
Mps = 1626 kNm Mps = (2S1 + 2S2 +S3)/Lmain
Mp ext , midspan = -42917 kNm =Me2 + Mps
Combined Continuity and External PT
Pcont+Pext = 65308
Mp,cont+Mp,ext = -77695
Stresses at Midspan - Minimum and maximum moment conditions
-P/A +Mmin/S -Mp/S Total
ft (MPa)= -8.2 -0.4 8.6 -0.1 2.83 OK
fb (MPa)= -8.2 0.6 -13.1 -20.7 -30 OK
-P/A +Mmax/S -Mp/S Total
ft (MPa)= -8.2 -15.4 8.6 -15.1 -30 OK
fb (MPa)= -8.2 23.6 -13.1 2.3 2.83 OK
Prestressing at Side Span Closure

Pcont = 11874 kN
Mp,cont = -22033 kNm
Secondary PT Moment from Midspan Tendons
Mps,cont = 2529 kNm =Mps,cont,pier * Lclosure / Lside
Mps,ext = 290 kNm =Mps,ext,pier * Lclosure / Lside
Mps,midspan = 2819 kNm
External PT
Deviator to Pier = 44.6 m
Tendons Strand Strand Ap Effective fpu (MPa) duct diam duct e Pier offset Side offset
2 19 140 0.6 1860 125 25 250 300
e1 = e2,mid = -1.501 m S1 = 310100
e2 = e1,pier = 3.382 m S2 = -61060
Me1 = -8909 kNm S3 = -217371
Me2 = 20076 kNm S4 = -66815
Mps,pier = 837 kNm Mps = (2S1 - 2S2 - S3)/Lmain
Mps,side closure = 149 kNm Mps,side = Mps,pier * Lclosure / Lside
Mp ext,side = -8759 kNm =Me1 + Mps, side closure
Combined Side Span Continuity, Side Span External PT, Midspan Cont and Ext. Secondary PT Moment
Pcont+Pext = 17811 kN
Mp,cont+Mp,ext = -27973 kNm
Stresses at Side Span Closure - Minimum and maximum moment conditions
ft (MPa)= -2.2 -1.6 3.1 -0.7 2.83 OK
fb (MPa)= -2.2 2.4 -4.7 -4.5 -30 OK
ft (MPa)= -2.2 -5.8 3.1 -4.9 -30 OK
fb (MPa)= -2.2 8.8 -4.7 1.8 2.83 OK
143
Check Stresses at Max Live Load Moment in Side Span

Cantilever PT
Pcant = 25311 kN =P * x / Lhalf
Mp,cant = 36473 kNm =P * x / Lside * e
Main Span Continuity PT
Mps,cont = 5901 kNm =Mps,cont,pier * x / Lside
Side Span Continuity PT
Pcont = 11874 kN
Main Span External PT to the section under consideration
Mps,ext = 677 kNm =Mps,ext,pier * x / Lside
Side Span External PT
Pext = 5937 kNm
eo -1.042 m
Meo = -6184 kNm
Mps = 349 kNm
Mp,ext = -5835 kNm
Combined Cantilever PT, Main Span Continuity PT, Main Span External PT and Side Span External PT
Ptot = 43122 kN
Mptot = 15184 kNm
Stresses at Side Span Section of Maximum Live Load Moment
ft (MPa)= -5.0 4.5 -1.4 -1.8 2.83 OK
fb (MPa)= -5.0 -5.8 1.8 -9.1 -30 OK
ft (MPa)= -5.0 -2.5 -1.4 -8.8 -30 OK
fb (MPa)= -5.0 3.2 1.8 0.0 2.83 OK
Check Stresses over Pier in Final Condition

Cantilever PT
Pcant = 84370 kN
Mp,cant = 300060 kNm
Mps,cont = 14162
Main Span External PT
Pext= 29686
Mp,ext = 100382 kNm =Mp, ext at pier
Mps,ext = 1626 kNm =Mps,ext,pier
Pext= 5937
Mps,ext = 837 kNm =Mps,ext at pier
Mps,ext = 20913 kNm
Ptot = 119992 kN
Mptot = 437144 kNm Neglect Contribution from Midspan External Tendons (ie section just beyond)
Stresses at Pier Section of Minimum Moment (highest negative moment)
ft (MPa)= -8.9 19.6 -12.8 -2.1 2.83 OK
fb (MPa)= -8.9 -22.6 14.7 -16.8 -30 OK
ft (MPa)= -8.9 14.0 -12.8 -7.7 -30 OK
fb (MPa)= -8.9 -16.1 14.7 -10.3 2.83 OK
Check Stresses 4.02 m from Pier in Final Condition

Combined Cantilever PT, Main Span Continuity PT, and Side Span External PT
Ptot = 90307 kN
Stresses beyond Pier
ft (MPa)= -6.7 18.3 -9.8 1.7 2.83 OK
fb (MPa)= -6.7 -21.0 11.3 -16.4 -30 OK
ft (MPa)= -6.7 13.2 -9.8 -3.4 -30 OK
fb (MPa)= -6.7 -15.1 11.3 -10.5 2.83 OK
144
Cantilever Constructed Girder Bridge PT Design A - Detailed Model SLS Stress Checks
Joint 199 120 114 101 200 212 216 299

x from CL -154 -139 -119 -74 -70 -28 -15 0
Location Abutment S Closure S Max LL S Pier Table Pier CL End PT 0.4 Main CL Main
Section Mid Mid Mid Pier Pier 0.3 main Mid
Moments
Mself+Msdl+Mp
Staged @ end construction kNm -23100 -3300 15700 -101000 -32000 11000 -12700 -24600
Staged @t=50 years kNm -21100 -2000 18800 -116700 -33000 22150 2200 -4300
Mthermal kNm 0 12150 27600 67800 76000 64000 62000 61500
Mlive min kNm 0 -9200 -21500 -54000 -56700 -8000 -8000 -6600
Mlive max kNm 0 22500 32000 9000 8800 37200 37200 39500
Msls min
Staged @ end construction kNm -23100 -11580 -3650 -149600 -83030 3800 -19900 -30540
Staged @t=50 years kNm -21100 -10280 -550 -165300 -84030 14950 -5000 -10240
Msls max
Staged @ end construction kNm -23100 16950 45500 -33200 44000 75000 49300 36900
Staged @t=50 years kNm -21100 18250 48600 -48900 43000 86150 64200 57200
PT after Transfer - final

Pi kN -24000 -24500 -42500 -111000 -142000 -68500 -65600 -68300
Pf kN -21900 -22200 -38700 -103400 -131800 -61800 -59000 -62000
Section Properties (gross concrete section)

A m2 7.940 7.940 8.460 12.844 13.460 8.850 8.180 7.940
I m4 11.970 11.970 17.320 107.936 127.218 21.990 14.310 11.970
yt m 1.323 1.323 1.573 3.567 3.832 1.755 1.440 1.323
yb m 1.877 1.877 2.081 3.898 4.168 2.233 1.971 1.877
St m3 9.048 9.048 11.011 30.262 33.197 12.530 9.938 9.048
Sb m3 6.377 6.377 8.323 27.690 30.524 9.848 7.260 6.377
Stresses - Staged Construction Model after Construction

Pf/A MPa -3.02 -3.09 -5.02 -8.64 -10.55 -7.74 -8.02 -8.60
-Mmin/St MPa 2.55 1.28 0.33 4.94 2.50 -0.30 2.00 3.38
-Mmax/St MPa 2.55 -1.87 -4.13 1.10 -1.33 -5.99 -4.96 -4.08
Top - Min MPa -0.47 -1.81 -4.69 -3.70 -8.05 -8.04 -6.02 -5.23
Top - Max MPa -0.47 -4.96 -9.16 -7.54 -11.88 -13.73 -12.98 -12.68
Mmin/Sb MPa -3.62 -1.82 -0.44 -5.40 -2.72 0.39 -2.74 -4.79
Mmax/Sb MPa -3.62 2.66 5.47 -1.20 1.44 7.62 6.79 5.79
Bottom - Min MPa -6.64 -4.90 -5.46 -14.04 -13.27 -7.35 -10.76 -13.39
Bottom - Max MPa -6.64 -0.43 0.44 -9.84 -9.11 -0.12 -1.23 -2.82
Stresses - Staged Construction Model at t=30000 days (80 years)

Pf/A MPa -2.76 -2.80 -4.57 -8.05 -9.79 -6.98 -7.21 -7.81
-Mmin/St MPa 2.33 1.14 0.05 5.46 2.53 -1.19 0.50 1.13
-Mmax/St MPa 2.33 -2.02 -4.41 1.62 -1.30 -6.88 -6.46 -6.32
Top - Min MPa -0.43 -1.66 -4.52 -2.59 -7.26 -8.18 -6.71 -6.68
Top - Max MPa -0.43 -4.81 -8.99 -6.43 -11.09 -13.86 -13.67 -14.13
Mmin/Sb MPa -3.31 -1.61 -0.07 -5.97 -2.75 1.52 -0.69 -1.61
Mmax/Sb MPa -3.31 2.86 5.84 -1.77 1.41 8.75 8.84 8.97
Bottom - Min MPa -6.07 -4.41 -4.64 -14.02 -12.54 -5.46 -7.90 -9.41
Bottom - Max MPa -6.07 0.07 1.26 -9.82 -8.38 1.77 1.63 1.16
145
Cantilever Constructed Girder Bridge PT Design A - Detailed Model ULS Moment Capacity Check
Joint 199 120 114 101 200 212 216 299

x from CL -154 -139 -119 -74 -70 -28 -15 0
Location Abutment S Closure S Max LL S Pier Table Pier CL End PT 0.4 Main CL Main
Section Mid Mid Mid Pier Pier 0.3 main Mid
Moments and Axial Forces
Mself kNm 0 33800 10600 -336700 -393000 30800 85470 104360
Masphalt kNm 0 4146 1280 -37040 -42700 3215 9730 12020
Mbarriers kNm 0 2218 685 -19816 -22844 1720 5205 6430
Mlive min kNm 0 -9200 -21500 -54000 -56700 -8000 -8000 -6600
Mlive max kNm 0 22500 32000 9000 8800 37200 37200 39500
M @ End of Construction kNm -23100 -3300 15700 -101000 -32000 11000 -12700 -24600
P @ End of Construction kN -24000 -24500 -42500 -111000 -142000 -68500 -65600 -68300
Long-term Moment Shift kNm 2000 1300 3100 -15700 -1000 11150 14900 20300
Long-term Axial Force Shift kN 2100 2300 3800 7600 10200 6700 6600 6300
ULS1 - D D + 1 P + 1.7 L
Mmin kNm -23100 -9663 -17953 -282623 -232909 5512 -3300 -7652
Mmax kNm -23100 44227 72997 -175523 -121559 82352 73540 70718
P kN -24000 -24500 -42500 -111000 -142000 -68500 -65600 -68300
ULS2 - D D + 1 P + 1.6 L + 1.15 K
Mmin kNm -20800 -7248 -12238 -295278 -228389 19134 14635 16353
Mmax kNm -20800 45722 76562 -193578 -122709 95174 90675 94063
P kN -21585 -21855 -38130 -102260 -130270 -60795 -58010 -61055
ULS9 - 1.35 D + 1 P
M kNm -23100 10757 20098 -238745 -192490 23507 22442 18384
P kN -24000 -24500 -42500 -111000 -142000 -68500 -65600 -68300
Increase in Demand over SLS Moment

M ULS / M SLS 2.51 1.58 3.96 -2.85 1.10 1.41 1.64
P ULS1 / P SLS (End Const) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
P ULS2 / P SLS (50 years) 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98
Moment Capacity
P total kN -21900 -22200 -38700 -103400 -131800 -61800 -59000 -62000
P external kN -9800 -9800 -9800 -9800 -38200 -28400 -28400 -28400
e external m -1.487 -1.487 -1.237 3.067 3.492 -0.945 -1.370 -1.487
Mp external kNm -14573 -14573 -12123 30053 133402 -26838 -38908 -42231
P internal kN -12100 -12400 -28900 -93600 -93600 -33400 -30600 -33600
Top Strand internal no. 0 180 570 570 120 30
Bot Strand internal no. 76 38 0 0 114 190
fpe / fpu internal 0.63 0.51 0.63 0.63 0.50 0.59
Mpint = Pf*e kNm -21415 23035 315120 339974 -7688 -44969
Mf = M ULS - Mp ext - Mp int kNm 81709 65649 -640452 -701765 137271 181263
Mr (from Response 2000) kNm 80100 69400 -1032000 -1125000 137100 180400
Mf / Mr 1.02 0.95 0.62 0.62 1.00 1.00
Change bottom reinf to 20M

146
Cantilever Constructed Girder Bridge Preliminary PT Design B - Internal Tendons Only
Side Span Length 84 m

Half Span Length 70 m Deck width 12.41 m
Segment Length 3.42 m
Closure Segment 2 m
PT Cover Top of Top Bot of Top Ext side Int side Top of Bot Bot of Bot
Long PT 130 60 60 60
Trans PT 90 60
L&T Reinf 70 40 70 60 40 40
Comp at transfer fci = 30 MPa Comp comp at SLS f'c = 50 MPa

Comp limit 0.6fci = 18 MPa Comp limit 0.6f'c = 30 MPa
Tensile limit 0.5fcri = 1.10 MPa Tensile limit fcr = 2.83 MPa
Section Properties
For PT design For +ve M Check
Variable midspan at pier side span max LL Description
h 3.2 8 3.68 m height of cross-section
g 0.25 1 m thickness of bottom slab
2
Ag 7.935 13.459 8.65 m Area
yt 1.312 3.719 1.6035 m distance from cgc to top
yb 2.003 4.281 2.0765 m distance from cgc to bottom
4
I 11.9 127.2 18 m Moment of Inertia
3
St 9.07 34.20 11.23 m
3
Sb 5.94 29.71 8.67 m
0.571 0.594 0.625 geometric output
Moment on pier during the casting of the final segment

Weight Lever Arm Moment Description
Mg = 13414.1 x 34.5 = 462787 kNm Constant area
3112.8 x 23 = 71594 kNm Variable area
Mtraveler = 400 x 67.29 = 26916 kNm Assumed to be 40 Mg
Mconst = 428.1 x 34.5 = 14771 kNm 500 Pa construction load
Mself cantilever = 576068 kNm
Cantilever Tendons
Assume the segments over the pier have reached the 28 day strength by the time the last segment is cast.
Segments Tendons Strand Strand Ap Effective fpu (MPa) duct diam duct e
18 2 19 140 0.6 1860 110 20
etop = 3.554 m = yt - cover - duct/2 - 25mm duct eccentricity
P 78640 kN P required to limit top concrete stress below cracking stress
Pprovided = 106868 kN ft (MPa) = -2.20 MPa OK
Pe = 379809 kNm = 0.66 of Mcant
Stress Check at casting of the closure segment

Mself = 13608.5 x 35 = 476298 Constant area
3157.9 x 23.333333 = 73684 Variable area
Mtraveler = 200 x 69 = 13800 kNm Assumed to be 40 Mg
Mconst = 434.4 x 34.5 = 14985 kNm 500 Pa construction LL
Total Cantilever Moment = 578767 kNm
P= 112805 kN
-P/A +Mcant/S -Mp/s Total
ft (MPa)= -8.4 16.9 -11.7 -3.2 2.83 OK
fb (MPa)= -8.4 -19.5 13.5 -14.4 -30 OK
147
Continuity Prestressing for the Closure Segment
The continuity tendons must take up the forces resulting from the removal of the form traveler and the
effects of the thermal gradient. Assume the side spans are already closed and continuous.
Mtraveler = -6082 kNm +ve Removel of traveller - From SAP model of continuous structure, two point loads upwards
Mtempgradient = 67800 kNm +ve Positive moment due to nonlinear temperature gradient - CHBDC Gradient
Mmid,max = 61718 kNm +ve
Tendons Strand Strand Ap Effective fpu (MPa) duct diam duct e

2 22 140 0.6 1860 125 25
P e Mp lc Mps Mptot
Top pair 5937 1.095 6498 15.68 -728 5770
Pair 1 -1.856 0 15.68 0 0
Pair 2 6875 -1.856 -12756 22.52 2052 -10704 Mps = -Mp* Ltendon/Lspan
Pair 3 6875 -1.856 -12756 29.36 2675 -10081 Mptot = Mp + Mps
Pair 4 6875 -1.856 -12756 36.2 3298 -9457
Pair 5 6875 -1.856 -12756 43.04 3921 -8834
Pair 6 6875 -1.856 -12756 49.88 4545 -8211
Pair 7 6875 -1.856 -12756 56.72 5168 -7588
Pair 8 6875 -1.856 -12756 63.56 5791 -6965
Pair 9 6875 -1.856 -12756 70.4 6414 -6341
Pair 10 6875 -1.856 -12756 77.24 7038 -5718
Pair 11 6875 -1.856 -12756 84.08 7661 -5095
P= 74683 -121059 47835
Mp + Mps = -73224
-P/A +Mtrav/S -Mp/S Total
ft (MPa)= -9.4 0.7 8.1 -0.7 1.10 OK Install top tendon pair and 3 pairs for closure
fb (MPa)= -9.4 -1.0 -12.3 -22.8 -18 NO GOOD Install remaining bottom tendons after concrete
-P/A +Mmid/S -Mp/S Total has reached 28 d strength
ft (MPa)= -9.4 -6.8 8.1 -8.1 -18 OK
fb (MPa)= -9.4 10.4 -12.3 -11.3 1.10 OK
Continuity Prestressing at Side Span Closures

The continuity prestressing must take up the forces from the removal of the falsework
CIP section 15 m Rpier = 260 kN
Dead load 194.4 kN/m Rabut = 2656 kN -1 1 3 5 x (m)
7 9 11 13 15
x ratio x M 0
0 0 0 2000
4000
0.2 3 7092
Moment (kNm)
6000
0.4 6 12435 8000
10000
0.6 9 16028 12000
0.8 12 17872 14000
0.9 13.5 18137 16000
18000
1 15 17965 20000
Mself = 18137 kNm
Pairs provided Tendons Strand Strand Ap Effective fpu (MPa) duct diam duct e
3 2 22 140 0.6 1860 125 25
ebot = -1.856 m
P 1860 kN
Pprovided = 20624 kN OK
Pe = Mp cont side = -38267 kNm
After falsework removal of end spans - stresses at side span maximum moment section
-P/A +Mself/S -Mp/S Total
ft (MPa)= -2.6 -2.0 4.2 -0.4 1.10 OK Install 3 tendon pairs at side span closure
fb (MPa)= -2.6 3.1 -6.4 -6.0 -18.00 OK
at midspan
After midspan closure - add stresses from midspan continuity tendons and temperature gradient
Mself = 18137
MTgradient = 12107
Mtotal = 30244 kNm
Mp cont side = -38267
Mp cont mid = 8542 = Mps cont mid x (Lcip / Lside)
Mp cont = -29725
-P/A +Mtotal/S -Mp/S Total
ft (MPa)= -2.6 -3.3 3.3 -2.7 2.83 OK
fb (MPa)= -2.6 5.1 -5.0 -2.5 -30 OK
Creep
As an initial estimate, reserve a margin of 2 Mpa for the stress in the lower axis over the pier, find corresponding moment.
Mcreep = 59425 kNm Mcreep = 2 MPa * Sb
148
External Prestressing Design
Moments at critical sections due to external loads and temperature gradient

Side Span Side Span
Location Closure Max LL +ve Pier Midspan
x= -140 -119 -70 0
Mself cant 15990 -33000 -543800 0
Mtraveler 1290 3220 7720 -6080
Mself cont 34020 12700 -434300 108800
Mbarriers 2020 647 -23161 6252
Masphalt 4090 1310 -46901 12660
Mtemp AASHTO 11300 28250 67800 67800
Mlive, max 21000 33174 12000 33160
Mlive, min -10010 -25200 -72100 -10300
Mcreep 9904 24761 59425 59425
Mmin 14381 -50503 -671032 3562
Mmax 52194 27649 -478917 140057
Mmin = Mself cant + Mtravrem + Mbarriers + Masphalt + Ml,min

Mmax = Mself cant + Mtravrem + Mbarriers + Masphalt + Mtemp + Mcreep + Ml,max
Prestressing at Midspan
Pcont = 74683 kN
Mp cont = -73224 kNm
External PT
Deviator to Pier = 49 m
Tendons Strand Strand Ap Effective fpu (MPa) duct diam duct e Pier offset Mid offset
0.000001 27 140 0.6 1860 125 25 250 340
epier = e1 = 3.3815 m 2 * S1 = 0
emid = e2 = -1.4605 m 2 * S2 = 0
Me1 = 0 kNm S3 = -0.301893
Me2 = 0 kNm
Mps = 0 kNm Mps = -(2S1 + 2S2 +S3)/Lmain
Mp ext , midspan = 0 kNm =Me2 + Mps
Combined Continuity and External PT
Pcont+Pext = 74683
Mp,cont+Mp,ext = -73224
Stresses at Midspan - Minimum and maximum moment conditions
ft (MPa)= -9.4 -0.4 8.1 -1.7 2.83 OK
fb (MPa)= -9.4 0.6 -12.3 -21.1 -30 OK
ft (MPa)= -9.4 -15.4 8.1 -16.8 -30 OK
fb (MPa)= -9.4 23.6 -12.3 1.8 2.83 OK
Prestressing at Side Span Closure

Pcont = 20624 kN
Secondary PT Moment from Midspan Tendons
Mps,cont = 8542 kNm =Mps,cont,pier * Lclosure / Lside
Mps,ext = 0 kNm =Mps,ext,pier * Lclosure / Lside
External PT
Deviator to Pier = 49 m
Tendons Strand Strand Ap Effective fpu (MPa) duct diam duct e Pier offset Side offset
0.000001 27 140 0.6 1860 125 25 250 340
e1 = e2,mid = -1.461 m S1 = 0
e2 = e1,pier = 3.382 m S2 = 0
Me1 = 0 kNm S3 = 0
Me2 = 0 kNm S4 = 0
Mps,pier = 0 kNm Mps = (2S1 - 2S2 - S3)/Lmain
Mps,side closure = 0 kNm Mps,side = Mps,pier * Lclosure / Lside
Mp ext,side = 0 kNm =Me1 + Mps, side closure
Combined Side Span Continuity, Side Span External PT, Midspan Cont and Ext. Secondary PT Moment
Pcont+Pext = 20624 kN
Mp,cont+Mp,ext = -29725 kNm
Stresses at Side Span Closure - Minimum and maximum moment conditions
ft (MPa)= -2.6 -1.6 3.3 -0.9 2.83 OK
fb (MPa)= -2.6 2.4 -5.0 -5.2 -30 OK
ft (MPa)= -2.6 -5.8 3.3 -5.1 -30 OK
fb (MPa)= -2.6 8.8 -5.0 1.2 2.83 OK
149
Check Stresses at Max Live Load Moment in Side Span

Cantilever PT
Pcant = 32060 kN =P * x / Lside
Mp,cant = 46119 kNm =P * x / Lside * e
Mps,cont = 19931 kNm =Mps,cont,pier * x / Lside
Side Span Continuity PT
Pcont = 20624 kN
Mps,ext = 0 kNm =Mps,ext,pier * x / Lside to the section under consideration
Pext = 0 kNm
eo -1.042 m
Meo = 0 kNm
Mps = 0 kNm
Mp,ext = 0 kNm
Combined Cantilever PT, Side Span Continuity PT, Side Span External PT, Midspan Cont PT and Ext. Secondary PT Moment
Ptot = 52684 kN
Mptot = 27783 kNm
Stresses at Side Span Section of Maximum Live Load Moment
ft (MPa)= -6.1 4.5 -2.5 -4.1 2.83 OK
fb (MPa)= -6.1 -5.8 3.2 -8.7 -30 OK
ft (MPa)= -6.1 -2.5 -2.5 -11.0 -30 OK
fb (MPa)= -6.1 3.2 3.2 0.3 2.83 OK
Check Stresses over Pier in Final Condition

Cantilever PT
Pcant = 106868 kN
Mp,cant = 379809 kNm
Mps,cont = 47835
Pext= 0
Mps,ext = 0 kNm =Mps,ext,pier
Mps,midspan = 0 kNm
Pext= 0
Mps,ext = 0 kNm =Mps,ext at pier
Mps,ext = 0 kNm
Ptot = 106868 kN
Stresses at Pier Section of Minimum Moment (highest negative moment)
ft (MPa)= -7.9 19.6 -12.5 -0.8 2.83 OK
fb (MPa)= -7.9 -22.6 14.4 -16.1 -30 OK
ft (MPa)= -7.9 14.0 -12.5 -6.4 -30 OK
fb (MPa)= -7.9 -16.1 14.4 -9.7 2.83 OK
150
Cantilever Constructed Girder Bridge PT Design B - Detailed Model SLS Stress Checks
Joint 199 120 114 110 101 200 208 212 216 299
x from CL -154 -139 -119 -105 -77 -70 -42 -28 -15 0
Location Abutment S Closure S Max LL S End PT S Pier Table Pier CL M End PT 0.3 Main 0.4 Main CL Main
Section Mid Mid Pier Pier Mid
Moments
Mself+Msdl+Mp
Staged @ end construction kNm -35900 1650 12000 36800 -53000 -68000 47400 19600 -8100 -28400
Staged @t=50 years kNm -28850 10300 13800 21000 -86500 -128000 26700 23000 10600 3600
Mthermal kNm 0 12600 28150 39000 67800 75000 65200 63500 62000 60300
Mlive min kNm 0 -9200 -21500 -29400 -54000 -56700 -17900 -10300 -8000 -6600
Mlive max kNm 0 22500 32000 30600 9000 8800 15700 24500 37200 39500
Msls min
Staged @ end construction kNm -35900 -6630 -7350 10340 -101600 -119030 31290 10330 -15300 -34340
Staged @t=50 years kNm -28850 2020 -5550 -5460 -135100 -179030 10590 13730 3400 -2340
Msls max
Staged @ end construction kNm -35900 21900 42075 75800 14800 7000 112600 83100 53900 31900
Staged @t=50 years kNm -28850 30550 43875 60000 -18700 -53000 91900 86500 72600 63900

Pi kN -20800 -22700 -51700 -61000 -116700 -124000 -74000 -76500 -78200 -83200
Pf kN -16700 -17300 -42200 -50300 -98500 -105000 -63300 -60600 -61000 -66000

A m2 7.940 7.940 8.460 9.336 12.844 13.460 9.930 8.850 8.180 7.940
I m4 11.970 11.970 17.320 28.866 107.936 127.218 38.590 21.990 14.310 11.970
yt m 1.323 1.323 1.573 1.985 3.567 3.832 2.262 1.755 1.440 1.323
yb m 1.877 1.877 2.081 2.429 3.898 4.168 2.669 2.233 1.971 1.877
St m3 9.048 9.048 11.011 14.542 30.262 33.197 17.060 12.530 9.938 9.048
Sb m3 6.377 6.377 8.323 11.885 27.690 30.524 14.459 9.848 7.260 6.377

Pf/A MPa -2.62 -2.86 -6.11 -6.53 -9.09 -9.21 -7.45 -8.64 -9.56 -10.48
-Mmin/St MPa 3.97 0.73 0.67 -0.71 3.36 3.59 -1.83 -0.82 1.54 3.80
-Mmax/St MPa 3.97 -2.42 -3.82 -5.21 -0.49 -0.21 -6.60 -6.63 -5.42 -3.53
Top - Min MPa 1.35 -2.13 -5.44 -7.25 -5.73 -5.63 -9.29 -9.47 -8.02 -6.68
Top - Max MPa 1.35 -5.28 -9.93 -11.75 -9.57 -9.42 -14.05 -15.28 -14.98 -14.00
Mmin/Sb MPa -5.63 -1.04 -0.88 0.87 -3.67 -3.90 2.16 1.05 -2.11 -5.38
Mmax/Sb MPa -5.63 3.43 5.06 6.38 0.53 0.23 7.79 8.44 7.42 5.00
Bottom - Min MPa -8.25 -3.90 -6.99 -5.66 -12.76 -13.11 -5.29 -7.60 -11.67 -15.86
Bottom - Max MPa -8.25 0.58 -1.06 -0.16 -8.55 -8.98 0.34 -0.21 -2.14 -5.48

Pf/A MPa -2.10 -2.18 -4.99 -5.39 -7.67 -7.80 -6.37 -6.85 -7.46 -8.31
-Mmin/St MPa 3.19 -0.22 0.50 0.38 4.46 5.39 -0.62 -1.10 -0.34 0.26
-Mmax/St MPa 3.19 -3.38 -3.98 -4.13 0.62 1.60 -5.39 -6.90 -7.31 -7.06
Top - Min MPa 1.09 -2.40 -4.48 -5.01 -3.20 -2.41 -7.00 -7.94 -7.80 -8.05
Top - Max MPa 1.09 -5.56 -8.97 -9.51 -7.05 -6.20 -11.76 -13.75 -14.76 -15.37
Mmin/Sb MPa -4.52 0.32 -0.67 -0.46 -4.88 -5.87 0.73 1.39 0.47 -0.37
Mmax/Sb MPa -4.52 4.79 5.27 5.05 -0.68 -1.74 6.36 8.78 10.00 10.02
Bottom - Min MPa -6.63 -1.86 -5.66 -5.85 -12.55 -13.67 -5.64 -5.45 -6.99 -8.68
Bottom - Max MPa -6.63 2.61 0.28 -0.34 -8.34 -9.54 -0.02 1.94 2.54 1.71
151
Cantilever Constructed Girder Bridge PT Design B - Detailed Model ULS Moment Capacity Check
Joint 199 120 114 110 101 200 208 212 216 299
x from CL -154 -139 -119 -105 -77 -70 -42 -28 -15 0
Location Abutment S Closure S Max LL S End PT S Pier Table Pier CL M End PT 0.3 Main 0.4 Main CL Main
Section Mid Mid Pier Pier Mid
Mself kNm 0 33300 12060 -50000 -339300 -396000 -62600 87090 102080
Masphalt kNm 0 4054 1411 -5862 -37027 -42872 -7526 9886 11710
Mbarriers kNm 0 2169 755 -3136 -19809 -22936 -4026 5289 6265
Mlive min kNm 0 -9200 -21500 -29400 -54000 -56700 -17900 -10300 -8000 -6600
Mlive max kNm 0 22500 32000 30600 9000 8800 15700 24500 37200 39500
M @ End of Construction kNm -35900 1650 12000 36800 -53000 -68000 47400 19600 -8100 -28400
P @ End of Construction kN -20800 -22700 -51700 -61000 -116700 -124000 -74000 -76500 -78200 -83200
Long-term Moment Shift kNm 7050 8650 1800 -15800 -33500 -60000 -20700 3400 18700 32000
Long-term Axial Force Shift kN 4100 5400 9500 10700 18200 19000 10700 15900 17200 17200
ULS1 - D D + 1 P + 1.7 L
Mmin kNm -35900 -4869 -21282 -26738 -235135 -269613 -118 2090 1719 -12096
Mmax kNm -35900 49021 69669 75262 -128035 -158263 57002 61250 78559 66274
P kN -20800 -22700 -51700 -61000 -116700 -124000 -74000 -76500 -78200 -83200
ULS2 - D D + 1 P + 1.6 L + 1.15 K
Mmin kNm -27793 5998 -17062 -41968 -268260 -332943 -22133 7030 24024 25364
Mmax kNm -27793 58968 71739 57092 -166560 -227263 33197 65160 100064 103074
P kN -16085 -16490 -40775 -48695 -95770 -102150 -61695 -58215 -58420 -63420
ULS9 - 1.35 D + 1 P
M kNm -35900 15483 16979 16151 -191648 -229633 21447 19600 27693 13619
P kN -20800 -22700 -51700 -61000 -116700 -124000 -74000 -76500 -78200 -83200

M ULS / M SLS 1.93 1.64 0.99 8.91 4.29 0.36 0.75 1.38 1.61
P ULS1 / P SLS (End Const) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
P ULS2 / P SLS (50 years) 0.95 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.96
Moment Capacity
P total kN -16700 -17300 -42200 -50300 -98500 -105000 -63300 -60600 -61000 -66000
P external kN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
e external m
Mp external kNm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P internal kN -16700 -17300 -42200 -50300 -98500 -105000 -63300 -60600 -61000 -66000
Top Strand internal no. 0 228 722 152 38
Bot Strand internal no. 132 132 0 352 484
fpe / fpu internal 0.50 0.45 0.56 0.46 0.49
Mpint = Pf*e kNm -29877 6817 381381 -54768 -100289
Mf = M ULS - Mp ext - Mp int kNm 88845 64922 -714324 154832 203363
Mr (from Response 2000) kNm 109400 129300 -1226000 282000 350800
Mf / Mr 0.81 0.50 0.58 0.55 0.58
152
Stiff Girder Extradosed Bridge PT Design - Detailed Model SLS Stress Checks
x from CL -154 -133 -119 -101 -77 -70 -15 0

Location Abutment S Closure S Max LL S End PT S Pier Table Pier CL 0.4 Main CL Main
Section Mid Mid Mid Mid Pier Pier Mid Mid
Moments
Mself+Msdl+Mp
Staged @ end construction kNm -51900 -22900 -17300 19450 -2600 -25200 14500 0
Staged @t=50 years kNm -40600 -6300 -1930 14600 -28000 -66300 28000 23800
Mthermal kNm 0 6970 10600 10600 25660 25000 27000 25000
Mlive min kNm 0 -4050 -6100 -8100 -17700 -36860 -3200 -2900
Mlive max kNm 0 22550 28550 21900 1500 3610 36900 38900
Msls min
Staged @ end construction kNm -51900 -26545 -22790 12160 -18530 -58374 11620 -2610
Staged @t=50 years kNm -40600 -9945 -7420 7310 -43930 -99474 25120 21190
Msls max
Staged @ end construction kNm -51900 2971 16875 47640 19278 -1951 47710 35010
Staged @t=50 years kNm -40600 19571 32245 42790 -6122 -43051 61210 58810

Pi kN -49900 -50200 -63000 -62900 -67900 -95000 -93640 -89200
Pf kN -32600 -33200 -50200 -47100 -59000 -82000 -71000 -68600

A m2 7.115 7.115 7.115 7.115 8.620 9.500 7.115 7.115
I m4 8.340 8.340 8.340 8.340 11.230 11.640 8.340 8.340
yt m 0.972 0.972 0.972 0.972 1.252 1.300 0.972 0.972
yb m 1.828 1.828 1.828 1.828 1.548 1.500 1.828 1.828
St m3 8.580 8.580 8.580 8.580 8.970 8.954 8.580 8.580
Sb m3 4.562 4.562 4.562 4.562 7.255 7.760 4.562 4.562

Pf/A MPa -7.01 -7.06 -8.85 -8.84 -7.88 -10.00 -13.16 -12.54
-Mmin/St MPa 6.05 3.09 2.66 -1.42 2.07 6.52 -1.35 0.30
-Mmax/St MPa 6.05 -0.35 -1.97 -5.55 -2.15 0.22 -5.56 -4.08
Top - Min MPa -0.96 -3.96 -6.20 -10.26 -5.81 -3.48 -14.52 -12.23
Top - Max MPa -0.96 -7.40 -10.82 -14.39 -10.03 -9.78 -18.72 -16.62
Mmin/Sb MPa -11.38 -5.82 -5.00 2.67 -2.55 -7.52 2.55 -0.57
Mmax/Sb MPa -11.38 0.65 3.70 10.44 2.66 -0.25 10.46 7.67
Bottom - Min MPa -18.39 -12.87 -13.85 -6.18 -10.43 -17.52 -10.61 -13.11
Bottom - Max MPa -18.39 -6.40 -5.16 1.60 -5.22 -10.25 -2.70 -4.86

Pf/A MPa -4.58 -4.67 -7.06 -6.62 -6.84 -8.63 -9.98 -9.64
-Mmin/St MPa 4.73 1.16 0.86 -0.85 4.90 11.11 -2.93 -2.47
-Mmax/St MPa 4.73 -2.28 -3.76 -4.99 0.68 4.81 -7.13 -6.85
Top - Min MPa 0.15 -3.51 -6.19 -7.47 -1.95 2.48 -12.91 -12.11
Top - Max MPa 0.15 -6.95 -10.81 -11.61 -6.16 -3.82 -17.11 -16.50
Mmin/Sb MPa -8.90 -2.18 -1.63 1.60 -6.06 -12.82 5.51 4.64
Mmax/Sb MPa -8.90 4.29 7.07 9.38 -0.84 -5.55 13.42 12.89
Bottom - Min MPa -13.48 -6.85 -8.68 -5.02 -12.90 -21.45 -4.47 -5.00
Bottom - Max MPa -13.48 -0.38 0.01 2.76 -7.69 -14.18 2.86 2.79
153
Stiff Girder Extradosed Bridge PT Design - Detailed Model ULS Moment Capacity Check
x from CL -154 -133 -119 -101 -77 -70 -15 0

Location Abutment S Closure S Max LL S End PT S Pier Table Pier CL 0.4 Main CL Main
Section Mid Mid Mid Mid Pier Pier Mid Mid
Mself kNm 0 53660 66020 -3560 -115500 -235800 104450 117800
Pself kN 0 -2060 -4910 -8340 -11600 -19870 -15200 -12784
Masphalt kNm 0 6490 7950 -380 -13860 -27900 12400 14000
Pasphalt kN 0 -390 -588 -1015 -1385 -2360 -1800 -1500
Mbarriers kNm 0 3472 4253 -203 -7415 -14926 6634 7490
Pbarriers kN 0 -209 -315 -543 -741 -1263 -963 -802
Mlive min kNm 0 -4050 -6100 -8100 -17700 -36860 -3200 -2900
Mlive max kNm 0 22550 28550 21900 1500 3610 36900 38900
M @ End of Construction kNm -51900 -22900 -17300 19450 -2600 -25200 14500 0
P @ End of Construction kN -49900 -50200 -63000 -62900 -67900 -95000 -93640 -89200
Long-term Moment Shift kNm 11300 16600 15370 -4850 -25400 -41100 13500 23800
Long-term Axial Force Shift kN 17300 17000 12800 15800 8900 13000 22640 20600
ULS1 - D D + 1 P + 1.7 L
Mmin kNm -51900 -15114 -9640 4737 -64203 -151957 37477 27128
Mmax kNm -51900 30106 49265 55737 -31563 -83158 105647 98188
P kN -49900 -50849 -64339 -65184 -71061 -100407 -97773 -92667
ULS2 - D D + 1 P + 1.6 L + 1.15 K
Mmin kNm -38905 4381 8645 -30 -91643 -195536 53322 54788
Mmax kNm -38905 46941 64085 47970 -60923 -130784 117482 121668
P kN -30005 -31299 -49619 -47014 -60826 -85457 -71737 -68977
ULS9 - 1.35 D + 1 P
M kNm -51900 -632 10078 18000 -50471 -122719 57719 48752
P kN -49900 -51131 -65035 -66364 -72704 -103223 -99927 -94480

M ULS / M SLS 2.40 1.99 1.17 2.09 1.97 1.92 2.07
P ULS1 / P SLS (End Const) 1.01 1.02 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.04 1.04
P ULS2 / P SLS (50 years) 0.94 0.99 1.00 1.03 1.04 1.01 1.01
Moment Capacity
P total kN -32600 -33200 -50200 -47100 -59000 -84800 -71000 -68600
P external kN -8000 -8000 -8000 -8000 -8000 -29700 -21700 -21700
e external m 0.172 -1.468 -1.468 -0.988 -0.042 0.200 -1.468 -1.468
Mp external kNm 1376 -11744 -11744 -7904 -336 5940 -31856 -31856
P internal kN -27410 -27410 -27410 0 0 -9950 -33900 -48000
Top Strand internal no. 0 0 0 0 76 0 54
Bot Strand internal no. 216 216 0.0001 0.0001 0 270 324
fpe / fpu internal 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.48 0.49
Mp int = Pf*e kNm -46405 -46405 0 0 10945 -57393 -64361
P extradosed kN 0 -14790 -39100 -51000 -45150 -15400 1100
N axial force to calculate Mr * kN -8649 -24129 -49384 -62161 -80257 -41233 -24067
Mf = M ULS - Mp ext - Mp int kNm 105091 122234 55874 -91307 -212421 206730 217885
Mr (from Response 2000) kNm 152800 164600 58800 -100800 -156900 210500 229000
Mf / Mr 0.69 0.74 0.95 0.91 1.35 0.98 0.95
* to account for the increase in axial force in the girder due to increase in permanent loads -169600 for 2x2x27
-196500 for 3x2x27
-220560 for 4x2x27
25M in top slab will raise Mr by 20000 kNm
154
Stiff Girder Extradosed Bridge PT Design - Forces in Cables

7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
SLS Prelim Max kN
2000
SLS End of Const Max kN
1000 SLS Final Max kN
0
1010
1009
1008
1007
1006
1005
1004
1003
1002
1001
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
ACTUAL PIER
Cable 1010 1009 1008 1007 1006 1005 1004 1003 1002 1001 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Distance from CL x m -137 -131 -125 -119 -113 -107 -101 -95 -89 -83 -57 -51 -45 -39 -33 -27 -21 -15 -9 -3
Cable length Lo m 68.327 62.208 56.089 49.970 43.852 37.733 31.614 25.495 19.376 13.257 13.257 19.376 25.495 31.614 37.733 43.852 49.970 56.089 62.208 68.327
Cable Area A m2 0.00532 0.00532 0.00532 0.00532 0.00532 0.00532 0.00532 0.00532 0.00532 0.00532 0.00532 0.00532 0.00532 0.00532 0.00532 0.00532 0.00532 0.00532 0.00532 0.00532
899 800 701 602 503 404 305 206 107 8 998 1097 1196 1295 1394 1493 1592 1691 1790 1889
Load Cases from SAP
SELF 0 kN 996 1102 1196 1270 1319 1335 1312 1243 1126 964 1162 1390 1562 1674 1724 1718 1663 1565 1431 1268
ASPHALT 11 kN 119 132 143 152 158 160 157 149 135 115 138 166 186 200 206 205 198 187 171 152
BARRIERS 22 kN 64 70 76 81 84 86 84 80 72 62 74 89 100 107 110 110 106 100 91 81
TGAASHTO 33 kN 6 -9 -21 -30 -35 -38 -38 -34 -29 -22 7 6 4 1 -2 -5 -8 -12 -15 -18
CABLES 44 kN 5006 4900 4804 4724 4667 4640 4649 4701 4804 4966 4735 4497 4330 4228 4188 4205 4272 4382 4529 4706
LIVEL, Max 77 kN 230 293 276 256 222 205 200 194 181 156 201 240 267 286 293 293 284 271 253 232
LIVEL, Min 88 kN -81 -44 -26 -13 -7 -3 -1 -1 -2 -2 -12 -18 -24 -29 -34 -39 -43 -47 -51 -56
NLCANTCON 55 kN 5229 5149 5084 5037 5013 5010 5020 5036 5035 5033 5117 5116 5118 5098 5071 5043 5018 4987 4962 4936
NL50YEARS 66 kN 4628 4563 4514 4483 4474 4481 4493 4497 4469 4421 4564 4617 4652 4643 4607 4554 4491 4411 4327 4233
Serviceability Limit States

SLS Prelim Permanent * kN 6184 6204 6219 6228 6229 6220 6201 6172 6137 6107 6109 6141 6178 6208 6228 6238 6239 6234 6222 6207
SLS Prelim Max kN 6391 6467 6468 6458 6428 6404 6381 6347 6299 6247 6291 6357 6419 6465 6492 6501 6495 6477 6450 6416
SLS End of Const Max kN 5436 5413 5333 5267 5213 5194 5200 5211 5198 5173 5298 5332 5359 5355 5335 5306 5273 5231 5190 5145
SLS Final Max kN 4835 4826 4762 4713 4674 4665 4673 4672 4631 4561 4745 4833 4893 4900 4872 4818 4747 4655 4555 4442
Live Load Force Range kN 280 303 272 242 205 187 181 176 164 142 192 232 262 283 295 298 294 286 274 259
Live Load Stress Range MPa 53 57 51 46 39 35 34 33 31 27 36 44 49 53 55 56 55 54 51 49
SETRA Allowable 0.58 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.59 0.60
Actual fp/fpu 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.52
Actual / Allowable 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.90
* Large difference from Prelim Force and End of Construction force is due to internal and exteral PT.
Ultimate Limit States

ULS Self 0.2 199 220 239 254 264 267 262 249 225 193 232 278 312 335 345 344 333 313 286 254
ULS Asphalt 0.5 59 66 71 76 79 80 79 74 67 58 69 83 93 100 103 103 99 93 85 76
ULS Barriers 0.2 13 14 15 16 17 17 17 16 14 12 15 18 20 21 22 22 21 20 18 16
ULS Live Load Max 1.7 392 497 470 435 377 348 340 330 307 265 342 408 455 485 499 497 483 460 430 395
ULS1 - End of Construction 5892 5947 5880 5818 5749 5722 5718 5705 5650 5561 5776 5902 5998 6039 6039 6008 5953 5874 5782 5677
ULS9 - End of Construction 0.35 5641 5606 5580 5563 5560 5563 5564 5551 5502 5432 5598 5691 5765 5791 5785 5754 5706 5635 5555 5461
ULS1 Actual fp/fpu 0.60 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.56 0.58 0.60 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.59 0.58 0.57
155
Stiff Tower Extradosed Bridge PT Design - Detailed Model SLS Stress Checks
x from CL -137 -131 -125 -119 -113 -107 -101 -95 -73 -67 -45 -39 -33 -27 -21 -15 -9 -3 0
Location C10 C9 C8 C7 C6 C5 C4 C3 Pier CLPier CL C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 CLMid
Section Mid Mid Mid Mid Mid Mid Mid Mid Pier Pier Mid Mid Mid Mid Mid Mid Mid Mid Mid
Moments
Mself+Msdl+Mp
Staged @ end construction kNm 853 919 830 660 473 330 291 427 -2301 -2300 243 39 22 138 433 595 840 1031 1106
Staged @t=50 years kNm 2613 3285 3485 3300 2855 2263 1622 1008 -5023 -4819 780 942 1170 1453 1776 2102 2381 2588 2662
Mthermal kNm 316 686 1012 1277 1474 1610 1720 1722 1676 1585 1593 1598 1603 1609 1615 1622 1628 1632 1632
Mlive min kNm -1115 -1820 -2050 -1951 -1655 -1260 -1260 -1926 -7165 -7034 -2960 -2930 -2900 -2890 -2805 -2590 -2193 -1684 7635
Mlive max kNm 5448 8816 9575 9020 7970 6742 5850 5105 555 460 5050 5636 6140 6625 7070 7650 7700 7716 7634
Msls min
Staged @ end construction kNm -151 -719 -1015 -1096 -1017 -804 -843 -1306 -8750 -8631 -2421 -2598 -2588 -2463 -2092 -1736 -1134 -485 7978
Staged @t=50 years kNm 1610 1647 1640 1544 1366 1129 488 -725 -11472 -11150 -1884 -1695 -1440 -1148 -749 -229 407 1072 9534
Msls max
Staged @ end construction kNm 6009 9402 10257 9800 8825 7686 6932 6399 -461 -618 6062 6390 6830 7388 8088 8778 9072 9281 9282
Staged @t=50 years kNm 7769 11768 12912 12440 11207 9619 8263 6980 -3183 -3137 6599 7293 7978 8703 9431 10285 10613 10838 10838
Axial Compression in Girder

P from permanent loads kN -6095 -12250 -18460 -24715 -31014 -37350 -43730 -50160 -63259 -63590 -50510 -44080 -37690 -31315 -24800 -18400 -12160 -5900 230
P corresp to Max LiveL kN -532 -1014 -1606 -2675 -3923 -5260 -6595 -7847 -9778 -11770 -10200 -9166 -8020 -6795 -5484 -4161 -2859 -1556 -410
P from PT initial kN -41560 -41560 -41560 -34633 -27707 -20780 -13853 -6927 0 0 0 0 0 -6927 -13853 -20780 -27707 -34633 -41560
P from PT final -35623 -35623 -35623 -29686 -23748 -17811 -11874 -5937 0 0 0 0 0 -5937 -11874 -17811 -23748 -29686 -35623
P after construction -47655 -53810 -60020 -59348 -58721 -58130 -57583 -57087 -63259 -63590 -50510 -44080 -37690 -38242 -38653 -39180 -39867 -40533 -41330
P final after losses -41718 -47873 -54083 -54401 -54762 -55161 -55604 -56097 -63259 -63590 -50510 -44080 -37690 -37252 -36674 -36211 -35908 -35586 -35393

A m2 6.300 6.300 6.300 6.300 6.300 6.300 6.300 6.300 6.300 6.300 6.300 6.300 6.300 6.300 6.300 6.300 6.300 6.300 6.300
I m4 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400
yt m 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300
yb m 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700
St m3 1.333 1.333 1.333 1.333 1.333 1.333 1.333 1.333 1.333 1.333 1.333 1.333 1.333 1.333 1.333 1.333 1.333 1.333 1.333
Sb m3 0.571 0.571 0.571 0.571 0.571 0.571 0.571 0.571 0.571 0.571 0.571 0.571 0.571 0.571 0.571 0.571 0.571 0.571 0.571

Pf/A MPa -7.56 -8.54 -9.53 -9.42 -9.32 -9.23 -9.14 -9.06 -10.04 -10.09 -8.02 -7.00 -5.98 -6.07 -6.14 -6.22 -6.33 -6.43 -6.56
-Mmin/St MPa 0.11 0.54 0.76 0.82 0.76 0.60 0.63 0.98 6.56 6.47 1.82 1.95 1.94 1.85 1.57 1.30 0.85 0.36 -5.98
-Mmax/St MPa -4.51 -7.05 -7.69 -7.35 -6.62 -5.76 -5.20 -4.80 0.35 0.46 -4.55 -4.79 -5.12 -5.54 -6.07 -6.58 -6.80 -6.96 -6.96
Top - Permanent Loads MPa -6.92 -7.85 -8.90 -8.93 -8.97 -8.98 -8.92 -8.74 -11.77 -11.82 -7.84 -6.97 -5.97 -5.97 -5.81 -5.77 -5.70 -5.66 -5.73
Top - Min MPa -7.45 -8.00 -8.77 -8.60 -8.56 -8.62 -8.51 -8.08 -3.48 -3.62 -6.20 -5.05 -4.04 -4.22 -4.57 -4.92 -5.48 -6.07 -12.54
Top - Max MPa -12.07 -15.59 -17.22 -16.77 -15.94 -14.99 -14.34 -13.86 -9.70 -9.63 -12.56 -11.79 -11.11 -11.61 -12.20 -12.80 -13.13 -13.39 -13.52
Mmin/Sb MPa -0.26 -1.26 -1.78 -1.92 -1.78 -1.41 -1.48 -2.29 -15.31 -15.10 -4.24 -4.55 -4.53 -4.31 -3.66 -3.04 -1.98 -0.85 13.96
Mmax/Sb MPa 10.52 16.45 17.95 17.15 15.44 13.45 12.13 11.20 -0.81 -1.08 10.61 11.18 11.95 12.93 14.15 15.36 15.88 16.24 16.24
Bottom - Permanent Loads MPa -6.07 -6.93 -8.07 -8.27 -8.49 -8.65 -8.63 -8.31 -14.07 -14.12 -7.59 -6.93 -5.94 -5.83 -5.38 -5.18 -4.86 -4.63 -4.62
Bottom - Min MPa -7.83 -9.80 -11.30 -11.34 -11.10 -10.63 -10.62 -11.35 -25.35 -25.20 -12.25 -11.54 -10.51 -10.38 -9.80 -9.26 -8.31 -7.28 7.40
Bottom - Max MPa 2.95 7.91 8.42 7.73 6.12 4.22 2.99 2.14 -10.85 -11.18 2.59 4.19 5.97 6.86 8.02 9.14 9.55 9.81 9.68

Pf/A MPa -6.62 -7.60 -8.58 -8.64 -8.69 -8.76 -8.83 -8.90 -10.04 -10.09 -8.02 -7.00 -5.98 -5.91 -5.82 -5.75 -5.70 -5.65 -5.62
-Mmin/St MPa -1.21 -1.24 -1.23 -1.16 -1.02 -0.85 -0.37 0.54 8.60 8.36 1.41 1.27 1.08 0.86 0.56 0.17 -0.31 -0.80 -7.15
-Mmax/St MPa -5.83 -8.83 -9.68 -9.33 -8.41 -7.21 -6.20 -5.24 2.39 2.35 -4.95 -5.47 -5.98 -6.53 -7.07 -7.71 -7.96 -8.13 -8.13
Top - Permanent Loads MPa -4.66 -5.14 -5.97 -6.16 -6.55 -7.06 -7.61 -8.15 -13.81 -13.71 -7.43 -6.29 -5.11 -4.82 -4.49 -4.17 -3.91 -3.71 -3.62
Top - Min MPa -7.83 -8.83 -9.81 -9.79 -9.72 -9.60 -9.19 -8.36 -1.44 -1.73 -6.60 -5.73 -4.90 -5.05 -5.26 -5.58 -6.01 -6.45 -12.77
Top - Max MPa -12.45 -16.42 -18.27 -17.96 -17.10 -15.97 -15.02 -14.14 -7.65 -7.74 -12.97 -12.47 -11.97 -12.44 -12.89 -13.46 -13.66 -13.78 -13.75
Mmin/Sb MPa 2.82 2.88 2.87 2.70 2.39 1.98 0.85 -1.27 -20.08 -19.51 -3.30 -2.97 -2.52 -2.01 -1.31 -0.40 0.71 1.88 16.68
Mmax/Sb MPa 13.60 20.59 22.60 21.77 19.61 16.83 14.46 12.22 -5.57 -5.49 11.55 12.76 13.96 15.23 16.50 18.00 18.57 18.97 18.97
Bottom - Permanent Loads MPa -2.05 -1.85 -2.49 -2.86 -3.70 -4.80 -5.99 -7.14 -18.83 -18.53 -6.65 -5.35 -3.94 -3.37 -2.71 -2.07 -1.53 -1.12 -0.96
Bottom - Min MPa -3.81 -4.72 -5.71 -5.93 -6.30 -6.78 -7.97 -10.17 -30.12 -29.61 -11.31 -9.96 -8.50 -7.92 -7.13 -6.15 -4.99 -3.77 11.07
Bottom - Max MPa 6.97 13.00 14.01 13.13 10.92 8.08 5.63 3.31 -15.61 -15.58 3.02 5.25 7.47 8.80 10.17 11.74 12.36 12.80 12.83
156
Stiff Tower Extradosed Bridge PT Design - Detailed Model SLS & ULS Capacity Check
x from CL -137 -131 -125 -119 -113 -107 -101 -95 -73 -67 -45 -39 -33 -27 -21 -15 -9 -3 0
Location C10 C9 C8 C7 C6 C5 C4 C3 Pier CLPier CL C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 CLMid
Section Mid Mid Mid Mid Mid Mid Mid Mid Pier Pier Mid Mid Mid Mid Mid Mid Mid Mid Mid
Mself kNm 7746 13043 15054 14600 12570 9818 6655 3210 -20500 -20105 -803 1050 2600 4118 5714 7350 8860 9945 10374
Pself kN -1466 -3850 -7085 -11037 -15527 -20343 -25253 -30000 -37763 -47300 -40090 -35485 -30500 -25330 -19950 -14673 -9660 -4869 -487
Masphalt kNm 1083 1826 2112 2054 1771 1389 948 464 -2910 -2852 -90 171 385 590 803 1020 1220 1365 1425
Pasphalt kN -205 -540 -994 -1550 -2183 -2873 -3556 -4228 -5329 -6649 -5623 -4971 -4271 -3543 -2788 -2049 -1348 -679 -67
Mbarriers kNm 579 977 1130 1099 947 743 507 248 -1557 -1526 -48 91 206 316 430 546 653 730 762
Pbarriers kN -110 -289 -532 -829 -1168 -1537 -1902 -2262 -2851 -3557 -3008 -2659 -2285 -1895 -1492 -1096 -721 -363 -36
Mlive min kNm -1115 -1820 -2050 -1951 -1655 -1260 -1260 -1926 -7165 -7034 -2960 -2930 -2900 -2890 -2805 -2590 -2193 -1684 7635
Mlive max kNm 5448 8816 9575 9020 7970 6742 5850 5105 555 460 5050 5636 6140 6625 7070 7650 7700 7716 7634
M @ End of Construction kNm 853 919 830 660 473 330 291 427 -2301 -2300 243 39 22 138 433 595 840 1031 1106
P @ End of Construction kN -6095 -12250 -18460 -24715 -31014 -37350 -43730 -50160 -63259 -63590 -50510 -44080 -37690 -31315 -24800 -18400 -12160 -5900 230
Long-term Moment Shift kNm 1760 2366 2655 2640 2382 1933 1331 581 -2722 -2519 537 903 1148 1315 1343 1507 1541 1557 1556
Long-term Axial Force Shift kN
ULS1 - D D + 1 P + 1.7 L
Mmin kNm 1164 1542 1638 1510 1248 995 55 -1924 -20348 -20010 -5004 -4628 -4154 -3593 -2705 -1719 -376 986 17025
Mmax kNm 12321 19623 21400 20161 17611 14598 12142 10029 -7224 -7270 8613 9934 11214 12582 14082 15689 16443 16966 17024
P kN -6513 -13348 -20480 -27863 -35445 -43163 -50939 -58726 -74046 -77086 -61941 -54194 -46383 -38532 -30482 -22578 -14910 -7286 92
ULS2 - D D + 1 P + 1.6 L + 1.15 K
Mmin kNm 3300 4445 4896 4741 4153 3344 1712 -1063 -22762 -22203 -4091 -3297 -2544 -1792 -880 273 1616 2945 18051
Mmax kNm 13800 21463 23496 22295 19553 16147 13088 10187 -10410 -10213 8725 10409 11920 13432 14920 16657 17445 17985 18050
P kN -6513 -13348 -20480 -27863 -35445 -43163 -50939 -58726 -74046 -77086 -61941 -54194 -46383 -38532 -30482 -22578 -14910 -7286 92
ULS9 - 1.35 D + 1 P
M kNm 4146 6465 7234 6874 5824 4513 3130 1800 -11039 -10869 -86 498 1139 1896 2864 3716 4597 5245 5502
P kN -6718 -13888 -21474 -29411 -37621 -46014 -54479 -62932 -79339 -83717 -67562 -59170 -50660 -42084 -33281 -24636 -16265 -7969 24

M ULS / M SLS 1.78 1.82 1.82 1.79 1.74 1.68 1.58 1.46 3.27 3.26 1.32 1.43 1.49 1.54 1.58 1.62 1.64 1.66 1.67
P ULS1 / P SLS (End Const) 1.07 1.09 1.11 1.13 1.14 1.16 1.16 1.17 1.17 1.21 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 0.40
P ULS2 / P SLS (50 years) 1.07 1.09 1.11 1.13 1.14 1.16 1.16 1.17 1.17 1.21 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 0.40
SLS Moment
M50% kNm 3305 4886 5139 4719 4060 3364 2924 2724 -2051 -2093 2516 2575 2785 3119 3615 4038 4305 4503 4541
Mmax kNm 6009 9402 10257 9800 8825 7686 6932 6399 -11472 -11150 6062 6390 6830 7388 8088 8778 9072 9281 9282
Pcorresponding kN -6574 -13163 -19905 -27123 -34545 -42084 -49666 -57222 -72059 -74183 -59690 -52329 -44908 -37431 -29736 -22145 -14733 -7300 -139
ULS Moment
Mmax kNm 13800 21463 23496 22295 19553 16147 13088 10187 -10410 -10213 8725 10409 11920 13432 14920 16657 17445 17985 18050
Pcorresponding * kN -6513 -13348 -20480 -27863 -35445 -43163 -50939 -58726 -74046 -77086 -61941 -54194 -46383 -38532 -30482 -22578 -14910 -7286 92
Bot Reinf 20-25M40-30M44-30M40-30M22-30M10-25M10-25M10-25M10-25M10-25M10-25M10-25M10-25M10-25M20-25M30-25M34-25M40-25M40-25M

Centered PT (19-15 units) 12 12 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Mcr -19300 -19300 6700 6470

M0.2 cracks 8700 11000 11333 11022 10667 10333 10889 11111 -23667 -23667 12644 11600 8778 8556 9778 10327 10222 10256 9778
Mr 15300 22100 23600 22900 19800 17100 17300 17400 -21300 -21300 17600 16385 13800 14100 15600 16900 17400 18200 18300
Msls / M0.2 0.69 0.85 0.91 0.89 0.83 0.74 0.64 0.58 0.48 0.47 0.48 0.55 0.78 0.86 0.83 0.85 0.89 0.90 0.95
Mf / Mr 0.90 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.94 0.76 0.59 0.49 0.48 0.50 0.64 0.86 0.95 0.96 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.99
* to account for the increase in axial force in the girder due to increase in permanent loads At SLS Moment,
bot stress is up to
30 Mpa.
157
Stiff Girder Extradosed Bridge PT Design - Forces in Cables

8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000 SLS Prelim Max kN
2000 SLS End of Const Max kN
1000 SLS Final Max kN
0
1010
1009
1008
1007
1006
1005
1004
1003
1002
1001
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
ACTUAL PIER
Cable 1010 1009 1008 1007 1006 1005 1004 1003 1002 1001 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Distance from CL x m -137 -131 -125 -119 -113 -107 -101 -95 -89 -83 -57 -51 -45 -39 -33 -27 -21 -15 -9 -3
Cable length Lo m 68.327 62.208 56.089 49.970 43.852 37.733 31.614 25.495 19.376 13.257 13.257 19.376 25.495 31.614 37.733 43.852 49.970 56.089 62.208 68.327
Cable Area A m2 0.0093 0.0093 0.0093 0.0093 0.0093 0.0093 0.0093 0.0093 0.0093 0.0093 0.0093 0.0093 0.0093 0.0093 0.0093 0.0093 0.0093 0.0093 0.0093 0.0093
899 800 701 602 503 404 305 206 107 8 998 1097 1196 1295 1394 1493 1592 1691 1790 1889
Load Cases from SAP
SELF 0 kN 1490 2426 3295 4027 4575 4909 5005 4839 4373 3542 3254 4118 4697 5068 5281 5360 5322 5170 4909 4544
ASPHALT 11 kN 209 341 464 567 645 693 707 685 620 503 462 584 664 715 743 753 746 723 686 635
BARRIERS 22 kN 112 182 248 303 345 371 378 366 332 269 247 312 355 382 397 403 399 387 367 340
TGAASHTO 33 kN -9 -37 -52 -57 -54 -47 -38 -27 -17 -8 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 -1 -2 -3
CABLES 44 kN 3645 2753 1923 1224 706 402 338 546 1070 1982 2263 1321 692 289 58 -34 -6 132 372 708
LIVEL, Max 77 kN 543 566 886 1156 1353 1474 1535 1523 1420 1194 1162 1379 1485 1522 1520 1498 1460 1410 1357 1310
LIVEL, Min 88 kN -239 -69 -17 -7 -3 -1 -26 -49 -56 -48 -83 -77 -62 -41 -24 -43 -71 -104 -144 -192
NLCANTCON 55 kN 6057 6141 6224 6300 6368 6428 6485 6541 6610 6700 6635 6540 6478 6452 6450 6459 6456 6437 6410 6363
NL50YEARS 66 kN 5521 5785 6035 6252 6425 6545 6611 6620 6590 6530 6398 6419 6432 6455 6482 6503 6491 6446 6376 6270
Serviceability Limit States

SLS Prelim Permanent kN 5456 5702 5929 6121 6271 6374 6429 6437 6394 6296 6227 6335 6408 6454 6479 6482 6460 6413 6335 6227
SLS Prelim Max kN 5944 6212 6726 7161 7489 7701 7811 7808 7672 7371 7273 7576 7745 7824 7847 7830 7774 7682 7556 7406
SLS End of Const Max kN 6546 6651 7021 7340 7585 7755 7867 7912 7888 7775 7681 7780 7815 7821 7817 7807 7770 7706 7632 7542
SLS Final Max kN 6010 6295 6832 7293 7642 7872 7993 7991 7867 7605 7444 7660 7769 7824 7849 7851 7806 7715 7598 7449
Permanent fp/fpu 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37
Live Load Force Range kN 703 572 812 1046 1220 1327 1405 1415 1328 1118 1121 1310 1392 1406 1390 1387 1378 1363 1351 1352
Live Load Stress Range MPa 76 62 87 113 131 143 151 152 143 120 121 141 150 151 149 149 148 147 145 145
SETRA Allowable 0.45 0.54 0.56 0.52 0.49 0.47 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.46 0.48 0.48 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.46 0.46
Actual fp/fpu 0.38 0.38 0.41 0.42 0.44 0.45 0.45 0.46 0.46 0.45 0.44 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.44 0.44
Actual / Allowable 0.84 0.85 0.90 0.94 0.97 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.01 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.97
Ultimate Limit States

ULS Self 0.2 298 485 659 805 915 982 1001 968 875 708 651 824 939 1014 1056 1072 1064 1034 982 909
ULS Asphalt 0.5 105 171 232 284 323 346 354 342 310 251 231 292 332 357 371 376 373 362 343 318
ULS Barriers 0.2 22 36 50 61 69 74 76 73 66 54 49 62 71 76 79 81 80 77 73 68
ULS Live Load Max 1.7 923 963 1505 1965 2300 2507 2610 2590 2413 2030 1976 2344 2525 2587 2583 2546 2483 2397 2308 2227
ULS1 - End of Construction 7405 7796 8669 9414 9974 10337 10526 10514 10274 9744 9543 10061 10345 10486 10540 10534 10456 10308 10116 9884
ULS9 - End of Construction 0.35 6691 7173 7626 8014 8316 8519 8617 8603 8474 8210 8022 8294 8479 8610 8697 8739 8719 8636 8497 8294
ULS1 Actual fp/fpu 0.43 0.45 0.50 0.54 0.58 0.60 0.61 0.61 0.59 0.56 0.55 0.58 0.60 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.60 0.58 0.57
APPENDIX C
Chapter 4 Quantities
158
159
C.1 Breakdown of Prestressing Quantities of Chapter 4 Bridges
The prestressing quantities, by tendon type, for bridges designed in Chapter 4 are summarised in Table C-
1, Table C-2, Table C-3, Table C-4.
Table C-1. Prestressing quantities in cantilever-constructed girder bridge with internal prestressing.
Tendon Unit Cable Length (m) Anchorages Duct Couplers
Internal 19-15mm dia. strand 5840 156 768
Total longitudinal prestressing - 162 tonnes
Table C-2. Prestressing quantities in cantilever-constructed girder bridge with internal and external prestressing.
External 27-15mm dia. strand 1240 20
Table C-3. Prestressing quantities in stiff girder extradosed bridge.

Extradosed* 19-15mm dia. strand 3264 160
External 27-15mm dia. strand 1224 20
Transverse 19-15mm dia. strand 1120 160
Total transverse prestressing - 24.9 tonnes
*Extradosed tendons do not require retensioning.
Strand for extradosed cables shall be galvanized and invidually sheathed.
Extradosed anchorage: external multistrand anchorage with stay cable protection details.
Table C-4. Prestressing quantities in stiff tower extradosed bridge.

Stay Cables* 31-16mm dia. strand 3264 160
Total transverse prestressing - 9.2 tonnes
*Stay cables require retensioning with gradient jack or strand by strand.
Strand for stay cables shall be galvanized and invidually sheathed.
APPENDIX D
Presentation Handout
160
Average Thickness of Concrete Girder Behaviour and Design of Extradosed Bridges 161
1.17
Girder Regression
Kris Mermigas - MASc Thesis Presentation - 28 August 2008
1.1 Cantilever Constructed Girder
Extradosed
1.0
Cable-Stayed
KM Design Average Thickness of Concrete Girder in Extradosed Bridges
0.91
0.9 0.9 Miyakodagawa
Average depth of concrete, m3 /m2
Pyung-Yeo
Average depth of concrete, m 3 /m2

Extradosed Regression Korong
Shin-Karato
Regression
0.8 0.8 Domovinski Ganter
Odawara
Tsukuhara
Hozu Yukisawa-
Ohashi Pearl Harbor Ibi Kiso
Himi
0.7 0.7 Shinkawa
Pakse
Shin-Meisei
Saint-Remy
Rittoh
0.6 Cable-Stayed 0.6 Socorridos North Arm
Trois Bassins
Regression
0.5 0.5 Barton Brazil-Peru Sunniberg
Arret-Darre
0.4 0.4
0.39 Rio Branco
0.34
0.3 0.3
0 100 200 300 400 500 50 100 150 200 250 275
Longest Span, m Longest Span, m
Moment of Inertia of Deck at Midspan Span to Girder Depth Ratios

140 Constant Depth Simple Supports
Constant Depth Embedded
25 120 Variable Depth Simple Supports at midspan
Variable Depth Embedded at pier
100
Extradosed
Cable-Stayed
80
Span : Depth
20
60 55
40
30
Midspan I per 10 m width, m 4
Mathivat
15 20
0
50 66 100 150 200 250 275
Longest Span, m
10
Span to Tower Height Ratios 15

Mathivat
14
5 12
10
Span : Height of Tower

Sunniberg 8
8
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 530 6 5
Longest Span, m Cable-Stayed Typical
4
0
50 66 100 150 200 250 275
Longest Span, m
Cantilever Constructed Girder Bridge Stiff Girder Extradosed Bridge Stiff Tower Extradosed Bridge
Permanent Loads Live Load Envelope Live Load Envelope 162
Live Load Envelope
(at end of construction) -24800 kNm -1100 kNm
Permanent Loads Permanent Loads 2500 kNm 9670 kNm 7630 kNm
(at end of construction) 25600 kNm 29700 kNm (at end of construction)
33000 kNm 38800 kNm

Temperature Gradient
Temperature Gradient Temperature Gradient
Permanent Loads
(after 50 years)
-4330 kNm 3000 kNm 1630 kNm
Permanent Loads Permanent Loads
61300 kNm (after 50 years) 25200 kNm 21400 kNm (after 50 years)
Span : Depth = 44
Span : Depth = 17.5
Span : Depth = 50 Span : Depth = 140
A = 7.9 m2 A = 13.5 m2 A = 7.1 m2 A = 6.1 m2

I = 11.9 m4 I = 127 m4 I = 8.3 m4 I = 0.41 m4
Quantity Average Cost Cost per m Quantity Average Cost Cost per m Quantity Average Cost Cost per m
(m or Mg) quantities ($1000) roadway ($) (m or Mg) quantities ($1000) roadway ($) (m or Mg) quantities ($1000) roadway ($)
Concrete (m3) 2985 1.00 0.78 m 2985 780 Concrete (m3) 2570 0.86 0.59 m 2570 670 Concrete (m3) 1825 0.66* 0.46 m 1825 510
Prestressing Steel 146.6 0.91 49 kg/m 1033 270 Prestressing Steel 178.4 1.10 59 kg/m 1810 470 Prestressing Steel 159.4 1.06* 80 kg/m 1871 530
Stays/Extradosed Cable 38 kg/m 713 Extradosed Cables 68.2 39 kg/m 926 Stays 31.1 41 kg/m 1557
Internal PT 109.8 320 Internal PT 49.1 319 Internal PT 202
External PT 36.8 External PT 36.3 316 External PT 119.1
Transverse PT Transverse PT 24.9 249 Transverse PT 9.2 92
Reinforcing Steel 269 0.72 90 kg/m 1075 280 Reinforcing Steel 231 0.62 90 kg/m 926 170 Reinforcing Steel 219 0.63* 120 kg/m 876 250
Total 5090 1330 1.00 Total 5010 1310 0.98 Total 4550 1285 0.97
* Relative factors are multiplied by 1.078 to account for the bridges shorter total length.

Mermigas Konstantinos K 200811 MASc Thesis PDF

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

Mermigas Konstantinos K 200811 MASc Thesis PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Behaviour and Design of

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

Copyright by Konstantinos Kris Mermigas (2008)

Konstantinos Kris Mermigas

viii LIST OF FIGURES

xiii LIST OF TABLES

1 1 WHAT MAKES A BRIDGE EXTRADOSED?

2 1.2 Objectives and Scope

3 1.3 Historical Context

13 1.4 General Studies on Extradosed Bridges

15 2 REVIEW OF EXISTING EXTRADOSED BRIDGES

15 2.2 Trends in Extradosed Bridges to Date

29 2.3 Characteristics of Extradosed Bridges

31 2.3.2 Girder Stiffness

32 2.4 Detailed Descriptions of Extradosed Bridges

33 2.4.2 Tsukuhara Extradosed Bridge, Japan

34 2.4.3 Ibi and Kiso River Bridges, Japan

35 2.4.4 Shin-Meisei Bridge, Japan

36 2.4.5 North Arm Bridge, Canada

37 2.4.6 Pont de Saint-Rmy-de-Maurienne, France

38 2.4.7 Viaduc de la ravine des Trois Bassins, Runion

38 2.4.8 Sunniberg Bridge at Klosters, Switzerland

40 2.5 Concluding Remarks

46 3.2 Design Concepts

48 3.2.2 Stiffness of Superstructure and Substructure

50 3.2.3 Prestressing Methodology

52 3.3 Conceptual Design

53 3.3.2 Side Span Length

53 3.3.3 Tower Height and Girder Depth

56 3.4 Stay Cables and Anchorages

60 3.4.2 Stay Cable Protection

60 3.4.3 Anchorages in Girder

61 3.4.4 Cable Anchorage in Towers: Saddles or Anchorages?

64 3.4.5 Equivalent Modulus of Elasticity for Stay Cables

65 3.4.6 Preliminary Design of Stay Cables at Serviceability Limit States

67 3.4.7 Verification of Stay Cables at the Fatigue Limit State

68 3.4.8 Verification of Stay Cables at Ultimate Limit States

69 3.4.9 Stay Cable Tensioning

74 3.5 Towers and Piers

78 3.6.2 Laterally Supported Single Cell Box Girder Cross-Section

78 3.6.3 Multiple Cell Box Girder Cross-Section

80 3.6.4 Laterally Supported Stiffened Slab Cross-Section

81 3.6.5 Composite Cross-Section

82 3.7 Tendon Layout

85 3.9 Verification at the Ultimate Limit States

86 3.10 Concluding Remarks

90 4.1.2 Analysis and Limit States Verification

91 4.1.3 Temperature Gradient

92 4.1.4 Construction Sequence and Segment Construction Cycle

93 4.2 Cantilever Constructed Girder Bridge

93 4.2.2 Longitudinal Prestressing

96 4.2.3 Verification at SLS and ULS

97 4.3 Extradosed Bridge with Stiff Deck

98 4.3.2 Longitudinal Prestressing

100 4.3.3 Comparison with Bending Moments in a Girder Bridge

102 4.3.4 Detailed Model

102 4.3.5 Verification at SLS and ULS

104 4.4 Extradosed Bridge with Stiff Tower

106 4.4.2 Detailed Model

108 4.4.3 Verification at SLS and ULS

108 4.5 Design Comparison

109 4.5.2 Material Quantities

110 4.5.3 Cost Comparison