IMPROVING STANDARD BRIDGES WITH ATTENTION TO

CAST-IN-PLACE SUBSTRUCTURE
By S. L. Billington1 and J. E. Breen2

ABSTRACT: This paper focuses on improving the efficiency and aesthetics of standard highway bridges with
attention to cast-in-place substructure design. Standard short- and moderate-span bridges are predominantly
functional and nondescript. Recent developments in superstructure design have led to improved efficiency of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile (UC) on 07/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

construction and material use, with a resulting slender, attractive appearance. However, typical substructure
design remains a component where creativity can be played out for considerable improvements to the overall
bridge appearance. A review of current cast-in-place substructure systems is presented including individual, wall,
hammerhead, and multicolumn bents. Design recommendations for improving overall bridge appearance and the
efficiency of the substructure are presented. Attention is given to integrating aesthetics with material and con-
struction efficiency and with economic considerations. Recommendations include addressing structural expres-
sion, visibility through the bridge, shaping of the substructure, integration of substructure and superstructure,
and enhancing substructure form with nonstructural details. Issues of coherence for large-scale projects and
suggestions for standardization also are discussed. Economic implications of the design recommendations are
presented.

INTRODUCTION Center for Transportation Research in Austin, Tex., with a goal

The vast majority of the world’s bridges are of short and
moderate spans. Yet it is not these most common bridges but
rather the monumental long-span bridges that are the most
noticeable and striking due to their size and often scenic set-
tings. The more prevalent short- and moderate-span bridges
simply remain functional and nondescript. These more mod-
erate-sized bridges, which dominate our highway landscape,
typically fail to catch even the imagination of the engineers
who design them. Such displays of structural engineering do
little to express the rapid growth and exciting developments
of bridge engineering.
With the development of precast, prestressed concrete gird-
ers, the superstructure of many standard highway bridges is
often slender and can be attractive. The substructure is a com-
ponent where creativity can be played out for considerable
improvements to the overall bridge appearance [Fig. 1(a)]. Al-
though many viewers are motorists passing rapidly under these
bridges, a significant number of standard bridges also are
viewed from various other angles from frontage roads, road-
side parks, and other local roads.
The substructure systems of most short- and moderate-span
standard highway bridges are cast-in-place concrete systems.
A wide variety of cast-in-place shapes are possible because of
concrete’s flowing quality. However, narrow standardization of
formwork is common for economic savings. Unfortunately,
standardization often stalls with the use of just a few shapes
—circular or rectangular columns with prismatic caps. These
systems typically result in ugly forests of columns in any set-
ting [Fig. 1(b)]. Limiting the variety of standard substructure
shapes allows for little creative expression, which in turn has
a negative effect on overall bridge appearance. The engineer’s
challenge is to find new forms and new shapes that are attrac-
tive and within reasonable economic limits.
The University of Texas at Austin’s Ferguson Structural En-
gineering Laboratory conducted a research project through the
1
Asst. Prof., Dept. of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., Cornell Univ., Ithaca,
NY 14853.
2
Nasser I. Al-Rashid Chair in Civ. Engrg., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ.
of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712.
Note. Discussion open until April 1, 2001. To extend the closing date
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of
Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on August 11, 1998. This paper is part of the Journal
of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 4, November, 2000. 䉷ASCE, ISSN
1084-0702/00/0004-0344–0351/$8.00 ⫹ $.50 per page. Paper No. 18993.
344 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2000
of improving the efficiency and appearance of short- and mod-
erate-span bridge systems. One of the outcomes of this study
was a draft manual entitled Aesthetics and efficiency guidelines
(Billington 1997) with example applications (Billington et al.
2000). Another major product was a proposed segmentally
precast substructure system for use with standard highway
bridges (Billington et al. 1999a). This paper summarizes sug-
gested improvements to spark creativity in short- and moder-
ate-span bridge design with an emphasis on cast-in-place sub-
structure design. Ideas that are particularly compatible with
precast concrete superstructure design are the focus. These
ideas can be implemented in many design situations without
excessive total bridge cost increases.
BACKGROUND
As shown in Fig. 1, the substructure is clearly an element
of standard bridge design that significantly affects the appear-
ance of the bridge. In many states, the current practice for
bridge substructure design and construction is basically the
same now as it was 40 years ago. Creativity has been limited
through extreme standardization and the reuse of a few shapes
for all projects, for economic savings. Studies have shown that
the trend toward monotony in pier design has been nationwide
(Poston et al. 1986).
CAST-IN-PLACE SUBSTRUCTURE SYSTEMS
Widely used standard substructure systems for precast pre-
tensioned superstructure bridges include individual columns,
walls, hammerhead bents, and multicolumn bents.
Individual columns, used without bent caps to support in-
dividual girders, can efficiently support the spines of segmen-
tal box girders, or individual trapezoidal box or U-beam su-
perstructures. These superstructure systems require fewer
longitudinal beams than traditional box beams or I-girders,
thus decreasing the number of individual supports required.
Individual supports for traditional I-girders would typically
create a cluttered appearance.
Wall substructures, generally as wide as the superstructure
that they support, are often used in rivers to minimize blockage
from debris or for crash protection in railroad crossings. They
typically obstruct visibility through a bridge when viewed
from most angles. However, when used in connection with
increased span lengths, wall substructures may provide a sim-
ple, elegant appearance (Fig. 2).

J. Bridge Eng., 2000, 5(4): 344-351

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile (UC) on 07/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 1. For Standard Overpass, Contrast between: (a) Simple Tapered Single Support; (b) Series of Multicolumn Bents

FIG. 2. For River Crossing, Comparison of: (a) Wall Piers; (b) Multicolumn Bents

FIG. 3. Subtle Taper in (a) Tall Rectangular Column Contrasted with Abrupt Changes in Cross Section for (b) Tall Circular Pier

Hammerhead bents (T-shaped single-column bents) are DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

common for narrow bridges and bridges in locations where
visibility through the structure is desired. They may be entirely
underneath the superstructure [Fig. 3(a)] or partially or fully
integrated with the superstructure [Figs. 3(b) and 4(b)].
Multicolumn bents are common for wide bridges or in lo-
cations where the area underneath the bridge needs to be strad-
dled transverse to the bridge roadway. Multicolumn bents are
often the most economical solution for any bridge width but,
again, typically result in a cluttered appearance [Figs. 1(b) and
2(b)].
The design considerations important for substructure design
to enhance overall bridge appearance should adhere to three
major ideals for short- and moderate-span bridge design. These
ideals are presented as three themes in the proposed Aesthetics
and efficiency guidelines (Billington 1997) and will be referred
to in the following suggestions for cast-in-place substructure
systems:
• Aesthetics, efficiency, and economics—the interrelation-
ship of these disciplines in engineering design
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2000 / 345

J. Bridge Eng., 2000, 5(4): 344-351

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile (UC) on 07/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 4. Removing (a) Substructure Clutter by Using (b) Fewer Elements
• Vision—the importance of having an overall design con-
cept for a project
• Coherence—the integration of the engineered design and
the design concept with each decision to form a coherent,
attractive structure
For the first theme, aesthetics in bridge design refers to the
visual appearance or impression given by the structure. Con-
sidering the visual impact of a bridge to be important, all en-
gineering design decisions should be sensitive to bridge aes-
thetics. Economics plays a key role in bridge design,
particularly for public works. Engineering design decisions
must always be related to their economic impact on a project.
Efficiency in design is directly connected to and joins together
both aesthetics and economy. Efficiency may be thought of in
terms of material efficiency and/or construction efficiency. Ma-
terial efficiency refers to optimizing material use—or mini-
mizing wasted material. Construction efficiency refers to min-
imizing nonproductive labor and construction time as well as
simplifying the process of fabrication and erection.
To adhere to these themes for a substructure design, the
constraints of the project must first be identified. The choice
of an appropriate substructure system may be controlled by
the superstructure span lengths chosen, support locations, col-
umn heights, foundation conditions, or the superstructure
width. In light of the constraints, a variety of economical sub-
structure systems should be considered at the outset—ones
that adhere to the design concept for the bridge and add to a
coherent design.
Issues to consider in substructure design in accordance with
the themes above are structural expression, visibility through
the bridge, shaping of the substructure for visual integration
with other bridge elements and the bridge site, as well as non-
structural surface details. Emphasis should be placed on the
use of more durable materials in efficient shapes.
Structural Expression
The visual expression of the flow of forces from the super-
structure to the foundations is referred to as structural expres-
sion—a direct connection between the structural form and the
structural function. Examples include deepening sections at
points where larger resistance for higher moments is required
or, conversely, tapering columns down to pinned ends. The
tapered hammerhead bent in Fig. 3(a) is structurally expressive
of the flow of forces under static loading conditions. Structur-
ally expressive forms must be true to their purpose. Exagger-
346 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2000
J. Bridge Eng., 2000, 5(4): 344-351
FIG. 5. Lack of Integration
ated forms may appear contrived. Careful attention to the aes-
thetic impression of a structurally expressive substructure can
provide a natural balance of aesthetics and efficiency and often
leads to economical forms.
To display the flow of forces between the caps and columns
of more standard substructure units, the edges of the two el-
ements should be continuous from one to another. Elements
with abrupt changes in size whose edges do not line up give
the substructure a clumsy, building-block appearance (Fig. 5).
Similarly, circular columns do not integrate well with pris-
matic caps [Fig. 3(b)]. Attention to the integration of the dif-
ferent parts of the substructure will result in a more attractive
form, one that demonstrates a smooth flow of forces from the
superstructure to the foundation [Fig. 3(a)].
Designs that structurally integrate the superstructure and
substructure with moment resisting connections are often re-
quired in regions where seismic loads must be resisted. The
structural integration of the elements is an obvious opportunity
for structural expression and can provide coherence between
bridge elements. A moment connection between the super-
structure and substructure will typically allow for longer spans
than would a simply supported superstructure of similar depth.
This would decrease the number of foundations and substruc-
ture elements required while increasing the visual slenderness
of the bridge.
A more unique example of structurally expressive piers in-
tegrated with superstructure is shown in Fig. 6, with a post-
tensioned box girder bridge in California. The tapers in these
piers vary in both the longitudinal and transverse directions.
In the transverse direction, the columns are vertical cantilevers

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile (UC) on 07/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 6. Structurally Expressive Piers (Seim and Lin 1990)
—fixed at the base and pinned at the top. In the longitudinal
direction, the columns are pinned at the base to relieve shrink-
age and creep stresses in the posttensioned deck and are fixed
at the top to provide continuity between the superstructure and
substructure (Seim and Lin 1990).
Expression of the construction process is another alternative
for structural expression. For example, construction joints can
be accented with chamfers. Accented joints, however, interrupt
the smooth lines expressive of concrete’s quality of monolith-
ically following any shape or form. Instead, accented joints
may make concrete appear like its structural material prede-
cessor, masonry.
Improving Visibility
Multicolumn bents on short-span bridges allow for limited
visibility through their forests of columns. Where the design
concept calls for more openness, light, and visibility, fewer
substructure elements should be used. This can best be
achieved with hammerhead bents or two-column multicolumn
bents. Bents with more than two columns are generally clut-
tered and should be avoided (Figs. 2 and 4). Where possible,
an exceptionally wide bridge could be split into two bridges,
each with a two-column substructure (Fig. 7), allowing more
light to reach underneath and through the bridge, thus avoiding
a dark tunnel effect. When two-column bents are combined
with longer spans, a lighter, more transparent bridge will result
—a particularly good solution for congested urban areas,
crime-ridden areas, or park settings.
Fewer substructure elements may result in larger elements.
Therefore it is important to keep in mind the size of elements
when minimizing the number of elements. Large columns may
appear as walls and block visibility from certain angles. Three-
dimensional renderings are a useful tool for engineers to judge
how visibility is or is not impaired by the design (Fig. 8).
Visibility is likewise impaired by the use of skewed bents.
FIG. 7. Separating Wide Bridges
J. Bridge Eng., 2000, 5(4): 344-351
In particular, a mixture of skewed and normal multicolumn
bents leads to a confusing design and one that is often visually
incoherent (Fig. 9). Although skewed bridges may minimize
span lengths, they are typically more difficult to construct, and
skewed abutments often lead to increased costs (Menn 1985).
In general, unless stream or traffic flows make skewed layouts
essential, they should be avoided altogether and alternate so-
lutions should be investigated (Fig. 10). Where skews cannot
be avoided, substructure shapes should be chosen that accom-
modate both the deck direction and the skew underpass or
waterway direction, such as octagonal piers. (Circular columns
are another option but do not integrate well with rectangular
bent caps and are not recommended.)
The type of bent cap chosen also affects visibility through
the bridge. Compared with fully and partially integrated bent
caps, caps that are entirely underneath the superstructure lead
to the most obstruction of visibility through the bridge. Par-
tially integrated bent caps such as inverted T-caps place the
mass of the cap between the beams so that only the ledge
supporting the beams is visible, thus improving visibility
through the bridge. Partially integrated caps disrupt the hori-
zontal line of the superstructure with bent cap ends, whereas
caps entirely underneath the superstructure do not. Fully in-
tegrated caps allow for the cleanest profile and maximum vis-
ibility through the bridge [Fig. 4(b)].
Shaping
Simple curves can enhance a substructure’s appearance, par-
ticularly for bridges in highly visible settings. The edges of
large wall supports can be curved and tapered in to minimize
a heavy appearance. Incorporating curves into substructure de-
sign softens the visual flow from one element to another.
Rather than appearing as a set of building blocks, the elements
complement each other and form a more coherent whole.
Subtle tapers can easily be used for attractive results. A two-
span overpass with a single tapered column is more elegant
than a three-span bridge with two multicolumn bents (Fig. 1).
A single tapered pier is a considerably more attractive option
than a stepped circular pier (Fig. 3).
The ends of bent caps are typically highly reflective sur-
faces. As a result, they call attention to themselves and often
detract from the overall bridge appearance (Fig. 11). Shaping
the cap ends and softening bulky proportions can prevent these
eyesores. Angling the cap end in toward the ground to put it
in a shadow will cause attention to focus on the reflective
superstructure, thereby accenting the horizontal flow of the
structure. A more sculptural, vertically chamfered end will ac-
cent the relationship between superstructure and substructure
(Fig. 12). The cap may be shaped to blend with and maintain
the horizontal line of the superstructure, delineating it from
the substructure. The result is the appearance of one long con-
tinuous beam. This technique is, however, deceptive in terms
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2000 / 347
 of structural expression, as the true structure is one of simply
supported beams, not continuous beams.
For balanced proportions between caps and columns, in-
verted-T bent caps should have stem widths equal to the sup-
porting column width. If the inverted-T stem is wider than the
column, chamfering can be used as an optical correction. The
bent cap end would be chamfered so that the flat reflective
surface (the surface between the chamfers) is the same width
as the supporting columns. Chamfering bent cap ends to com-
plement chamfered columns is a good option for well-inte-
grated coherent design. Such shaping visually integrates the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile (UC) on 07/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

elements, provides visual interest to the user or passerby, and

FIG. 8. Simple Study of Visibility Being Obstructed when (a)
Single Piers Are (b) Widened
imparts a feeling of stability and safety.
Nonstructural walls such as those in Fig. 13(a) are often
used at the end of bent caps to cover an inverted-T or any gap
between two simply supported beams. These walls call atten-
tion to the joint, accenting the simply supported superstructure
but disrupting the horizontal visual flow of the bridge, partic-
ularly when not well proportioned [Fig. 13(b)]. However, non-
structural walls can result in a clean, metered appearance when
kept in proportion with other bridge elements.

Coherence for Large Projects

For projects consisting of single and multicolumn substruc-

tures, use of a family of substructures will lead to the most
coherent designs. This can be achieved through the use of
similar shapes and elements when designing both the single
and multicolumn bents.
Creating a family of substructures requires attention to
structural expression as well as proportion. Narrow columns
should be in proportion with wider columns when the same
shape is used. Where different shapes are used for different
width columns on the same project, the different columns
should relate visually to one another (Fig. 14). Different
shapes for a single project should be kept to a minimum to
ensure economic feasibility. Tapers on single columns should
be repeated on multicolumn bents. Chamfered single columns
FIG. 9. Skewed Multicolumn Bents should be complemented by similarly chamfered multicolumn

FIG. 10. Careful Examination of (a) Original Skewed Layout Shows (b) Alternate Solution Resulting in Cleaner Design

348 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2000

J. Bridge Eng., 2000, 5(4): 344-351

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile (UC) on 07/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 11. Awkward Appearance of Blunt Bent Cap End
FIG. 12. Chamfered Bent Cap End
bents. Consistent use of cap types should be maintained
throughout a project.
When providing coherence though chamfering of differently
sized piers, the chamfers may change proportionally with the
column size or remain the same size. Particularly for columns
of varying height, chamfers that change in proportion with the
column section and height will be more balanced. Small cham-
fers that may be attractive on a tall or slender column will
cause a shorter and wider column to appear more like a stocky
wall [Fig. 15(a)]. Larger chamfers for larger column sections
and shorter heights will accent slenderness [Fig. 15(b)] and
complement any taller, more slender columns within the same
project. Proportional chamfers enhance the coherence of a
project by creating a smoother visual transition from one col-
umn size to the next.
Enhancement through Surface Treatments
Surface treatments of texture and color can be used in de-
sign to enhance structural qualities of the bridge. Such treat-
FIG. 13. Awkward Proportioning of Nonstructural Cap End Walls
J. Bridge Eng., 2000, 5(4): 344-351
FIG. 14. Coherence Achieved with Similar Shaping of Differ-
ently Sized Supports
ments are not essential for attractive substructure design and
should not be used to cover up dull bridge forms.
Different types of concrete texture include exposed aggre-
gate, sandblasted surfaces, rubbed finishes, relief, and surface
patterns obtained from form liners. Exposed aggregate may be
used to reflect the local geological materials, particularly when
the aggregate color matches that of natural rock surroundings.
Exposed aggregate may also act as a graffiti deterrent. The
numerous types of exposed aggregate finish available should
be explored to find one suited to the design concept of the
bridge. Sandblasting and rubbing concrete are two other con-
crete finish options that have successfully enhanced good proj-
ects in the past (Billington 1997).
Relief may be provided to accent different structural mem-
bers. Vertical grooves in piers accent height and give piers a
taller and thus more slender appearance [Fig. 16(a)]. Horizon-
tal accents on vertical members give a heavier, more massive,
or cut-stone–like appearance [Fig. 16(b)]. A wide variety of
form-liner patterns can be used for textural relief and are avail-
able for use on bridge projects. A single form-liner pattern can
be used effectively as a harmonizing element throughout a
project. The use of texture to make concrete appear as another
material should be restricted to locations where the structure
is meant to replicate local structures.
Color may be incorporated in concrete designs by adding
pigments to a concrete mix, or by staining or painting the
surface. Color is incorporated in steel bridges through self-
weathering steel or painting the steel. A wide variety of con-
crete stain colors are available today, and virtually any color
can be chosen to paint concrete.
Painted concrete can be repainted and stained concrete can
be sandblasted to cover the common problems of graffiti and
dirty runoff water that typically plague bridge substructures
today. Experience in Texas has shown that painted concrete
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2000 / 349
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile (UC) on 07/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 15. (a) Small Chamfers Have Little Effect on Short Columns, whereas (b) Larger Chamfers Accentuate Slenderness
FIG. 16. (a) Vertically Oriented Relief Accentuates Pier’s Height and Slenderness, whereas (b) Horizontal Relief Gives More Massive,
Heavy Appearance [Fig. 16(a) from Seim and Lin (1990)]
typically peels within a few years of application, therefore re-
quiring the additional maintenance of repainting, whereas con-
crete colored through staining does not.
In choosing among the numerous surface treatments avail-
able, designers should incorporate finishes according to the
design concept of their projects. Similar textures and colors
should be used throughout large projects for coherence, and
colors should be matched for patching and repair work. Sur-
face treatments that are part of the design concept can be ef-
fectively used in locations where construction irregularities
such as waviness or uneven color may be expected.
In all substructure design, to protect the finish or surface
treatments, sufficient attention must be given to drainage de-
tailing to avoid heavy staining. Details include internal drain-
pipes to guide deck runoff water and drip beads to shed water
from the underside of the superstructure.
Surface treatments are often relegated to being last-minute
additions to doctor an unattractive bridge. This use of surface
treatments in an attempt to disguise a dull form is rarely suc-
cessful and will typically lead to increased costs. Surface treat-
ment details instead must be incorporated into design decisions
from the beginning of a project, where they are a part of the
design concept and therefore a part of the project budget.
STANDARDIZATION
There often appears to be a conflict between standardization
and flexibility in design. To display the efficiency of a design
or to express the flow of forces in a structure often requires
solutions tailored specifically for each site. For short- and
moderate-span bridges, such tailoring can be economical for
repetitive bridge structures—ones in similar sites. However,
standardization should not stop at one or two shapes per ele-
ment. Just as in superstructure design where cross-sectional
350 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2000
J. Bridge Eng., 2000, 5(4): 344-351
shape varies from I, T, U, and box, standard substructure
shapes can vary as well to improve and bring diversity to
substructure design. Wide standardization has proven to be
very economical for substructure design in California, result-
ing in over 20 different standard cast-in-place column shapes
for selection [California Department of Transportation (CAL-
TRANS) 1990]. Elsewhere, over time, more new shapes
should be adopted and standardized in consultation with con-
tractors to give designers more flexibility to tailor their designs
to particular sites economically with standardized elements.
Two simple details that can add variety and visual interest
to standard forms are column chamfers and column flares.
Chamfering rectangular sections to remove the sharp corners
can improve the relative proportions between the columns and
different elements of the bridge as discussed previously. Large
wall-like piers could be chamfered to reduce their massive
appearance. Chamfers can easily be incorporated into standard
designs with attractive and economical results.
Column flares can be incorporated into standards quite sim-
ply. Unlike a tapered column where the cross section varies
along the entire height, a column flare would make up just a
portion of the section and could thus be standardized along
with the various constant cross-section sizes and shapes.
Clearly new standard shapes can continue to be developed
to broaden the range of standard substructure options.
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
The substructure naturally makes up only a portion of the
total bridge cost. In Texas, for example, the substructure is
typically 30% of the total bridge cost. A 30% increase in sub-
structure cost would therefore result in only a 9% increase in
bridge cost. A 50% increase in substructure cost would result
in a 15% increase in bridge cost. Where a bridge is part of an
 overall highway project, the increase in project cost due to
increased substructure costs may very often be negligible (Bil-
lington et al. 1999b). Decisions of when cost increases are
warranted would be up to the owner and would typically be
made considering visibility (location) of the bridge. Improving
standard substructure options and shapes is one way to make
economical improvements for any location and reduce indif-
ference to rural landscapes.
Chamfering and shaping of bent caps require attention in
detailing but cause no significant economic change, particu-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile (UC) on 07/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
larly if standard pier sections and, hence, standard forms are
developed.
Avoiding skewed bents may result in fewer substructure
units and lead to economic savings. Although providing ade-
quate clearance under straddling (nonskew) bents [Fig. 10(b)]
may increase costs relative to skew bents, the savings on sim-
plicity in design and fewer bents typically results in a negli-
gible cost difference. In the case presented in Fig. 10, savings
resulted.
Splitting a wide bridge into two narrower bridges (Fig. 7)
would require a minimal increase in cost for additional railing.
Savings or additional costs for the superstructure and substruc-
ture of a split bridge will be project dependent. Such options
must be judged based on the total project cost and not simply
as a percentage of individual element costs.
Individual columns supporting individual precast beams ef-
fectively remove the need for a bent cap. Using individual
columns to support individual precast beams will be most cost
effective with trapezoidal box and U-beam superstructures,
where the number of individual columns may be the same as
the number of columns required for a multicolumn bent. Foun-
dation costs will typically remain the same. Each of the indi-
vidual columns used to support individual beams will gener-
ally need to be much stronger than each of the columns in a
multicolumn bent, as there is no structural redundancy with
the individual columns. However, savings will be achieved
by eliminating the bent cap, a cumbersome element to form
on site.
In all steps of the design process, the economic advantages
possible must be balanced with the final appearance or visual
impression of the bridge. Economic advantages must also be
balanced with ensuring that design decisions adhere to the de-
sign concept of the bridge. Conscious decisions to design the
least expensive substructure type therefore must be challenged
with consideration of the cost and added value of improving
the appearance of the structure to produce a coherent bridge
with a well-executed design concept.
J. Bridge Eng., 2000, 5(4): 344-351
CONCLUSIONS
Substructure design provides an opportunity for creative de-
sign with short- and moderate-span bridge systems. Substruc-
ture design may express visually the flow of forces from the
superstructure to the foundation and may increase visibility
through a bridge. Shaping of substructure elements through
simple curves, tapers, and chamfering can minimize heavy ap-
pearances and visually integrate the often seemingly disjointed
elements of short- and moderate-span bridges. With fore-
thought in planning, attention to surface details can enhance
an attractive structure with negligible project cost increases, if
any.
Short- and moderate-span highway bridges are a vital and
often highly visible component of our infrastructure. Recog-
nizing the impact of substructure design on a bridge’s appear-
ance, alternative substructure designs must be pursued crea-
tively to ensure that our bridges will be elegant additions to
their sites.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writers gratefully acknowledge the contributions of coresearchers
Robert Barnes, Carl Holliday, Dan Leary, Scot Listavich, Stephen
Ratchye, and D. Andrew Vernooy. The writers also wish to thank Stewart
Watson, Norman Friedman, and Dean vanLanduyt for their contributions
and participation in the project.
The Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, Tex., and the Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., sponsored this project. The
opinions in this paper are those of the writers and not necessarily those
of the sponsors.
APPENDIX. REFERENCES
Billington, S. L. (1997). ‘‘Improving standard bridges through aesthetic
guidelines and attractive efficient concrete substructures.’’ PhD disser-
tation, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.
Billington, S. L., Barnes, R. W., and Breen, J. E. (1999a). ‘‘A precast
substructure design for standard bridge systems.’’ Res. Rep. 1410-2,
Center for Transportation Research, Austin, Tex.
Billington, S. L., Barnes, R. W., and Breen, J. E. (1999b). ‘‘A precast
segmental substructure system for standard bridges.’’ PCI J., 44(4), 56–
73.
Billington, S. L., Ratcheye, S., Breen, J. E., and Vernooy, D. A. (2000).
‘‘Example applications of aesthetics and efficiency guidelines.’’ Con-
crete Int., 22(2), 66–75.
California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS). (1990). Bridge
design details, Sect. 7, Sacramento, Calif., 7-31–7-31.2.
Menn, C. (1985). ‘‘Aesthetics in bridge design.’’ Bull. Int. Assn. Shell
and Spatial Struct., 25-2(88), 53–62.
Poston, R. W., Diaz, M., and Breen, J. E. (1986). ‘‘Design trends for
concrete bridge piers.’’ ACI J., 83(1), 14–20.
Seim, C., and Lin, T. Y. (1990). ‘‘Aesthetics in bridge design accent on
piers.’’ Esthetics in concrete bridge design, American Concrete Insti-
tute, Detroit.
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2000 / 351