Robust Concrete Bridges without Bearings and Joints
Michael Pötzl, Dr
Schlaich Bergermann und Partner. Stuttgart. Germany
Jorg Schlaich, Prof.
Univ. of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany
Introduction
Approximately the same amount of
money spent on constructing a bridge
is required to maintain it during its
lifetime. Neither technological pro-
gress nor increasingly comprehensive
codes have altered this fact.
It is common practice today to use
moveable bearings and joints in
bridges to respond to the displace-
ments resulting from temperature,
settlement, shrinkage. etc. Although
bridges with bearings and joints may
satisfy all design rules and applicable
codes, they are assured of subsequent
deterioration, especially in marine cli-
mates or regions where they will be
exposed to chloride attacks from road
salts. Design criteria for a more robust
type of bridge, without bearings and
joints, are the focus of this paper.
Conceptual Approach
For greater efficiency. emphasis must
be placed on the conceptual design of
the structure in order to eliminate ser-
vice life problems. Compliance with
codes is not sufficient: an integrated
approach to design should be devel-
oped considering all aspects of the de-
sign and construction of more robust
structures [1]. The following points can
be included among the guidelines for
this conceptual approach:
— Unfavourable consequences should
be avoided by preventive measures
(An ounce of prevention is worth a
pound of cure.")
— Unforeseen failures must be elimi-
nated (early recognition of safety-
relevant damages)
— Structures should react Thmicably"
to catastrophes
— Slight deviations from calculations
need not lead to disproportionately
large damages
— Scheduled consequences should be
restricted in extent and intensity to
achieve the planned service life of
the structure and its essential parts
with an appropriate amount of
maintenance.
266 Reports
Transverse joint
Fig. I: Bridge design according to code, but neglecting robustness
Fig. 1 shows an example of a bridge
which, although designed according
to code, can be improved considerably
in terms of robustness: the advantages
gained — at first glance — by the bear-
ings and joints do not adequately com-
pensate for the disadvantages of main-
tenance costs. reduced lifespan and
unsatisfactory aesthetics.
Bridges without
Bearings and Joints
Bearings and joints were unknown to
bridge builders until well into the 20th
century. The use of reinforced concrete
and the resulting increases in span
lengths necessitated these develop-
ments in order to reduce restraints and
facilitate construction. However, these
innovations also resulted in modern
concrete bridges having maintenance-
intensive weak points and an often un-
satisfactory appearance (Fig. 1).
p rL
[1
a)
b)
ñ 1 r ñ
b —
c) If I J:
Fig. 2: Deformations due to increasing tem-
perature
Horizontal area
with bearings
In comparison, monolithic structures
offer a number of advantages. They
are the prototypes for robust concrete
bridges, and have the following charac-
teristics:
— Redundant: Bending-resistant con-
nections result in statically indeter-
minate load-bearing systems pos-
sessing system-reserves
— Compact: Minimizing the surfaces
of structural elements (e.g., elimi-
nating support details and surfaces
around joints) improves the durabil-
ity of the structural concrete
— Stress-flow oriented design: Avoid-
ing geometrical discontinuities, e.g.,
sudden changes to the cross sec-
tions, in favour of continuous struc-
tural elements minimizes stress
peaks and cracks
— Replaceable: Elements which are
subject to deterioration, e.g., para-
pets, pavements and kerbs, must
be replaceable. However the fewer
replaceable elements a bridge con-
tains. the less maintenance it re-
quires.
The following are sonic parameters
relevant to the design of concrete
bridges without bearing and joints [21.
The central question in the design of
more robust bridges is how to effec-
tively reduce constraint stresses.
Bridge Geometry in Plan
Constraint stresses depend on the
structure's deformation capability.
They reach their maximum when de-
formations are eliminated. A bridge
system's capacity to avoid constraint
stresses is mainly determined h its
support and geometry in plan. The
Structural Engineering International 4/96
 ___________

acurved 0.35 iR2.2 .

62,5 —
straight 0.3
(MNm)
2 --" EI/L[MNm]= 250
125

0.25
III.IIIIiIIIIZIIIiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEI/L ii:ii 1.8 --- 500
=1L0 1000 —
0.2

0.15 1.4

0.1
1.2 -'.
0.05
1

.-..:-.,
0
203040 0.8
20 30
I

40 50 60 70 80 90
1/2 a
1 /2 cx

L=0

I L I L I

Fig. 3: Maximum normal stresses of straight and curved bridges Fig. 4: Maxim uin horizontal deformation
due to temperature

systems in Fig. 2 demonstrate different
behaviour:
a) freely moveable system; no con-
straints
b) movement completely eliminated;
constraint stress fully affects the
superstructure as high normal force
c) longitudinal deformations, depen-
dent on the piers stiffness: deflec-
tions are smaller than in a). but mo-
ments occur in superstructure and
pier
d) superstructure can escape' trans-
versely; the constraint stresses are
considerably smaller than in b). but
horizontal moments occur.
Referring to d), a bridge curved in
tions of a radially curved highway pedestrian bridge, depending on the
bridge due to increasing temperature. span and the cross section type of the
The comparison shows that the bridge superstructure.
fixed at both ends experiences smaller
Two different cases are examined. In
maximum deflection for opening angle the case of pier type A, the cross sec-
1100 < a < 80° than a conventionally
tion increases transversely and longi-
supported bridge. This is largely inde- tudinally in proportion to the increas-
pendent of the ratio El/Lw and I/A, ing span (h/b = zh/b). For pier type
since the bending resistance at the B, the increase is only transversal (h =
"strong" axis is the relevant factor.
const.). Type B has the least deforma-
This applies under the condition that tion resistance. The piers' moments
the deformation resistance of the piers
of inertia show the most significant
is negligible. Constraint stresses of
piers monolithically connected to the
superstructure can be reduced for
opening angles a> 110° by fixed sup- Statical system
ports the superstructure at both ends. —11IJ II
Cross
seCt•IOflS
I] I]
Ii
of the pier El U U
Spacing of Piers (Span) I I

plan reacts more favourably compared With bridge piers connected monolith- I (1=l2rn)
to a fixed straight bridge. The uniform ically to the superstructure. the bend-
stresses due to temperature changes or ing resistance of the superstructure
4.0 m

shrinkage differ considerably (Fig. 3). and piers determines the constraint 50 b
Even a slight curvature (small opening stresses. The depth of the superstruc- l..rosssectonof b

angle a) reduces the uniform stresses ture increases disproportionately with

to a fraction of those for a straight the span, because the dead loads in-
bridge. For a 15 m wide highway crease faster than the resistance of the 10

bridge with a slab 30 cm thick, an abut-
ment distance of 350 m and a curva-
ture radius of 500 m, exposed to a tem-
perature reduction of 50 C. the aver-
age tension resistance of normal con-
crete is not at all exhausted.
structural elements. The maximum Span [ml
possible slenderness I/h of superstruc- '—TypeA——Typ 3—
tures is not constant, but depends on
the material, the form of the cross
section and the span. The ratio of den- longitudinal
sity/strength (y/f) expresses the influ-
axis

Another characteristic of curved ence of the material. Lightweight.

5h
bridges that are fixed at both ends is high-strength superstructures cause II h
I

the degree of superstructure deflec-
tions. These deflections determine the
constraint stresses in the piers.
Fig. 4 describes the maximum deflec-
small constraint stresses.
A pier's deformation resistance is es-
sentially determined by its moment of
inertia. This is shown in Fig. 5 for a
Type A Type B
Cross section types of the piers
Fig. 5: Influence of span and cross section
type b/b,ç on moment of inertia of pier

Structural Engineering International 4/96 Reports 267

 increase with compact superstructure
cross sections due to the high dead
loads.
For long spans, compact superstruc-
tures behave less favourably than sec-
tional cross section (T-beams). Long
spans considerably reduce the defor-
mation capability of a bridge that is
necessary to relieve the constraint
stresses, thus having an unfavourable
effect.
Shape of Structural Member
If piers are monolithically connected
to the superstructure. constraint stress-
es due to settlement of the piers or
temperature-induced changes in the
length of the superstructure concen-
trate in the superstructure-pier joint.
An improved design can relieve these
stress peaks. The design should aim at
making more constant use, i.e.. over a
greater length, of the respective struc-
tural elements.
Examining the behaviour of a rectan-
gular cross section exposed to bending
stress will explain the influence of the
element's shape on the distribution of
the edge stresses. Fig. 6 describes the
normal stresses in a structural part
with a constant cross section depth
(h = 1). The shapes are described by
parameter a, relating to shape, and
value /3, the relation of superstructure
depth at the pier and at the mid-span.
The maximum edge stresses of convex
parts (a < 1) occur at the support and,
with $ = 2.0, decrease rapidly from that
point. In this case, the stress level con-
6(t)
O( h=cosst)
.1
0.8
0.6
0.4
(ITi
0.2
a= Q* Q
0.4 0.6
! 1_, .9
0.8
2.5 3.0
I
1/2
Fig. 6: Distribution of edge stresses
268 Reports
siderably exceeds that of a constant
cross section depth. As expected, the
stress peaks in concave structural ele-
ments (a> 1) move to the span; this
is especially true for greatly varying
cross section depths; in this example,
/3= 4.0. Therefore, the optimum shape
can only be determined by combin-
ing the cross section depths at the sup-
port and at the span. Concave shapes
(a 1.5) proved to be advantageous,
with small deviations (/3 = 2.0), con-
vex shapes (a 0.8) with greater ones
(/3 = 4.0).
Reinforcement of Piers
Piers of monolithic bridges can experi-
ence considerable tip deflections
caused by temperature changes and
shrinkage. These deflections can only
be realistically determined by consid-
ering the nonlinear material behaviour
of the structural concrete. Although
bridge piers are mainly subjected to
compression stress, they may crack in
certain areas during service. This sig-
nificantly reduces the bending stiffness
compared to the uncracked state.
Fig. 7 shows the relationship between
the imposed tip deflection w and the
resulting horizontal force H. The de-
gree of reinforcement significantly in-
fluences possible pier tip deflections
during service. The relationships in
Fig. 7 were obtained using the condi-
tion that neither the compressive
stress limit (e.g., 0.6 fk respectively
1.0 fck, according to EC 2); nor the
crack width (0.3 mm for
according to EC 2) is exceeded.
HinkN
0.0 05 5,0 5.5
a)
Fig. 7: Influence of reinforcement on pier tip deflections
The w-H pattern clearly shows that the
deformation capability improves as re-
inforcement ratio w increases. Howev-
er, as the amount of tensile reinforce-
ment increases, the compressive stress-
es in the concrete become the relevant
factor, not the crack width. The ulti-
mate degree of reinforcement is
reached when the compression and
tension area barely keep within the cri-
teria of dimensioning (Fig. 7b). Then,
the maximum curvature and tip deflec-
tions are achieved.
Conclusions
With a design process focused on mi-
nimizing constraint stresses, mono-
lithic bridges are feasible today. Such
bridges offer increased robustness
compared to conventional designs
with bearing and joints, and offer a
multitude of approaches for improved
design and aesthetics.
References
[1] POTZL, M. Robust Bridges — Proposals
for Increasing the Integrated Qua/in' (in
German). Verlag Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn.
Wiesbaden 1996.
[2] POTZL, M.: SCHLAICH, J.;
SCHAFER. K. Basis for the Design, Di-
mensioning and Detailing of Bearingless
and Jointless Bridges (in German). Schrif-
tenreihe des Deutschen Ausschusses für
piers Stahlbeton (DAfStb), Heft 461. Beuth-
Verlag, Berlin, 1996.
HinkN
20 .5 2.0 0.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 •
w in cm
b)
Structural Engineering International 4/96