A cement and concrete industry publication

Modular Precast Concrete

Bridges
A state-of-the-art report

Technical Guide No. 11

Acknowledgements
The Concrete Bridge Development Group is particularly pleased to acknowledge the work of Simon Bourne
of Benaim in preparing this report and to Benaim for providing photographs and diagrams for inclusion in
this publication:

CBDG acknowledges financial support from The Concrete Centre in the production of this publication.
www.concretecentre.com

Published for and on behalf of the Concrete Bridge Development Group by

The Concrete Society
Riverside House, 4 Meadows Business Park, Station Approach, Blackwater, Camberley, Surrey GU17 9AB
Tel: +44 (0)1276 607140 Fax: +44 (0)1276 607141
www.concrete.org.uk

CCIP-028
Published December 2008
ISBN 978-1-904482-52-9
© Concrete Bridge Development Group
Order reference: CBDG/TG11

CCIP publications are produced by The Concrete Society on behalf of the Cement and Concrete Industry
Publications Forum – an industry initiative to publish technical guidance in support of concrete design and
construction.

CCIP publications are available from the Concrete Bookshop at www.concretebookshop.com

Tel: +44 (0)7004 607777

All rights reserved. Except as permitted under current legislation no part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval
system, published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast, transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission of the copyright owner. Enquiries should be addressed to the Concrete Bridge Development Group.

Although the Concrete Bridge Development Group (limited by guarantee) does its best to ensure that any advice, recommendations
or information it may give either in this publication or elsewhere is accurate, no liability or responsibility of any kind (including
liability for negligence) howsoever and from whatsoever cause arising, is accepted in this respect by the Group, its servants or
agents.

Printed by Holbrooks Printers Ltd, Portsmouth, UK

Modular precast concrete bridges

Contents
List of figures 2
List of tables 2
Executive summary 3
1. Introduction 5
2. Market assessment 6
3. Modular precast concrete bridge 8
3.1 Highway bridge 8
3.2 Railway bridge 10
4. Structural details 12
4.1 Span variations 12
4.2 Width variations 13
4.3 Curvature 14
4.4 Skew 14
5. Construction options 15
5.1 Span lift construction 15
5.2 Incremental launching 17
5.3 Self-propelled modular transporters 18
5.4 Gantry 19
6. Construction programme and costs 21
6.1 Capital investment requirements 21
6.2 Case study 1: Three-span highway overbridge 22
6.3 Case study 2: Single-span highway overbridge 25
7. Conclusions 28
References 30
Appendix A. Scheme drawings 31
Appendix B. Construction programmes 37
List of figures
Figure 1 Completed modular precast bridge.
Figure 2 Typical mid-span section through modular highway bridge.
Figure 3 Typical longitudinal section through modular highway bridge.
Figure 4 Typical mid-span section through 27 m-span modular railway bridge.
Figure 5 Typical sections for varying span requirements.
Figure 6 Typical span-to-depth ratios for proposed system.
Figure 7 Typical sections for varying width requirements.
Figure 8 A51 Grenoble overbridge.
Figure 9 Installation of A51 Grenoble overbridge.
Figure 10 Span lift construction sequence.
(a) Installation of first span; (b) installation of final span.
Figure 11 Incremental launching construction sequence.
(a) Launching of first rib; (b) completed launch of second rib.
Figure 12 Installation of Badhoevedorp Bridge.
Figure 13 Lavender Road Bridge, Kent.
Figure 14 Gantry system in use on Stanstead Abbotts Bypass.
Figure 15 Three-span highway overbridge layout adopted for Case Study 1.
Figure 16 Section through modular precast bridge.
Figure 17 Section through steel-composite bridge.
Figure 18 Single-span highway overbridge layout adopted for Case Study 2.
Figure 19 Section through modular precast bridge.
Figure 20 Section through steel-composite bridge.

Figure A1 Three-span option (20–25–20 m) – general arrangement.

Figure A2 Three-span option (20–25–20 m) – typical details.
Figure A3 Three-span option (35–45–35 m) – general arrangement.
Figure A4 Typical details of bridge system 1.
Figure A5 Typical details of bridge system 2.
Figure A6 Three-span option (20–25–20 m) – Span lift construction.
Figure B1 Case Study 1 – three-span layout (20–25–20 m).
Figure B2 Case Study 2 – single-span layout (45 m).

List of tables
Table 1 Typical features of steel-composite overbridge structures.
Table 2 Typical features of precast concrete beam overbridge structures.
Table 3 Details of modular precast bridge system.
Table 4 Capital investment costs for modular bridge system.
Table 5 Cost summary for three-span overbridge.
Table 6 Cost summary for single-span overbridge.
Executive summary
The bridge market in the UK is set to grow steadily over the next five to ten years due in
part to the major improvements to the highways network. This publication outlines the
development of a new modular precast concrete bridge system, which offers a real alter-
native to steel-composite construction for medium-span bridges. It is considered that
this modular precast concrete bridge system has the potential to place concrete as the
preferred option for medium-span (15–50 m) bridges in the UK. The system combines the
best features of steel-composite, precast concrete, and in-situ concrete into a solution that
can deliver the highest value at the majority of bridge locations. The system makes use of
concrete shell units that are precast off site and builds upon the recent, successful and
innovative use of segmental and incremental launching technology used on two projects
in Ireland, namely the Taney Road Bridge for Graham Construction and the River Shannon
Bridge for Irishenco Construction.

The system benefits from relatively light, 2.5 m long, precast concrete shell units that can
be easily transported to site for assembly. Permanent prestressing cables are then placed
and are covered by in-situ concrete to provide additional composite action as well as the
required protection. The focus on precast concrete elements and off-site construction also
ensures that a high-quality product is constructed within a safe environment. A further
benefit is that the construction methodology can be varied to suit specific bridge sites and
demands of the project programme. The flexibility of the system is such that it can enable
the use of incremental launching, lifting using mobile cranes, lifting using transporters and
erection using a temporary gantry. This allows the contractor scope to select the construction
option that most suits the location and complexities of the project.

The modular system is shown to be suitable for a wide range of typical highway bridge
layouts. Varying span lengths, carriageway widths, horizontal and vertical curvatures, and
skew can be readily accommodated by the match-cast shell units. The system provides an
elegant solution with the benefit of being relatively maintenance-free. Two typical highway
overbridge layouts are shown, which allow the construction costs and programmes of the
modular precast to be compared with steel-composite alternatives. The case studies used
are a three-span structure with spans of 20–25–20 m and a single 45 m span. In both cases
the modular precast concrete system has been shown to offer significant cost and/or
programme savings over a steel-composite alternative.

The modular precast concrete system only requires an initial capital investment of less
than £250k. Initial studies indicate that this can be financed over five to ten bridges which,
given the 80 bridges built per annum in the UK, suggests a viable return in only two to
three years.

The system places concrete as the future for medium-span bridges by offering notable
benefits over alternative solutions, namely safer, faster, higher quality, less traffic disruption,
less maintenance, more sustainable, more affordable, more buildable, more elegant and
higher value.
 Introduction 1

1. Introduction
A review of the highway market in the UK indicates that growth will be strong over the next
ten years. Currently in the UK there is greater use of steel-composite construction but this
approach is not generally reflected elsewhere in the world. This technical guide describes
the development of a modular precast bridge system that has the potential to re-establish
concrete as the preferred option for medium-span bridges, in the range 15–50 m spans.
The system combines the best features of steel-composite, precast beam, in-situ and
segmental schemes into a solution that can deliver the highest value at the majority of
bridge locations.

This guide gives an overview of the new system, which has been developed by Benaim
following the recent, successful and innovative use of segmental technology on two
alternative design projects in the Republic of Ireland, namely the Taney Road Bridge for
Graham Construction and the River Shannon Bridge for Irishenco Construction. Both
projects exhibited the ease of construction while also reducing cost and programme time.
Experience suggests that the innovations developed from these bespoke schemes have
the possibility to reduce the current steel-composite dominance on highway bridges in
the UK.

5
2 Market assessment

2. Market assessment
In the years immediately following the publication of the Department for Transport’s Ten-
year plan in 2000(1), investment in the highway sector was sluggish. More recently, however,
funding has returned to the highway sector, illustrated by an increase in spending by the
Highways Agency in Major improvements in the strategic road network(2) and confirmed by
the publication of The future of transport: A network for 2030(3) by the Department for
Transport in 2004. Bridge structures form an important element in the majority of highway
schemes, and hence it is expected that the bridge market will increase in line with this
overall investment.

The responsibility for the construction of highway bridges in the UK lies with the Highways
Agency (HA), local and regional authorities and private developers. Determining the total
number of typical bridges constructed in any given year is a difficult task due to the lack
of a central database of information. Two different approaches were adopted to allow a
best estimate. First, the HA website and the Glenigan construction information database
(the latter compiled for local/regional authorities and private developers) were used to
estimate the number of bridges constructed, based on data from recent years. The other
method used the HA’s business plan for expenditure on major improvements to the network
for 2006/07 assuming that one bridge is built for every £10 million spent.

The results from these studies indicated that, on average, around 80 typical bridges per year
are built in the UK. A typical bridge, for the purposes of this Guide, carries about 1000 m2
of deck area.

Concrete is the material of choice for the majority of short-span bridges. However, the
use of precast concrete beams in medium-span structures has declined in recent years
with steel-composite construction controlling this portion of the market. The often-
perceived advantages and disadvantages associated with steel-composite and precast
concrete bridge types are presented in Tables 1 and 2 respectively.

Table 1 Advantages Disadvantages

Typical features of steel-composite overbridge
structures. Low risk Work at height
Fast Aesthetics
Good quality Maintenance
Buildability Material economy
Good traffic management
Labour economy
Low technology

6
 Market assessment 2

Table 2 Advantages Disadvantages

Typical features of precast concrete beam
overbridge structures. Low risk Work at height
Good quality Aesthetics
Buildability Less efficient
Good traffic management
Durability
Sustainability
Labour economy
Low technology

A comparison of the two construction types would suggest that they are similar, but with
precast beams offering a better overall solution than steel-composite due to environmental
sustainability and whole-life durability.

It is believed that this new modular precast concrete bridge system with its well-engineered
solutions, enhanced value, lower maintenance and improved aesthetics will offer a real
alternative to steel-composite construction. The cost and programme time of the system
are very competitive when compared with steel-composite solutions (see Chapter 6). The
system also offers the potential to form a pleasing, sustainable solution that will benefit
clients and customers, both over the life of the bridges and through their delivery in a safe
and efficient manner.

7
3 Modular precast concrete bridge

3. Modular precast concrete bridge

The modular precast system outlined in this publication consists of relatively light, 2.5 m
long, precast shell units that are precast off site and can be easily transported. On site, the
units are assembled, stressed together and in-situ concrete placed. The combined units
are positioned using launching or lifting technology, dependent on the site characteristics.
Figure 1 shows a completed three-span modular precast bridge.

Figure 1
Completed modular precast bridge.

3.1 Highway bridge Figures 2 and 3 show typical sections through the modular bridge. Where the bridge is
constructed using the Span lift method (see Chapter 5), the wall thickness of the precast
unit is reduced in order to minimise the weight to be lifted.

Figure 2
Typical mid-span section through 2100 footway 3650 carriageway 3650 carriageway 2100 footway
modular highway bridge.

Precast edge unit

CL
In-situ infill concrete
200

. . . .
1500

1500
2 No. 19/15 mm
100

200
launch cables
Temporary prestressing bars
2 No. 32 Dia.
6 No. 19/15 mm 1000 1500 1000
profile cables Precast concrete shell
approx. 2500 long 250 250

8
 Modular precast concrete bridge 3

Figure 3
Typical longitudinal section 2500 typical uit 2000 to 3000 range
through modular highway bridge. C
L C
L Launch cable
ducts

1500 typical

400
Diaphragm Precast unit In-situ infill Profiled cable
ducts
Glued, match-cast or
25-50 thick grouted/
concrete joint

The system is broken down into its constituent components and explained in detail in
Table 3. Reference should also be made to the illustrative drawings given in Figures A1–A6
of Appendix A.

Table 3 System component Advantage

Details of modular precast bridge system.
Precast, segmental shell units formed as a single rib
and top slab
Units that are around 5 m wide and 2.5 m long
Units that can be varied in width (4–6 m)
Units that can be varied in depth (1–3 m)
Units that can be varied in length (2–3 m)
Units that can be match-cast and glued with epoxy
resin
Units that can be positioned using a number of
methods, i.e. incremental launching, Span lift,
transporter or gantry
Shell units that are then infilled with in-situ concrete,
which houses all the internal prestressing cables
A deck that is then prestressed internally from end to
end with profiled cables that carry all the load effects
A deck that can be made fully integral with bankseat Reduces future maintenance costs by eliminating all
abutments and fully monolithic with intermediate piers bearings and expansion joints
Reduces the required mould technology normally
associated with box forms
High-quality components constructed off site
Easily transported to site (12–15 t each)
Variety of road widths catered for (4–40 m)
Variety of spans catered for (12–50 m)
Variety of bridge lengths catered for (up to 150 m)
Easily assembled on site
Vertical and horizontal curvature easily accommodated
High-quality joint between adjacent shells
Construction methods that can be adopted to suit
site characteristics and programme requirements
Provides continuous ducts and protection to the
cables (in accordance with Concrete Society TR47,
Durable post-tensioned concrete bridges(4))
Efficient use of structural materials

The use of the precast segmental process allows high-quality, accurate and factory-
produced units to be created in a safe and efficient manner. The use of precast shell units
also allows the in-situ infill concrete to be poured in small bays, thus eliminating most
issues associated with early-age thermal and restraint effects. In addition the use of the
shell units eliminates the complex technology needed for box moulds.

9
3 Modular precast concrete bridge

The use of the launching or lifting processes allows safe and easy construction, minimising
disruption to traffic and considerably reducing the amount of work at height over the road,
which can generally be kept open throughout; when closures are required, they are short and
compact. The deck can be fully aligned and formed before the launch or the lift, enhancing
the speed and quality of construction.

The modular system can cater for a variety of deck configurations as detailed in Chapter 4.
In addition, the construction methodology can be varied to suit the site characteristics and
project requirements. This is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5.

Chapter 6 looks at the cost and programme implications for two typical bridge layouts. On
both counts the proposed modular system is shown to be very competitive compared with
a steel-composite solution.

3.2 Railway bridge Figure 4 shows how the modular bridge system can be adopted to suit the UK railway
environment. The main longitudinal ribs are located to the side, thus permitting a shallow
construction depth.

Figure 4
Typical mid-span section through 27 m-span
modular railway bridge. Structure gauge
at zero cant In-situ infill

In-situ stitch Approx. 2500 long

precast unit

The characteristics and benefits of the system are similar to those of the highway bridge
option, i.e. a buildable and economic structure with a clean aesthetic and simple details,
which is robust to impact, and has low maintenance and enhanced safety through its off-
site and off-line construction. The construction methodology can also be varied to suit
specific bridge sites and demands of the project programme.

3.2.1 Medium-span bridges There are a number of construction options available, which are discussed further in
Chapter 5. Those of particular merit for medium-span (15–40 m) modular railway bridge
structures are as follows:

10
 Modular precast concrete bridge 3

„ Launched method The deck is built, as a kit of parts, off-line from the railway, and from
the road over which it will cross. From this off-line platform, it is assembled, stitched
and prestressed, and then launched in its complete form over the roadway to a position
alongside the existing bridge, where it becomes supported on slide tracks. From here,
the new concrete bridge would then be slid sideways during a possession period. This
whole process significantly reduces the work at height over the roadway.
„ Sliding method The deck is assembled adjacent to its final position, either at road
level during a medium-term road closure, or on a gantry at high level. The deck is then
stitched and prestressed, and during the possession period jacked onto slide tracks and
slid sideways.
„ Self-propelled modular transporter (SPMT) method The deck is fully assembled and
prestressed off line. The entire deck is then transported and lifted into position during
the possession period.

3.2.2 Short-span bridges Shorter-span bridges in the range 10–15 m comprise the majority of railway underbridges
in the UK. The construction options for such bridges are similar to those for medium-span
bridges. However, the lower deck weights (of around 150 t for a double-track structure) also
permit the use of a large mobile crane that would be capable of lifting the entire structure
into position during limited possession time.

11
4 Structural details

4. Structural details
This chapter examines the ability of the modular system to cope with a variety of bridge
layouts and configurations. Reference should also be made to the illustrative drawings
given in Figures A1–A6 in Appendix A.

4.1 Span variations The modular precast system is adaptable to varying span requirements. Figure 5 shows how
the depth of the shells can be varied to allow different spans to be achieved. Preliminary
calculations have been undertaken for typical single-span, two-span and three-span highway
overbridge layouts as part of this design study.

Figure 5
Typical sections for varying span
requirements. C
L

1000 -
1500

Minimum section: Spans 15-25 m

C
L

Precast 1500 -
Launch units 2000
cables In-situ stitch
In-situ infill
Profiled
span cables
Typical section: Spans 25-35 m

CL

2000 -
3000

Maximum section: Spans 35-50 m

For typical spans between 25 m and 35 m, the section depth would vary between 1.5 and
2.0 m. The minimum depth for shorter spans is 1.0 m, increasing to a maximum of 3.0 m
for longer spans of between 35 and 50 m. Figure 6 shows the range of span-to-depth
ratios for typical schemes.

12
 Structural details 4

Figure 6
Typical span-to-depth ratios for proposed
3.5
system.
Max depth
3.0

2.5

Depth (m)
2.0

1.5

Min depth
1.0

Maximum (1:15)
0.5 Typical (1:17)
Minimum(1:20)

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Span (m)

4.2 Width variations The modular precast system is also adaptable to varying width requirements. Figure 7
shows how the width of the bridge deck can be changed through a variation in unit width
and/or varying the width of the central in-situ stitch.

Figure 7
Typical sections for varying width
4000 1000 4000
requirements.
CL

Narrow deck: 9 m

5000 1500 5000

C
L

Typical deck width: 11.5 m

6000 2000 6000

C
L

Wide deck: 14 m

13
4 Structural details

4.3 Curvature The modular precast units can also be match-cast, thereby allowing any curvature to be
achieved. Match-casting ensures that units are easily assembled on site and provides a
high-quality joint between adjacent precast units.

4.4 Skew Figure A5 in Appendix A shows a typical three-span highway overbridge with skews of
7.5°, 15° and 30°. The modular system can cater for skew by:

„ forming a skew end with the precast end units, which can be readily achieved by using
an additional stop end in the mould;
„ spanning square between the abutments – a slight increase in span is required but the
cost of additional material is minimal;
„ spanning skew between abutments with cast-in-situ end sections, which are poured
with the integral abutments.

14
 Construction options 5

5. Construction options
A number of easily constructible options have been developed with the purpose of
identifying the most suitable option for the UK highway market.

5.1 Span lift construction Span lift construction is an attractive method of construction that has been developed as
part of this study. This method provides a more efficient structural form while utilising
traditional UK bridge construction skills, i.e. heavy lifting technology.

As noted in Chapter 3, where a bridge is constructed via the Span lift method, the wall
thickness of the precast unit is reduced in order to minimise the weight to be lifted. Figure A6
of Appendix A details the typical construction sequence and shell units.

The construction sequence for a typical single-span bridge is as follows:

„ Shell units are transported to site and aligned at road level close to the bridge site.
„ Permanent external prestress is applied to the shell units alone.
„ The complete 5 m-wide rib is lifted into position using a large mobile crane.
„ Infill concrete is poured into ribs.
„ Further permanent prestress is applied to the composite section.
„ Adjacent ribs are stitched together.
„ Parapet edge beams and finishes are applied.

This method is suited to both single- and multi-span bridges. In the case of a multi-span
bridge, cast-in-situ segments are required at the pier locations, prior to the installation of
full-length continuity prestressing cables.

The method is more attractive to the UK industry as it employs well-known technology in

the form of large mobile cranes. Mobile cranes of up to 1000 t capacity are now available,
which allow a 35 m rib of around 125 t weight to be lifted at a radius of over 30 m. More
widely available, and more easily rigged, mobile cranes of 800 t capacity would allow the
same 35 m rib to be lifted at a radius of about 25 m.

As the initial prestress is applied to the shell section alone, its structural efficiency is signi-
ficantly enhanced, thus reducing the total amount of prestress required. The method also
avoids the need for investing in launching/gantry equipment, thus reducing the initial
capital investment cost, and the cost required in constructing temporary props.

A similar method has recently been used during the construction of a bridleway overbridge
on the A51 in Grenoble by Vinci (Figure 8). Although it differs significantly in terms of its
section, this scheme is very similar with regard to the construction method.

15
5 Construction options

Figure 8
Cross-section of A51 Grenoble overbridge.

140

120
1640

2100

Figure 9
Installation of A51 Grenoble
overbridge.

The 190 t bridge was constructed at road level parallel to the road, and then lifted and
turned through 90° during a road closure (Figure 9), in a similar vein to that proposed for
the modular precast bridge solution.

16
 Construction options 5

a) Installation of first span b) Installation of final span

Figure 10
Span lift construction beginning and end Figures 10(a) and 10(b) show a graphic representation of part of the sequence of construction
stages. for the Span lift scheme. It is believed that this method offers great potential, and the
associated cost and programme implications are investigated further in Chapter 6.

5.2 Incremental launching The concept of the modular bridge system began with incremental launching as the
envisaged construction methodology, and it is thought that this method should generally
be the preferred option at most multi-span locations. Figure A2 of Appendix A details the
typical construction sequence.

The major advantages associated with launched construction include safety, due to minimal
work at height over the carriageway; minimal traffic disruption, due to the smaller number
of short closures that are required; and a higher quality because of the off-line construction.

This system can be developed with or without the need for temporary propping. However,
the use of temporary propping reduces the length of the launching nose and the amount
of central prestressing steel required.

The construction sequence for a typical multi-span bridge is as follows:

„ Shell units are transported to site and aligned behind the abutment.
„ Units are stressed together longitudinally with prestressing bars.
„ Infill concrete is poured into ribs.
„ Adjacent ribs are stitched together transversely.
„ Permanent launching prestress is applied to the composite section.
„ The complete bridge deck is pushed into position using launching jacks and a nose,
possibly using temporary props.
„ Further permanent prestress is applied to the launched section.
„ Parapet edge beams and finishes are applied.

17
5 Construction options

a) Launching of first rib b) Completed launch of second rib

Figure 11
Incremental launching construction sequence. Figures 11(a) and 11(b) give a graphic representation of part of the sequence of construction
for the launched scheme.

This method is very suitable for many bridge types/locations, especially multi-span structures,
and the associated cost and programme implications are investigated in parallel with that
of the Span lift method in Chapter 6.

5.3 Self-propelled modular Self-propelled modular transporters (SPMT) are beginning to be used in the UK on bridge
transporters projects. SPMT allow very large loads to be lifted and moved in a controlled manner. The
four- and six-axle line units can be assembled into any combination to allow the required
load to be moved. The units offer 360° steering, hydraulic suspension and electronic control
of individual wheel units.

For the modular precast bridge system, the SPMT are believed to be most suitable for
moving large or unusual single-span structures. They offer improved safety conditions as
the bridge is constructed off-line and then transported to site and lifted in place during a
single road closure. Their use would also be very suitable for the railway sector.

Recent examples of SPMT in use on bridge projects include the Badhoevedorp Bridge in the
Netherlands and the Lavender Road Bridge in Kent, UK In the case of the Badhoevedorp
Bridge (see Figure 12), a 120 m-long deck weighing 3300 t was lifted and moved into
position in a two-hour period.

18
 Construction options 5

Right: Figure 12
Installation of
Badhoevedorp
Bridge.
Photo: Mammoet

Far right: Figure 13

Lavender Road
Bridge, Kent.
Photo: Birse/ALE-Heavylift

Figure 13 shows the movement of the 1200 t Lavender Road Bridge deck in Kent during
the widening of a road. The bridge was moved from its original piers, stored off-line and
then repositioned on new piers 9 m to the east of the original location.

Although the SPMT have a number of significant advantages, they can be expensive for
use on typical highway bridge projects. For example, the cost of installing a 45 m single-
span modular bridge (weight of the entire deck approximately 1200 t) would be in the
region of £100 000. With a total superstructure cost of only around £250 000, the SPMT
method is costly when compared with other methods (see Chapter 6) but there will be
situations where project requirements could favour this option.

5.4 Gantry The modular precast bridge system is also suited to construction using temporary gantries.
In this method, the gantry is used to support the shell units as they are aligned in their final
position. The shells are then stressed to support the infill concrete, which is cast in-situ.
Further permanent prestress is then applied.

This option is suited to both single- and multi-span structures, and requires lighter cranage
for the single shell units, which weigh only 12–15 t each. The technology is well known and
in certain circumstances may offer the most economical method of construction even
though an investment in a gantry system is required. However, the method requires most
of the operations to be undertaken at height, unlike some of the other construction options.

Figure 14 shows an example of an under-slung gantry system in use on the Stanstead

Abbotts Bypass in the UK.

19
5 Construction options

Figure 14
Gantry system in use on Stanstead Abbotts
Bypass.
Photo: Benaim

In the early 1990s, a precast segmental ‘channel bridge system’ was developed by Jean
Muller in France as a new concrete cross-sectional shape for freeway overpasses. This was
further developed in the USA in the mid-1990s. The system is of relevance to this report
as it employed an under-slung gantry to position the precast units, although the units
were solid and internally prestressed.

20
 Construction programme and costs 6

6. Construction programme and costs

Two typical highway overbridge layouts have been chosen to allow the modular precast
concrete construction costs and programmes to be compared with a steel-composite
alternative. The rates used in the study have been determined through experience on
similar projects and are therefore believed to offer robust estimates. For the purposes of
this Guide, costs have not been attributed to ‘lane closures’. Such costs can vary widely
dependent on the road location and can only be considered on a bridge-specific basis.
The construction programmes have also been developed through recent experience on
similar projects. However, they serve mainly as a comparative tool and exact details will
differ from contractor to contractor, at different locations.

6.1 Capital investment Standardisation of the construction process requires investment in a ‘kit of parts’ that would
requirements allow the modular system to be used at a variety of locations. The essential components
of the kit required to cast and align the shell units on site are:

„ two moulds within a casting shed

„ unit transporter/low-loader
„ cranes to lift approximately 12–15 t units
„ temporary packs and jacks to align the units
„ prestressing bars to hold the units together.

As noted in Chapter 5, the system can be constructed using a number of techniques. For
the Span lift and SPMT options, the remaining construction cost is covered by a specialist
subcontractor. In the case of the incrementally launched option, investment in further
items is required, namely:

„ launching nose
„ possible temporary props and foundations
„ jacking equipment
„ launch bearings, jacks and lateral guides.

The capital investment costs for the modular bridge system are outlined in Table 4.

Table 4 Item Cost

Capital investment costs for modular bridge
system. Moulds (2No.) £80k
Low loader £25k
Prestressing bars £5k
Launching nose £25k
Intermediate props £10k
Pulling beams £5k
Strand & jacks £5k
Launch bearings £5k
Total £160k

21
6 Construction programme and costs

Typical precast segmental schemes using box sections have been shown to be economic
for bridge deck areas of more than 10 000 m2. However, a study of the capital investment
costs for this modular bridge system indicates that 5000 m2 of bridge deck would be
required for it to be cost-effective, i.e. about five to ten typical highway bridges. Therefore
in the following cost comparisons, 10% of these capital investment costs has been added
to the cost of the modular bridge options, as a capital repayment.

With approximately 80 bridges under construction in the UK each year, it is believed that
the market is large enough to make the recovery of this investment figure attainable in the
short to medium term. This is based on the premise that of these 80 bridges, approximately
half would be suitable for the proposed system, of which a single team could expect to
bid for 20 and win a minimum of 25%, i.e. five bridges per year. A return on investment
cost could therefore be expected within a rather short period of two to three years.

6.2 Case study 1: Three- Figure 15 shows the three-span highway overbridge chosen for the study. The bridge has
span highway overbridge spans of 20–25–20 m, typical of overbridges crossing both carriageways of a two-lane
dual carriageway.

Figure 15
Three-span highway overbridge layout Figure 16 shows the cross-section of the proposed modular precast bridge. The shell sections
adopted for Case Study 1.
are 1.5 m deep giving a span-to-depth ratio of approximately 17.

Two construction options were investigated for this bridge type. The first considered the
Span lift option, which offers the advantage of using more traditional UK construction
skills. Construction via two stages of incremental launching was also investigated, as
shown in Figure A2 of Appendix A.

Figure 17 shows the cross-section of the steel-composite bridge adopted for this study. A
ladder deck layout was chosen as it has been shown to be the most economic form in
recent projects. The main girders are 1.25 m deep with a 250 mm deck slab, also giving a
span-to-depth ratio of 17. It is proposed that the bridge is constructed by traditional means,
i.e. the main beams lifted in position, followed by the cross-girders, with the in-situ slab
cast on permanent, participating formwork.

22
 Construction programme and costs 6

Figure 16
Section through modular precast 2100 3650 3650 2100
bridge. Footway Carriageway Carriageway Footway

CL

Figure 17
Section through steel-composite 2100 3650 3650 2100
bridge. Footway Carriageway Carriageway Footway

1250

23
6 Construction programme and costs

6.2.1 Cost comparison A summary of the costs is given in Table 5.

Table 5 Item Modular precast Steel-composite

Cost summary for three-span overbridge.
Span lift Launched
Substructure £80k £80k £70k
Superstructure
Deck (excluding formwork) £140k £140k
Equivalent formwork costs
● Job specific £45k £29k
● Capital repayment £10k £195k £16k £185k £235k
Finishes (including abutments) £175k £175k £175k
Preliminaries £225k £220k £235k
Discounted whole-life maintenance £35k £35k £50k
Total £710k £695k £765k
Percentage saving 8% 10%
Monetary saving £60k £75k

The modular precast system shows itself to be more economic by offering a saving of
between 8 and 10% when compared to the steel-composite option. As expected, the
major cost savings are attributable to the reduced material costs for the superstructure.
Substructure costs are only marginally higher for the concrete option.

The launched option in this comparison is shown to be cheaper than the Span lift option,
due mainly to the relatively high crane hire costs required. However, a reduced initial
investment is required for the Span lift option, thereby reducing the potential exposure of
the contractor. This comparison indicates that both the Span lift and launched methods
are viable construction options.

6.2.2 Programme comparison The construction programmes for each of the construction options are shown in Figure B1 of
Appendix B. The total construction times for the modular bridge with launched construction
and the composite steel option were found to be very similar, at around 33 weeks each,
with the modular Span lift construction offering a three-week benefit in construction time.

6.2.3 Summary For the case of a typical three-span highway overbridge, the modular precast bridge has
been shown to offer a well-engineered solution at a lower cost and some benefits in
construction time compared with a steel-composite bridge.

24
 Construction programme and costs 6

6.3 Case study 2: Single- Figure 18 shows the single-span highway overbridge chosen for the study. The bridge has
span highway overbridge a span of 45 m, which is typical for bridges over widened motorways where piers in the
central reservation are avoided due to construction difficulties close to passing traffic.

Hardshoulder Central resevation Hardshoulder

Carriageway Carriageway

Above: Figure 18
Single-span highway overbridge layout
adopted for Case Study 2.
2100 3650 3650 2100
Right: Figure 19 Footway Carriageway Carriageway Footway
Section through modular precast bridge.
Precast edge unit
In-situ stitch concrete
In-situ infill concrete CL

Void

Figure 19 shows the cross-section of the proposed modular precast bridge. The shell
sections are 3 m deep giving a span-to-depth ratio of 15.

Two construction options were also investigated for this bridge type. The first considered
the Span lift option. An alternative option of constructing the entire bridge off-line and
lifting it in place with an SPMT was also investigated.

Figure 20 shows the cross-section of the steel-composite bridge adopted for this study. A
ladder deck layout was chosen as it has been shown to be the most economic form in
recent projects. The main girders are 2.25 m deep with a 250 mm deck slab, giving a span-
to-depth ratio of 18. It is proposed that the bridge is constructed by traditional means,
i.e. the main beams lifted in position, followed by the cross-girders, with the in-situ slab
cast on permanent, participating formwork.

25
6 Construction programme and costs

Figure 20
Section through steel-composite bridge.
2100 3650 3650 2100
Footway Carriageway Carriageway Footway

CL

6.3.1 Cost comparison A summary of the costs is given in Table 6.

Table 6 Item Modular precast Steel-composite

Cost summary for single-span overbridge.
Span lift SPMT
Substructure £80k £80k £70k
Superstructure
Deck (excluding formwork) £150k £150k
Equivalent formwork costs
● Job specific £45k £115k
● Capital repayment £10k £205k £10k £275k £250k
Finishes £80k £80k £80k
Preliminaries £185k £215k £200k
Discounted whole life maintenance £15k £15k £25k
Total £565k £665k £625k
Percentage saving 10% (6%)
Monetary saving £60k (£40k)

The modular precast bridge constructed by the Span lift method is the most economic
option, giving a saving of 10% of the total cost when compared to the steel-composite
alternative. Constructing the modular precast bridge using the transporter is the more
expensive option due to the high cost of the SPMT. However, the small premium in cost
of 6% can be offset by the improvement it offers in construction time (see next section).

6.3.2 Programme comparison The construction programmes for each of the construction options are shown in Figure B2
of Appendix B. The total construction times for the modular bridge construction options
were found to be somewhat shorter than composite steel, within the accuracy achievable
at this stage.

26
 Construction programme and costs 6

In particular, constructing the modular precast bridge using a transporter has the potential to
save approximately three weeks programme time when compared with the steel-composite
alternative. In addition, this option has many safety advantages, as the majority of con-
struction work takes place away from the roadway. Constructing the modular precast bridge
using the Span lift method was also shown to be faster by around two weeks compared
with the steel-composite option.

6.3.3 Summary For the case of a typical long, single-span highway overbridge, the modular precast bridge
has been shown to offer a well-engineered solution at a lower cost than a comparable
steel-composite bridge when constructed using the Span lift method. The construction
time has been shown to be very competitive for this method, being marginally shorter
when compared with the steel-composite solution.

Constructing the modular bridge using an SPMT has been shown to be slightly more
expensive than the traditional steel-composite solution while offering a saving on programme
time of approximately three weeks.

27
7 Conclusions

7. Conclusions
The bridge market in the UK is set to grow steadily over the next five to ten years. The use
of steel-composite construction is almost unique to the UK, and it is believed that a well-
engineered and competitive concrete option has the potential to gain considerable market
share. The modular precast bridge system which this publication addresses aims to re-
establish concrete as the preferred option for medium-span bridges.

The modular system has been shown to be suitable for a wide range of typical bridge
layouts. Varying span lengths, carriageway widths, horizontal and vertical curvatures, and
skew can be readily accommodated by the match-cast shell units. The focus on precast
elements and off-site construction ensures a high-quality product is constructed within a
safe environment.

Importantly for both the developer and contractor the construction methodology can be
varied to suit specific bridge sites and the demands of the project programme. The con-
struction options available include the following:

Span lift method

„ High-quality, low-maintenance precast components.
„ Suited to single- and multi-span structures.
„ Two-phase stressing technique reduces quantity of prestress steel required.
„ Utilises existing skills within UK construction sector.
„ Cheaper than steel-composite alternative for both typical single- and three-span bridges
(Case Studies 1 and 2), see section 6.2 and 6.3.
„ Faster than steel-composite alternative for both typical single- and three-span bridges
(Case Studies 1 and 2), see section 6.2 and 6.3.
„ Safer – less work to be carried out at height than with steel-composite alternative.
„ Traffic – some disruption but similar to steel-composite.

Incrementally launched method

„ High-quality, low-maintenance precast components.
„ Suited to multi-span structures.
„ Utilises newer technology within UK construction sector.
„ Cheaper than steel-composite and Span lift alternatives for a typical three-span bridge
(Case Study 2), see section 6.3.
„ Similar speed to steel-composite alternative.
„ Safer – minimum work to be carried out at height, especially if temporary props are
avoided.
„ Traffic – minimal as possessions required during launching only.

28
 Conclusions 7

Self-propelled modular transporter (SPMT) method

„ High-quality, low-maintenance precast components.
„ Suited to single-span structures.
„ Utilises emerging skills within UK construction sector.
„ More expensive than steel-composite alternative.
„ Faster than steel-composite alternative for a typical single-span bridge (Case Study 1),
see section 6.2.
„ Safer – minimum work to be carried out at height.
„ Traffic – single possession required for all bridge works.

Gantry method
„ High-quality, low-maintenance precast components.
„ Suited to single- and multi-span structures.
„ Utilises newer technology within UK construction sector.
„ Requires additional work to be carried out at height.
„ Costs, programme times and traffic management remain to be investigated.

For the two typical case studies presented in this guide, the modular system has been shown
to offer significant cost and/or programme savings over a steel-composite alternative, as
well as being more more elegant, efficient and robust and requiring less maintenance.

The modular system requires an initial capital investment of less than £250k. It has been
shown that this can be financed over five to ten bridges which, given the 80 bridges built
per annum in the UK, would seem to generate a return in only two to three years.

The system offers a large number of benefits over alternative solutions, namely:

„ safer – typically much less work at height and more factory-based work
„ faster – simple, repetitive cycles and easy detailing
„ more buildable – known low-technology solutions
„ minimal traffic disruption – less disturbance to the road users
„ higher quality – factory-based and off-site construction
„ lower maintenance – no exposed steel, joints or bearings
„ more efficient sections – optimisation of quantities
„ aesthetically pleasing – clean, simple proportions, forms and details
„ more sustainable – for the future of us all
„ higher value – achieved on all aspects.

29
References

References
1. DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT. Transport Ten year plan 2000, DFT, London, 2000.
2. HIGHWAYS AGENCY. Major improvements in the strategic road network, The Highways Agency,
London.
3. DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT. The future of transport: A network for 2030. DFT, London, 2004.
4. THE CONCRETE SOCIETY. Durable post-tensioned concrete bridges. Technical Report 47 (second
edition) The Concrete Society, Camberley, 2002.

30
 A B C
20000 25000 20000

2 2
1
C
1
Verge 1000 7360 1000 2500 1000 7360 1000 Verge
Carriageway Hard Hard Carriageway Hard
Hard
strip strip strip strip
Central
reservation

A B

ELEVATION
1:00

2100 3650 3650 2100

Footway Carriageway Carriageway Footway

Second stage insitu Precast edge unit

infill concrete
Insitu infill concrete
200

CL CL

2 No 19/15mm 1500 200

100

First stage insitu Temporary

1500

Monolithic piers launch cables

infill concrete prestressing
(reinforced concrete)
refer to drawing No 6 No 19/15mm bars 2 No 32 Dia
Precast concrete shell 11725/011 for details profile cables 1000 1500 1000
Precast concrete shell
approx. 2500 long 250 250

SECTION B - B
1:50

1200 CL

8 No 19/15mm
anchorages
SECTION A - A
1:50

SECTION C - C
1:50
Appendix A. Scheme drawings

Figure A1
Three-span option (20–25–20 m) – general arrangement.
Benaim drawing ref.: 11725/10-C

31
Appendix A
32
Profiled cables
2nd stage 1500 stitch
in-situ infill CL CL T12-150 crs CL
Pack units and align CL 1500 x 1500
1 form joints pier head
1000 x 300
Temporary stress Stressed launch Final 1250 x
1st stage launch 1250 pack T16-150 crs
bearing CL
in-situ infill cables Initial 1000 x
Bar 4 No 100 500 pack CONCRETE JOINT BETWEEN UNITS
Approx 8 No 32φ jacks Final concrete
couplers 1:20
prestressing pack refer to
bars cast in
PIER HEAD DETAIL
1:20 detail
Pour infill concrete ducts to pier
Appendix A

2 Stress launch cables Temporary piers Temporary piers head

Attach nose & foundations & foundations

CROSS SECTION LONGITUDINAL SECTION

BUILT IN PIER HEAD DETAILS FOR 1500 DEEP SECTION

1:50

Launch over props

3 Pack units and align
form joints
Temporary stress
2500 2000 to 3000
typical unit range Launch
CL CL cable ducts
In-situ end
diaphragm wall
In-situ Asphaltic
Pour infill concrete

150φ
infill plug joint

typical
CL
4 Couple launch cables
Stress launch cables
Precast In-situ Profiled
400 unit infill
diaphragm cable ducts
Glued, match-cast Precast
Glued, match-cast
or 20-50 thick grouted units
or 20-50 thick grouted
concrete joint concrete joint Mortar bed to
LONGITUDINAL SECTION precast units
Mild steel continuity
5 Complete launch reinforcement

Bank seat abutment

Glued, match-cast JOINT DETAIL
or 25-60 thick
PROPOSED INTEGRAL ABUTMENT
1:10 1:50
grouted / concrete
2 No 32φ temporary joint
Remove nose 800 thick end
prestressing bars Expansion
Cast monolithic pier tops diaphragm wall
6 joint
Stress profiled cables CL
Remove props

Launch cables
in continuous 1800 x 1000
ducts Rubber CR pot inspection
Fall
Cast integral abutments bearing gallery
7 Complete finishes Profiled
cables in Drain channel
continuous and pipe
duct
Bank seat
TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE FOR 3 SPAN BRIDGE abutment
1:500
Typical precast unit = 121 OPTIONAL JOINTED ABUTMENT
(range = 81 - 201) 1:50
PLAN
TYPICAL JOINT / UNIT DETAILS FOR 1500 DEEP SECTION
1:50

Figure A2
Three-span option (20–25–20 m) – typical details.
Banaim drawing ref.: 11725/11-B
 A B C
35000 45000 35000

2 2
1 7300 Verge 3300 11000 3100 11000 3300 Verge 7300 1
Carriageway Hard Carriageway Central Carriageway Hard Carriageway
shoulder reservation shoulder

A B C

ELEVATION
1:200

2100 3650 3650 2100

Footway Carriageway Carriageway Footway
Second stage insitu
infill concrete Precast edge unit

CL insitu infill concrete CL

200

First stage insitu 3 No 19/15mm 1500

100

infill concrete launch cables

9 No 19/15mm
profile cables 760 Dia. void 200
2760

Precast concrete
shell

Precast concrete 9 No 19/15mm 500 1000 1500 1000 500

monolithic piers
(reinforced concrete) shell profile cables 260 260

TYPICAL MID-SPAN SECTION B - B

1:50

CL

TYPICAL PIER SECTION A - A

1:50

12 No 19/15mm
anchorages

TYPICAL ANCHORAGE SECTION C - C

1:50

Figure A3
Three-span option (35–45–35 m) – general arrangement.
Benaim drawing ref.: 11725/12-B

33
Appendix A
34
4 6
1
2 9 14
4000 1000 4000 14 22
3
CL CL 19 30
4

No of beams
24 36
5

1000
10 20 30 40

- 1500
Overall deck width (m)
Appendix A

MINIMUM SECTION: SPANS 15-25m NARROW DECK: 9m OPTIONS FOR INCREASING DECK WIDTH
USING A NUMBER OF ADJACENT BEAMS

5000 1500 5000

CL
CL
1500 stitch
CL T12-150 crs
Launch Precast
In-situ units
cables In-situ
stitch

1500 - 2000
infill T10-150 crs
1000 stitch
Profiled
span cables CL
TYPICAL DECK WIDTH: 11.5m
TYPICAL SECTION: SPANS 25-35m
T10-160 crs

TYPICAL DETAILS OF CENTRE STITCH

1:20

6000 2000 6000

CL CL

2000 - 9000
WIDE DECK: 14m Maximum (1:15 Typical depth (1:18)
2.5
Minimum (1:20)
MAXIMUM SECTION: SPANS 35-50m 2.0

1.5
Min. depth
Depth (m)

1.0
TYPICAL SECTIONS FOR VARYING WIDTH REQUIREMENTS 0.5
TYPICAL SECTIONS FOR VARYING SPAN REQUIREMENTS 1:50
1:50
0 10 20 30 40 50
Span (m)

TYPICAL SPAN TO DEPTH RATIOS

Figure A4
Typical details of bridge system 1.
Benaim drawing ref.: 11725/13-B
 67500
20173 25216 20173 70000
o 20706 25862 20706
7.5
Parapet edge beam CL Precast shell units
2500

Abutment
DETAIL 1

Temp bearing

1850
End shell units cast skew

20000 20000
25000
20000 25000
DETAIL 1
1:100 20000

LAYOUT 1
BRIDGE WITH 7.5 DEGREE SKEW
END SHELL UNITS CAST SKEW
SCALE 1:500
LAYOUT 2
BRIDGE WITH 15 DEGREE SKEW
SHELL UNITS SPAN SQUARE BETWEEN ABUTMENTS
SCALE 1:500

80000
23094 24860 23094

End section cast in-situ

CL Precast shell units
Parapet edge beam 2500
o
30
DETAIL 2

Abutment

Temp bearing

20000

End shell unit cast skew

25000

20000
DETAIL 2
1:100

LAYOUT 3
BRIDGE WITH 30 DEGREE SKEW
END SHELL UNITS CAST SKEW WITH IN-SITU SECTION
SCALE 1:500

Figure A5
Typical details of bridge system 2.
Benaim drawing ref.: 11725/14-A

35
Appendix A
36
Construct piers and abutments 2100 3850 3850 2100
1 Footway Carriageway Carriageway Footway
Prepare area for deck assembly

Precast edge unit

In-situ infill concrete
In-situ infill concrete CL

225
Transport precast shells to site
2 1500
Assemble ribs close to final bridge 150

1500
position
Apply initial prestress to shell units Temporary prestressing
8 No 19/15mm
bars - 2 No 32 Dia
profile cables
Appendix A

750 1000 750

Precast concrete shell
approx 2500 long 250 250

TYPICAL MIDSPAN SECTION

1:50

CL

Mobilise crane on site 1500

3 (Crawler crane illustrated however
6 No 19/15mm
use of large mobile likely)
anchorages
Lift ribs into position

TYPICAL END SECTION

1:50

2100 3850 3850 2100

Footway Carriageway Carriageway Footway

CL

4 Lift main span ribs into position

Demobilise crane

Stich adjacent ribs together

5 Complete sections over piers
Stress full length continuity cables

Cast integral abutments

6 Complete finishes

TYPICAL PIER SECTION

1:50

TYPICAL DETAILS OF ‘SPAN LIFT’ BRIDGE

TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE FOR ‘SPAN LIFT’ BRIDGE AS SHOWN
1:500

Figure A6
Three-span option (20–25–20 m) – Span lift construction.
Benaim drawing ref.: 11725/15-A
 Appendix B. Construction programmes

Figure B1
Case Study 1 – three-span layout (20–25–20 m).

37
Appendix B
38
Appendix B

Figure B2
Case Study 2 – single-span layout (45 m).
CONCRETE BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT GROUP A cement and concrete industry publication
The Concrete Bridge Development Group aims to promote excellence in the design, construction and
management of concrete bridges.

With a membership that includes all sectors involved in the concrete bridge industry –bridge owners
and managers, contractors, designers and suppliers– the Group acts as a forum for debate and the
exchange of new ideas. A major programme of bridge assessment, strengthening and widening is
already underway to accommodate European standards and the increasing pressures on the UK road For further details please contact:
network. The Group provides an excellent vehicle for the industry to co-ordinate an effective approach The Concrete Bridge Development Group
and to enhance the use of concrete. Riverside House
4 Meadows Business Park
Station Approach
Through an active programme of events and seminars, task groups, newsletters, study visits and
Blackwater
publications, the Concrete Bridge Development Group aims to:
Camberley
Surrey GU17 9AB
„ Address the challenge of the national bridge programme UK
„ Provide a focus for all those involved in concrete bridge design, construction and management
„ Promote an integrated approach and encourage development of innovative ideas and concepts Tel: +44 (0)1276 33777, Fax: +44 (0)1276 38899
„ Promote best practice in design and construction through education, training and information e-mail: enquiries@cbdg.org.uk
dissemination website www.cbdg.org.uk.
„ Make representations on national and international codes and standards
„ Identify future research and development needs
„ Maximise opportunities to develop the wider and better use of concrete.

Membership of the Concrete Bridge Development Group is open to those who have an interest in
promoting and enhancing the concrete bridge industry. Five main types of membership are available:

„ Group membership for industry organisations and associations

„ Corporate membership for contractors, consultants, suppliers and specialist service companies
„ Associate membership for academic organisations
„ Bridge owners for all organisations that commission, own, maintain and manage concrete bridges
„ Individual consultants

By being representative of the whole industry, the Concrete Bridge Development Group acts as a
catalyst for the best in concrete bridge design, construction, maintenance and management.

PUBLICATIONS FROM THE CONCRETE BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT GROUP

Integral bridges Technical Guide 1

A report of a study visit in August 1997 by a CBDG delegation to North America, sponsored by DTI (1997)

Guide to testing and monitoring of durability of concrete structures Technical Guide 2

A practical guide for bridge owners and designers (2002)

The use of fibre composites in concrete bridges Technical Guide 3

A state-of-the-art review of the use of fibre composites (2000)

The aesthetics of concrete bridges Technical Guide 4

A technical guide dealing with the appearance and aesthetics of concrete bridges (2001)

Fast construction of concrete bridges Technical Guide 5

The report of a Concrete Bridge Development Group Working Party (2005)

High strength concrete in bridge construction Technical Guide 6

A state-of-the-art report (2005) CCIP-002

Self-compacting concrete in bridge construction Technical Guide 7

Written by Peter JM Bartos (2005) CCIP-003

An Introduction to Concrete Bridges

A publication dedicated to undergraduates and young engineers (2006)

Guide to the Use of Lightweight Aggregate Concrete in bridges Technical Guide 8

A state-of-the-art report, written by Philip Bamforth (2006) CCIP-015

Guidance on the Assessment of Concrete Bridges Technical Guide 9

A Task Group report (2007) CCIP-024

Enhancing the Capacity of Concrete Bridges Technical Guide 10

A Task Group report (2008) CCIP-036

Modular Precast Concrete Bridges Technical Guide 11

A state-of-the-art report (2008) CCIP-028

You can buy the above publications from the Concrete Bookshop at www.concrete.org.uk and please visit
www.cbdg.org.uk for further publications, including free download.
 CI/Sfb

UDC
624.21.012.3

Modular Precast Concrete Bridges: A state-of-the-art report

This publication outlines the development of a modular

precast concrete bridge system. This new system provides
designers with a concrete solution for medium span bridges
that can be used for the majority of bridge locations. The
modular system incorporates easily transportable precast
concrete shell units that support and combine compositely
with the post-tensioned, in-situ concrete core.

Guidance includes an introduction to the system followed by

structural details, construction options and example costs. Scheme
drawings and construction programmes for case study examples are
also provided.

CCIP-028
Published December 2008
ISBN 978-1-904482-52-9
© Concrete Bridge Development Group

Riverside House, 4 Meadows Business Park,

Station Approach, Blackwater, Camberley, Surrey, GU17 9AB
Tel: +44 (0)1276 33777 Fax: +44 (0)1276 38899
www.cbdg.org.uk