Movable Scaffolding Systems

Michael Däbritz, Dipl. Ing. ewe, RöRo Traggerüstsysteme, Branch of ThyssenKrupp Bauservice GmbH, Zwenkau, Germany.
Contact: michael.daebritz@thyssenkrupp.com
DOI: 10.2749/101686611X13131377725442

Abstract where the final positioning for the next

casting step will be carried out after
Movable scaffolding systems (MSSs) were developed after the introduction of closing the formwork.
pre-stressing technology for concrete bridges to raise efficiency of bridge con-
struction using mechanization in some steps of the construction cycle. These
systems help to build multiple span in situ bridges with a variable degree of Range of Application
independence from the ground works regarding their dismantling and resetting MSSs rank among the heaviest bridge
in successive spans. construction techniques. This bridge
The working principle of this full-span construction method is based on the idea construction method can be applied
of moving formwork and its supporting structure from under the previously cast efficiently when the site faces topo-
bridge span to the next pier and aims at minimizing labour and lifting equipment graphic or man-made restraints or a
costs in all stages between casting one span and the following one. Whilst on one combination of different factors:
hand this raises safety on site, the more complex technology on the other hand
requires an experienced crew to handle the equipment. – Deep valleys, canyons
– Difficult access on the ground
MSSs can be applied for variable cross sections, bearing systems, curvature – Crossing waters
radii, span lengths and regardless of almost all topographic restraints imagin- – Inappropriate ground conditions
able. Individually shaped bridges can be fabricated. With MSSs, the construction – Within existing infrastructure
site is not stationary. Finalization works at the bridge, such as the installation of – More than eight spans
drainage, electrification and edge beams can be started even before the MSS – Variable curvature radius
completes the superstructure. – Preferably constant span length
The equipment requires a comparatively large quantity of material and time to – Variable cross-sectional height
be erected before it can start operating. Therefore with this construction method, – Longitudinal inclination up to 5%
economic advantage can mainly be gained with multiple span bridges. – Variable transversal inclination
– Span length 30 to 80 m without
As for every construction technology, contractors can achieve competitive cycle intermediate supports
times and lower costs on the construction by considering the technological – Low clearance over or under the
requirements of these systems regarding their supports and load conduction dur- bridge
ing the design phase of the piers and girders of the bridges. – Different bridge bearing systems
Keywords: movable scaffolding systems; span-by-span; bridge construction; con- Each of the above mentioned points
crete; bridge construction equipment. apply to majority of existing projects;
as always, there are exceptions for
Introduction: Description of Andernach, Germany), first in the any rule. Even if only one condition
Construction Method construction of viaducts, later also for is fulfilled, the use of MSS is already
building high-speed railway bridges justified.
Movable scaffolding systems (MSSs) (see Fig. 1).
are used for span-by-span construction Components and Kinematics
In the construction of multiple span
of cast in situ concrete bridges. The
bridges, MSSs show significant economic
bridge superstructure is fabricated on MSSs consist of five main compo-
advantages compared with stationary
a falsework construction that can be nents that should be chosen accord-
scaffolding systems. Once assembled,
moved in all three dimensions in order ing to the requirements resulting from
the MSSs can be shifted from one cast-
to achieve the best adaptation to geo- bridge design, regional characteristics
ing step to the next span by hydraulic
metric requirements and to minimize and economic considerations: form-
or mechanic means. Depending on the
lifting equipment for relocation works work (yellow), formwork supporting
support system of the applied MSS,
during the construction stage. structure (blue), main-girders (red),
ground works can be avoided or are
moving devices and supports (green)
The construction technology is being limited to relocation of pier supports.
(see Fig. 2).
used since 1959 (Kettiger Hangbrücke,
When MSSs are applied for pre-
In general, MSSs can be distinguished
stressed continuous beam bridges, typ-
from the position of the main-girders
ically one bridge span and a cantilever
Peer-reviewed by international ex- related to the superstructure:
perts and accepted for publication
will be produced. After pre-stressing,
by SEI Editorial Board the MSS will be lowered down, form- Underslung (see Fig. 2) and along-
work will be opened at a constructive side systems provide full clearance for
Paper received: March 07, 2011 joint, will be shifted transversally and material feeding from above. This is the
Paper accepted: July 27, 2011 be launched forward to the next span lightest and most common type of MSS.

Structural Engineering International 4/2011 Scientific Paper 413


Fig. 1: Underslung movable scaffolding system with self-launching brackets on semi-inte-
gral railway bridge, Scherkondetalbrücke, Germany3
Fig. 2: MSS types: Underslung, alongside and overhead
With alongside systems, more vertical
clearance under the bridge can also be
realized. On underslung systems, form-
work construction can be adapted to
changes of cross-section or span length
of the bridge without interfering with
other MSS construction parts.
Overhead systems (see Fig. 3) need
the smallest space under the bridge
when the formwork is closed. Feed-
ing of materials (reinforcement, etc.)
cannot be executed with tower cranes
because the formwork supporting the
construction obstructs deliveries from
above. Housings can be installed with-
out much effort in cold regions, and
dismantling operations can be much
easier once a bridge is finished. These
heavy systems offer a comparably
larger area for wind forces, and their
centre of gravity and position of load
introduction points are on a higher
level than other systems2.
The formwork construction produces
a smooth concrete surface, and enables
414 Scientific Paper
clean connection to the previous con-
struction stage and efficient handling.
The choice of a suitable formwork
system is mainly affected by require-
Fig. 3: Overhead system in Chasan, Korea (photocourtesy: J. Nitschke, NRS)
Structural Engineering International 4/2011
ments of the concrete surface, cross
section, curvature radius, number of
applications and formwork supporting
system.
While steel formwork is used mostly
in applications with equal geometry,
wooden formwork gives more room
for adaptations to variations of above
mentioned requirements and to react
easily to “unforeseen” geometrical
imperfections, especially at connec-
tions to existing structures.
A good interaction between a form-
work and its supporting structure
helps in saving material for bracings
between beams, reduces weight and
improves stiffness of the construction.
The formwork is fixed on a formwork
supporting structure, which is a grid
of transversal beams that conducts
vertical loads to the main-girders
over a centering construction. These
transversal beams have joints that
enable transversal movement of the
MSS when opened, in order to allow
passing of the pier when launching the
next span. The execution of the joints
influences the deformation of the MSS
in the casting stage and the cycle times
in the launching stage.
Pre-cambering and variations of trans-
versal inclination can be carried out
with spindles or hydraulic jacks under
the transversal beams or, at regular
span lengths with equal concrete loads
and constant inclination, either with
shimming plates or by adapting the
formwork construction.
Main-girders of the MSS are equipped
with front and rear launching noses.
The MSS is artificially elongated to
over double the maximum span length
of the bridge in order to prevent it
from overturning in the launching
stage before reaching the next pier.
Launching noses are very light and not
intended to take any concrete loads.
There are two kinds of main-girders:
truss girders and box girders. Box gird-
ers offer more flexibility in positioning
the load introduction points and more
torsional rigidity; they are normally
heavier than truss girders and provide
a larger area for wind forces; with truss
girders, alongside systems can be real-
ized easily without cutting holes in any
walls. Load introduction points for
cantilever suspension, formwork sup-
porting structure and pier supports
should be located at the truss nodes.
Overhead systems mainly consist of
one or two main-girders, while under-
slung and alongside systems for single
box-girder bridges usually work with
two. Double-tee-beams are often fab-
ricated with three main-girders when
applying underslung or alongside
systems. Fig. 5: Alongside MSS on brackets; German railway project Saale-Elster-Talbrücke
Main-girders must be designed for two
primal load cases: casting and launch-
ing. Both load cases are totally differ- the next span, transversal movement vertical loads must be indicated to the
ent but have to be considered carefully. of the MSS will be there. Most of these pier designer. The supports normally
The launching stage often represents actions are taken over by the moving require holes in the slab to allow the
the decisive design case. To reduce the devices located between main-girders support legs to come out when disas-
weight of the main-girders, they can be and pier supports. sembling them, what must be studied
reinforced by means of pre-stressing due to the high concentration of rein-
(see Fig. 4). As the MSS faces various Vertical positioning is carried out with forcement. Both types of pier sup-
load and deformation scenarios dur- hydraulic jacks, and transversal move- ports for overhead systems can either
ing operation, the pre-stressing system ment through double-acting hydraulic be transported by an on-board crane
has to be constructed and adapted cylinders or electric engines. There are or relocated by independent lifting
sensitively. different types of launching devices. Self- devices.
locking systems are always preferred.
The operation of MSSs requires move- For underslung and alongside systems,
ments in all directions: The MSS must Overhead systems are supported there are mainly four types of pier sup-
be lowered down to strip the formwork on steel portals placed over the pier ports: pier towers, longitudinal beams
and the vertical position must be set head or on towers around the piers. in pier box-outs, grids suspended to the
up for the next casting step. To allow These supports require anchor bolts, pier table and pier brackets (see Fig. 5).
passing of the piers when launching whose position and horizontal and
Pier towers are a simple solution for
piers of small heights. Vertical loads
are introduced in the foundations, and
horizontal loads mainly close to the
top of the pier.
Longitudinal beams in pier box-outs
help in substituting towers at higher
piers. On top of the piers, hydraulic
jacks or transversal beams of the pier
support will be located. The box-out
causes weakening of the pier walls and
therefore installation of the longitudinal
beams should be carried out carefully.
With a grid being suspended to the top
of the pier, box-outs can be avoided.
Fig. 4: Main-girders reinforced with pre-stressing units at Rio Sousa Bridge, Portugal This type of construction requires
(photocourtesy: P. Pacheco, BERD) space between the superstructure and

Structural Engineering International 4/2011 Scientific Paper 415

top of the pier and a strong pier head.
Dismantling operations are difficult
because the crane hook has to reach
between the suspension beam and the
superstructure.
Pier brackets (see Fig. 5) are commonly
applied in higher piers. They introduce
high transversal pressure forces in the
pier walls. Vertical loads from the MSS
can either be transferred to the pier
with friction collars that avoid almost
any holes in the pier walls and shear
pins in pier box-outs or directly into the
foundations with additional supporting
legs under the brackets.
In general, three sets of pier supports
should be provided. When two of them
are in use, the third one will be disman-
tled and relocated for the production
of the next span.
On-board brackets grant complete
independence from ground works for
relocating pier supports. This com-
plex system works with only two sets
of brackets. But as it does not allow a
relocation of supports during the fab-
rication of the superstructure, disman-
tling and resetting of the pier supports
must be carried out during the launch-
ing operation. Some underslung MSSs
perform the relocation of brackets
during the execution of the reinforce-
ment. Additional suspension construc-
tions on the bridge are needed to keep
the MSS in safe position while launch-
ing brackets.
Cantilever support constructions allow
a good connection between new con-
crete and the previously fabricated
span. On pre-stressed continuous
beam bridges, the tendon couplings
are mostly located at the zero-point of
bending moments of the finished super-
structure. The location of the cantile-
ver support is shortly behind the joint.
In the casting stage, the rear end of the
MSS is suspended on that point while
the rear pier support is inactive. This
suspension point requires additional
pre-tensioning of the cantilever over
the pier and is not always preferred
by the bridge designer. It reduces the
casting span for the MSS but increases
the design moment over the pier when
the MSS is very heavy. Bridges can also
be built without cantilever supports;
this has to be considered in the pre-
stressing layout and while determining
the length of the main-girders.
Permanent Work Interfaces
When using MSS, pier supports conduct
not only vertical but also horizontal
416 Scientific Paper
loads into piers and their foundations.
Longitudinal loads due to launching
of an MSS vary between 3 and 10%
because of different sliding or roller sys-
tems; additionally, longitudinal inclina-
tions have to be considered. Especially,
the initial effort to start the movement
has to be taken into account. This load
will be introduced not only on the piers
which already bear the weight of the
superstructure but also on the next
span which is not yet completed. Strong
deformations in high and slim piers can
cause damages during launching. This
appearance can be reduced by cou-
pling piers with tensile strands. Bridge
supports should be relaxed from this
horizontal stress after launching.
Especially, MSSs with box girders and
overhead systems can introduce high
transversal loads into the piers as a
result of wind forces.
Cantilever supports introduce high
vertical loads into bridge cantilevers.
Often holes are needed in the super-
structure to guide suspension bars
from the supports.
Pier towers stand on the pier foun-
dations where they introduce high
vertical loads, which should be taken
into account in the dimensioning of
reinforcement and measurement of
foundations.
The casting sequence of a span has a
great influence on the deformation of
the MSS. On a MSS that is supported
on a front pier and a cantilever suspen-
sion casting should be started at the
front pier and continued forward and
backward simultaneously. At the end,
the connection to the existing struc-
ture should be completed. In this man-
ner, proper loading and deformation
of MSS and bridge can be achieved.
If concrete is poured at the cantile-
ver joint to the existing structure first
and carried on forward, the MSS will
become deformed once the concrete at
the cantilever joint hardens, which can
lead to cracks. If the concrete is filled
after the mid-span, the middle section
of main-girders will bend down strongly,
and the front parts of main-girders will
bend upwards. The weight of concrete
at the front cantilever will not elimi-
nate the deformation in the mid-span
and the cantilever will be higher than
expected. Apart from a bad shape of
the bridge, this incorrect pouring pro-
cedure can even lead to failure of the
MSS’s main-girders or support con-
structions, and the existing bridge can-
tilever will be temporarily overloaded.
Structural Engineering International 4/2011
Performance and Productivity
Owing to the quantity and size of mate-
rial being required for MSSs, logistics
may sometimes be difficult and expen-
sive. Main-girders with dimensions of
4 × 2,5 × 21 m3 for large bridges that
can only be transported as a unit are
available in the market. But smaller
systems are also available for smaller
spans or even modular systems. Many
parts of MSSs, such as main-girders
or brackets, are bulky or have a great
length. Among other points, this fact
justifies the use of MSS technology
only in long bridges with multiple
applications or with long construction
time or if there is no cheaper technol-
ogy available.
Assembling and dismantling on site
is the most time-consuming opera-
tion with MSS. With a higher degree
of pre-fabrication of delivered parts,
transport costs and handling costs
on site may increase but time can be
saved. If assembling procedures can
be clarified with the bridge designer
in advance, cost of temporary foun-
dations and lifting equipment can be
reduced, i.e. when assembling can take
place behind abutments and the MSS
can be launched through them.
If that is not possible, end spans can
either be produced with stationary
shoring systems, or the MSS can be
installed completely in the second
span. End spans can also be fabricated
with shortened main-girders; launch-
ing noses can be installed subsequently
during the first launching operation.
The first launching also serves as a load
test for the MSS. Loads and deforma-
tions at fixed points, being given in
handling instructions, are recorded,
deviations are transferred to the MSS
designer who immediately evaluates
consequences for further launching
steps. The MSS’s self-weight on the
pier supports’ hydraulic jacks is con-
sidered the base for all examinations.
Simulation of the pouring stage with
a load test of the MSS is possible but,
in most cases, not decisive: the initial
casting steps will often be fabricated
with an incomplete MSS; so it is not
possible to simulate the development
of inner friction due to hardening of
concrete with water-bags and in many
cases, the pouring stage does not rep-
resent the determining design case for
the MSS.
Relocating the pier supports will nor-
mally be carried out during the pro-
duction of the superstructure. Figure 6

Fig. 6: Overhead system in pouring and launching stage; scheme from Dae-Duck-Bridge
in Korea
shows the two stages of an overhead
MSS in cross-sectional view. Launching
stages are critical stages for the sched-
ule. Whenever span length, cross-
sectional shape of the superstructure
or transversal inclination varies,
modifications have to be carried out.
Reinforcement installation has to
wait until these works are finished.
Additional features such as adaptable
cantilever suspensions and exchange-
able formwork constructions help in
saving time during these critical phases.
At MSSs without intermediate sup-
ports, fabricating span-by-span on
three sets of pier supports, launching
of the MSS requires about 10 to 15%
of the whole cycle time.
While 40 to 50 m single-cell box-
girder spans with ordinary pier sup-
ports can be produced in two casting
steps within 10 working days (one
shift, 10 working hours per day with
minimized staff), cycle times with on-
board brackets on the same bridge
may need 2 to 4 days longer because
relocating the pier supports cannot
be carried out independently from
the launching procedure (both exam-
ples from German railway bridge
construction).
The fastest way to cast box girders is
to cast them in one stage. It requires
sophisticated and expensive inner
formwork, similar to tunnel formwork.
Owing to higher bending moments
resulting from casting the full cross sec-
tion at once, the MSS construction will
be stronger and mostly heavier. With
that type of MSS, pre-fabrication of
reinforcement, higher manpower and
longer working times, cycle times can
be shortened to 1 week (as in Viaducto
de Rio Portos, Portugal).
Structural Engineering International 4/2011
Experienced operation crews help in
making cycle times, especially assem-
bling, dismantling and relocating
works, reliable and easy to schedule.
With inexperienced crews, assembling
needs more time and the initial cycles
of fabrication must be acknowledged
only as training cycles.
Risks and Safety
A remarkable advantage in terms of
labour safety is the reduction of relo-
cation works compared with stationary
shoring systems.
In most cases, fabrication of MSS parts is
taken over by the supplier who assures a
complete and traceable quality control.
Fig. 7: Integrated platform concept at Füllbach-Talbrücke in Germany (photocourtesy: Mr.
Bader, Strukturas)
Any changes being made at the MSS
during one project, such as the instal-
lation of concrete spreaders, should be
transmitted to and approved by the
designer of the system.
MSS works are usually carried out
over the ground. Three main critical
phases can be identified in the use of
standard MSSs: works on incomplete
MSSs during assembling and disman-
tling, relocation works of pier supports
and the launching stage.
Two risk analyses should be provided:
one for the assembling and disman-
tling operations and one regarding the
use of MSSs.
With the rising degree of pre-assem-
bling, the risk of accidents during
assembling phases over the ground
will be reduced.
The MSS should be kept clean; unfore-
seen loads due to mixing up the MSS
in a storage yard can have fatal con-
sequences. General issues such as
avoiding launching operations at night
or provision of integrated working
platform concepts (see Fig. 7) should
be considered. Interrupting launch-
ing operations, for example during a
strong wind, must be avoided because
MSSs will be separated as completely
independent parts for the launching
which will reduce the stability of the
whole system.
Approval of the assembled MSS and
approval before casting of each span
Scientific Paper 417
should be a done as matter of course.
Site-internal approvals for the founda-
tion levels and relocated pier supports,
and checklists for launching stages
help in eliminating mistakes during
routine operations.
Safe handling of the MSS depends
on the operators as they are the most
important influence. Careful train-
ing and education are basic require-
ments in operators but cannot replace
experience.
Recommendations
Bridge design offers a high potential to
increase efficiency during operations
of the MSS. Equal bridge span lengths
avoid adaptations of the MSS and save
time. Communication between bridge
and MSS designers in the early phases
of a project optimizes assembling and
dismantling procedures and eases
operations with simple measures such
as repositioning the cantilever sus-
pensions in order to have equal span
lengths.
A good coordination between form-
work and its support construction
on the MSS help in saving material
and weight, i.e. regarding distances
between the grid of transversal beams
and exchangeability of formwork
elements.
When the MSSs is lowered down, the
superstructure experiences different
kinds of deformation: bending of the
MSS during the casting stages, deforma-
tion of the previously fabricated cantile-
ver, creeping and shrinking of concrete,
pre-stressing and settlements of foun-
dations and supports. When lowering
418 Scientific Paper
down, the MSS’s deformation will relax,
but in the launching stage deformations
will again change. Proper communica-
tion between bridge designer and MSS
designer and feedback from the site
help in creating reliable forecasts for
the necessary pre-cambering and for
providing sufficient clearance between
formwork and superstructure when
launching.
MSSs make the construction site linear
and movable. Material supply can be
optimized with access from the rear
abutment. When using underslung or
alongside systems, a crane-on-rails on
or next to the bridge deck helps in
saving time and eases material supply.
If a tower crane cannot be installed,
cycle times can be shortened with pre-
fabricated reinforcement baskets that
can be transported to in place i.e. by
straddle carriers. In areas with dif-
ficult access, it may be useful to raise
the degree of mechanization, that is,
by using MSSs that can unload trucks,
feed themselves of materials and rein-
stall their own supports.
Bridge completion works for drainage,
edge beams and lighting can start even
before the MSS has reached the final
span, thereby production time for the
whole bridge can be optimized.
Tower cranes that follow underslung
or alongside systems on the bridge
help in saving time and money spent
on lifting equipment.
Remarkably high savings in the time
can be achieved by casting box gird-
ers not in two steps but in one. In such
cases it must be considered that the
MSS faces a much higher bending load.
As the partial bearing capacity of the
Structural Engineering International 4/2011
trough cannot be taken into account
for static calculations, the whole mov-
able scaffolding system must have
stronger dimensions, which will lead to
higher loadings of the concrete struc-
ture during the pouring and launching
stages.
Conclusion
MSSs are economically useful to cast
long bridges in place and are suitable
to build bridges in areas with hin-
dered access. Well designed MSSs and
good communication between bridge
designer and formwork supplier cre-
ate more flexibility in use than incre-
mental launching systems, especially
in more complex bridges in countries
with high labour costs. With the pos-
sibility to create individual shapes of
superstructures and lower costs for the
application of the bridges with medium
length and in urban areas, this con-
struction method also has advantages
in comparison to pre-cast technology.
References
[1] Marx S, Krontal L, Bätz S, Vehlow A. Die
Scherkondetalbrücke, die erste semi-integrale
Talbrücke der DB AG auf der Neubaustrecke
Erfurt—Leipzig/Halle VDE 8.2. Beton
Stahlbetonbau 2010; 105 (Heft 3); S134–S141.
DOI: 10.1002/best.201090021.
[2] Mertinaschk A. Köröshegy Viadukt—
Vorschubgerüsttechnik mit vielfältigen
Möglichkeiten, VDI Jahrbuch 2009. Bautechnik,
VDI Verlag GmbH Düsseldorf: Germany, 2008.
[3] Marx S, Schlaich J. Fresh wind for German rail-
way bridges. In: The 11th Annual International fib
Symposium, Concrete: 21st Century Superhero?
Building a Sustainable Future, London, June
22–24, 2009, Book of Abstracts and CD-Rom.