International Journal of Civil Engineering

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-019-00433-2

RESEARCH PAPER

Method for Construction, Maintenance, and Management

of Rigid‑Frame Bridges Using H‑Shaped Steel Girders
Yoshiaki Nakai1 · Tuan Minh Ha2 · Mitsuhiko Tokuno1 · Saiji Fukada2

Received: 30 August 2018 / Revised: 16 March 2019 / Accepted: 24 April 2019

© Iran University of Science and Technology 2019

Abstract
This work outlines an actual case study performed on a rigid-frame bridge using H-shaped steel girders in the laboratory and
introduces the process of construction, maintenance, and management of the proposed bridge structure in practical cases.
A novel structural rigid connection was developed for H-shaped steel girders and reinforcing bars at the corner of the rigid-
frame structure. Additionally, a full-size model of the reinforced concrete rigid-frame bridge with H-shaped steel girders was
constructed and subjected to destructive loading tests to evaluate the structural integrity of the proposed rigid connection
and to reveal the load-carrying capacity and failure mode of the bridge. As a result of the loading test, compression failure
occurred on the upper surface of the concrete deck at midspan, whereas plasticization and breakage of the fixing nut did not
occur in the vicinity of the fixing part. Therefore, the feasibility of the connection approach at the rigid corner was verified
experimentally. In addition, the results of cost analysis showed that the rigid-frame bridge could potentially provide signifi-
cant cost benefits compared to the other bridge structures considered in this study. Notably, regarding the total cost for a life
cycle of 100 years, the overall cost of rigid-frame bridges was estimated to be approximately 0.49–0.58 of the total expenses
for slab bridges. Finally, this work introduced a scheduled inspection procedure with new inspection items corresponding to
the proposed bridges by utilizing visual observation in combination with other testing techniques.

Keywords Reinforced concrete rigid-frame bridge · H-shaped steel girder · Construction procedure · Scheduled inspection ·
Cost comparison

1 Introduction rating schemes are usually based on structural health.

Parameters such as functionality and client decisions are
Any bridge maintenance oversight and delayed responses handled separately. In Japan, new types of the reinforced
may lead to unexpected payments or degraded assets. The concrete (RC) slab bridge using H-shaped steel girders, and
accuracy of judgments stated by an administrator or bridge the rigid-frame bridge, in which the RC slab and the piers
builder relies on the precision of the bridge state evalua- are integrated, have been developed over 16 years. Thus
tion that comes from visual examination. Most of the bridge far, there are 100 slab bridges and 200 rigid-frame bridges
nationwide. Meanwhile, the importance of road management
was strongly established. Measures against aging of roads
* Tuan Minh Ha were formally enforced in Japan as a result of an accident
minhtuan09xdbk@gmail.com of tunnel ceiling collapse that took place in the 4.4-km long
Yoshiaki Nakai Sasago Tunnel of the Central Expressway in Yamanashi Pre-
yoshiaki.nakai@asahi‑japan.com fecture, approximately 80 km west of Tokyo, killing nine
Mitsuhiko Tokuno people in 2012 [1]. Subsequently, the Road Act was revised
tokuno@asahi‑japan.com in June 2013, and road bridges were required to be periodi-
Saiji Fukada cally checked over a 5-year cycle.
saiji@se.kanazawa‑u.ac.jp Regarding rigid-frame bridges, the structural detail-
1 ing of the girder–abutment connection plays a vital role in
Asahi Engineering Co., Ltd, Tokyo, Japan
their design. Among different rational design approaches
2
Faculty of Geosciences and Civil Engineering, Kanazawa developed for integral bridges [2–4], few studies proposed
University, Kanazawa, Japan

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

simplified approaches for the design of the corners of rigid-
frame bridges. Iwasaki et al. [5] reviewed the structural
details and load transmission mechanism of the three typical
girder–abutment connections that join the superstructure and
substructure in the steel–concrete composite of rigid-frame
bridges. In 2013, Chung et al. proposed a vertically pre-
stressed rigid-frame bridge to which vertical pre-stressing
was applied through steel bars anchored in the pier wall [4].
However, that approach required ordinary steel supports in
addition to supports made up of high-strength bars for pre-
stressing at the pier wall. Therefore, it is urgently needed
to conduct investigations on the rigid corners, which can
contribute to efficient design approaches. In a previous study
of the authors, a new connection method using H-shaped
steel girders and reinforcing bars at the corners of the rigid
frame was developed to simplify the construction [6]. The
study suggests that the main reinforcing bars of the abutment
pass from the lower to the upper flange of the H-shaped steel
girders, and then they are screwed by nuts. Most investiga-
tion on integral bridges focused on the performance of such
bridges under thermal loading and long-term behavior [7],
the dynamic characteristics [8, 9], and the load transmis-
sion mechanism of the girder–abutment connection [4–6].
After all, none of the above studies has been taken on the
process of construction, maintenance, and management of
the rigid-frame bridge utilizing H-shaped steel girders in
practical cases.
Regular bridge inspections in Japan are conducted
mainly according to the procedure for regular bridge
inspections prepared by the Ministry of Land, Infra-
structure, Transport, and Tourism [10]. However, some
parts of this procedure do not suit the slab bridge and the
rigid-frame bridge developed by the authors. Therefore, in
Fig. 1  Diagram of RC slab bridge using H-shaped steel girders
13
International Journal of Civil Engineering
order to complement the bridge periodic inspection pro-
cedure and to further improve this bridge type, this study
describes the structure outline and construction procedure,
and suggests a maintenance method. The construction,
maintenance, and management method described herein
are an instance of the collaboration between bridge manag-
ers and contractors. It constitutes an initial step in adding
holism and objectivity to the current approaches.
2 Overview of the Bridges
2.1 Slab Bridge Using H‑Shaped Steel Girders
Slab bridges with H-shaped girders were constructed
mainly as railway bridges in Japan. Previous studies by
the authors proposed a new construction approach for the
fixation of screw rebars utilizing steel bolts instead of a
hook type of rebars [11]. As shown in Fig. 1, the slab is
constructed by arranging H-shaped girders side-by-side.
The girders are subjected to simple drilling to make holes
allowing the screw rebars to pass through their webs to
function as cross beams. Both ends of the screw rebars
are then secured by nuts. The lower formwork panels are
placed between the lower flanges of the girders. After
arranging the upper reinforcing bars, concrete is cast
between the girders and rebars to form a composite slab
structure. This type of bridge can be applied up to a 20 m
span and has outstanding features such as a low cost, short
construction period, easy construction, and low mainte-
nance expenses.
International Journal of Civil Engineering

2.2 Rigid‑Frame Bridge Using H‑Shaped Steel pile foundation type, the rigid-frame bridge exhibits some
Girders advantages such as omission of bearing, expansion device
and bridge collapse prevention device, reduction of on-site
The cost of the substructure in the simple girder bridge with construction period, substructure size and number of foun-
a short span (up to 20 m) is generally higher than that of dation piles. As depicted in Fig. 3, the rigid-frame bridge
the superstructure. Although the cost of the superstructure using H-shaped girders is composed of a rigid connection
is in proportion to the length of the bridge span, the cost that joins the superstructure and substructure of the bridge.
of the substructure is not dependent on the bridge length. The substructure can cope with basic forms such as spread
Moreover, because the size of the abutments of the bridge is footing foundation and pile foundation. In Fig. 3, the rigid
determined by the dead load and the earth pressure, the cost corner adopts a simple and reliable rigid connection method,
will also increase in proportion to the height of abutments.
While the abutments of a simple girder bridge (Fig. 2a) are
independent of each other, those of the rigid-frame bridge
(Fig. 2b) are unified. Therefore, the pressure of the earth
acting on each abutment is canceled through the super-
structure. The size of the substructure can be made smaller
compared to the simple structure. This is particularly evi-
dent in the case of the pile foundation, where the number of
piles can be reduced. In the case of installing on small and
medium rivers, the steel sheet-pile foundation type using
the revetment sheet pile in combination can be adopted to
form a rigid-frame structure integrating the upper and lower
structures. Therefore, it is possible to reduce the construc-
tion cost when compared to the pile foundation type (see
Fig. 2c, d). In places where the ground conditions requiring
the abovementioned pile foundations are not so good, com-
pared with the conventional simple girder bridge utilizing Fig. 3  Rigid-frame bridge using H-shaped girders

Fig. 2  Comparison of structures

13
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

which employs fixing nuts and metal fittings to fix the main
reinforcing bars of the abutment to the H-shaped steel gird-
ers of the slab. Since the rigid-frame bridge adopts an RC
slab using H-shaped girders for the superstructure, it not
only has the abovementioned merits, but it is also excel-
lent in terms of earthquake resistance because of the rigid
structure.
Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the stress transmission mech-
anism of the typical corner structure of RC rigid-frame
bridges, as well as the corresponding arrangement of
the reinforcing bars. In these figures, it is necessary to
locate the reinforcing bars against the bending moment
at the corner, which makes this conventional structure
complicated. Moreover, it is important that concrete is
carefully placed. So far, aiming to obtain high perfor-
mance at reasonable cost, the so-called perfobond ribs
[Perfobond Leiste in German (PBL)] have been devel-
oped in Germany [12–14]. This new approach has been
widely applied in some steel–concrete composite bridges
as a principal load-transfer element between the concrete
roadway and the steel deck [14]. Regarding steel–PSC
(pre-stressed concrete) beams, PBL can be utilized as Fig. 5  Arrangement of rebars at the corner of the RC rigid-frame
shear connectors instead of studs in joints connecting bridge
the steel beam and the PSC beams [15, 16]. Specifically,
the perfobond rib is a flat steel plate through which a the PBL connectors used in some steel–concrete compos-
number of holes are punched. This provides shear resist- ite bridges. Their results showed that the shear strength
ance at the steel–concrete interface by dowel actions. In increased with the diameters of the transverse rebars and
2010, Kim et al. [15] evaluated the structural capacity the rib holes, and with an increase in thickness of the
and feasibility of joints with parallel perfobond ribs in the perforated rib plate. Aiming at contributing to efficient
steel–PSC hybrid beam. The perfobond ribs were applied structural design approaches for constructing the rigid
to the joints connecting the steel beam and the PSC beams corner, a previous study of the authors [6] suggested that
to provide a practical alternative to stud shear connectors. the main reinforcing bars of the abutment must pass from
The results showed that the perfobond ribs could be an the lower to the upper flange of the H-shaped steel gird-
alternative to stud shear connectors in joints of hybrid ers, and must then be secured by nuts, as illustrated in
beams. Recently, Wang et al. [14] carried out push-out Figs. 6 and 7. Therefore, the stress is directly transmitted
tests on 33 test specimens to investigate how the connec-
tion parameters affect the shear capacity and behavior of

Fig. 6  Connection between the main rebars of the abutment and

Fig. 4  Stress transmission mechanism at the rigid corner H-shaped steel girders of the deck

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering
Fig. 7  Fixation scheme using nuts placed on the upper flange
Fig. 8  Stress transmission mechanism at the proposed corner
via the H-shaped steel girders, reinforcing bars, and con-
crete, as shown in Fig. 8. This approach is based on the
PBL approach for constructing the rigid connection pro-
posed by Takagi et al. [13].
Table 1  Cost comparison of four bridge designs for a life cycle of 100 years (life cycle cost)
3 Economic Impact
Table 1 gives a comparison on the economic efficiency
between four types of slab bridges (with or without joint)
and rigid-frame bridges (pile foundation and sheet-pile
foundation) using H-shaped steel girders. Cost estimates
were based on the premise that the bridges had a length of
15.0 m, a total width of 10.0 m, an abutment height of 5.0 m,
and a total depth from the lower surface of the abutment of
~ 20.0 m, being designed with the same live load (type B).
From Table 1, compared with the construction cost (includ-
ing miscellaneous expenses) of slab bridges (with joint)
being assumed to be 1.00, the cost of slab bridges without
joint was about 0.96, i.e., 72 million Yen versus 69.1 million
Yen. The results also showed that the construction cost can
be reduced to about 0.64 and 0.5 for rigid-frame bridges with
pile foundation and with sheet-pile foundation, respectively.
Regarding maintenance and management expenses, slab
bridges (with joint) require approximately 30 million Yen,
which was ~ 3 times greater than the demand of other joint-
less structures. Here, the listed prices assume that the service
13
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

life is 100 years. Specifically, the service life of the heavy
anti-corrosion coating and the bridge railing was assumed to
be 60 years and 50 years, respectively. Moreover, the pave-
ment and expansion joints were expected to last for 20 years
until replacement is required. Moreover, because the service
periods of RC slab and bearing were set to 100 years, the
expenses corresponding to those members were not included
in the reported maintenance cost. Regarding the total cost for
a life cycle of 100 years (life cycle cost), rigid-frame bridges
with its sheet-pile foundation would be the most competitive
when compared to other target structures. They have signifi-
cant cost benefits because the overall cost was estimated to
be ~ 0.49 of the total expenses for slab bridges with joint.
In the case of rigid-frame bridges using pile foundation, the
comparative-cost ratio was ~ 0.58. Therefore, rigid-frame
bridges exhibit more cost advantages than slab bridges with
H-shaped girders.
Another comparison of estimated construction cost ratio
and estimated construction time shown in Table 2 is given
for the three types of actual structures, i.e., the slab bridge
using H-shaped steel girders (with joint), the box culvert
bridge, and the rigid-frame bridge using H-shaped steel
(steel pipe pile and steel sheet pile combined foundation).
From this table, assuming that the construction cost of the
slab bridge with H-shaped steel is 1.00, the estimated cost
ratio is 0.62 for the box culvert bridge and 0.49 for the rigid-
frame bridge using the H-shaped steel girders. Moreover,
significant efficiencies can also be seen from minimiza-
tion of construction time. This time reduction would pre-
sent savings on projects where such shorter construction
times would result in reduction of labor costs, user delays,
improved safety, and lower traffic rerouting costs. For the
proposed rigid-frame structure, the efficiency in bridge
design was also considered to lead to faster on-site construc-
tion. Comparing the rigid-frame bridge with the slab bridge
and the box culvert bridge, the former required shorter con-
struction time. Specifically, while each slab bridge and box
culvert bridge unit might take 4 and 3 months, respectively,
a project construction time saving of 1 month could be
obtained for the rigid-frame structure, which would require
only 2 months until completion. Therefore, the proposed
rigid-frame bridge can potentially provide significant cost
benefits when compared to the other bridge structures con-
sidered in this study.

Table 2  Comparison of estimated construction cost ratio for the three types of actual structures
Approximate
Side view Sectional view Characteristics construction
cost ratio
This is a commonly used bridge
structure, with separate super- and
substructures. Here, the slab
bridge structure is utilized
because of the short span length
of the superstructure. The
Slab bridge
substructure is an inverted-T type
using
reinforced concrete abutment that 1.00
H-shaped
is also a common type of
steel girders
construction for bridges.
Moreover, a cofferdam work is
necessary for the abutment
construction. The estimated time
of construction on site is about 4
months.
Box culvert bridge (cast-in-place
structure) is a construction type
frequently adopted for waterways
and small rivers. Since the
foundation is such a ground that
consolidation settlement becomes
a problem, pile foundation is
Box culvert
usually employed to prevent the 0.62
bridge
settlement. The cofferdam work is
also required at the time of
construction. Besides, it is
necessary to turn the water
passage to cope with floods. The
construction time is
approximately 3 months.
The rigid-frame bridge has a rigid
connection at the corner
integrating the superstructure into
the substructure. Regarding the
superstructure, the cast-in-place
Rigid-frame method is adopted for the
bridge using construction of the deck slab
0.49
H-shaped reinforced by H-shaped steel
steel girders girders. No shoring work is
necessary. Earth work such as
excavation for foundation and
backfilling is almost unnecessary.
The construction time is about 2
months.

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering
4 Load Test on Full‑Size Rigid‑Frame Bridge
In this section, attempts were made to evaluate the feasibility
of the proposed rigid connection on the full-size model of
the RC rigid-frame bridge with H-shaped steel girders. Spe-
cifically, a full-size prototype was constructed and subjected
to the destructive loading test in the laboratory.
4.1 Overview of the Loading Test
The specifications of the prototype of the bridge are shown
in Fig. 9a, b. The bridge had a span length of 6 m, a total
height (from the bottom surface of the footing to the top
surface of the deck) of 1.8 m, a width of 1.2 m, and used
H-shaped girders (height of web: 0.25 m) separated by a
distance of 0.6 m. The overall height of the deck was set
to 0.35 m. The compressive strength of concrete was set
Fig. 9  Specifications of the test bridge (unit: mm)
to 24, 30, and 30 N/mm2 for the footing, the abutment,
and the deck, respectively. Steel grades SD345 and SS400
were used for the reinforcing bars and the H-shaped girder
(H250 × 250 × 9 × 14), respectively.
The loading test was performed to confirm the structural
behavior of the entire specimen as well as the joint of the
H-shaped steel girders and main rebars until the final state.
A 3000 kN hydraulic jack and one load cell [Tokyo Meas-
uring Instruments Laboratory Co. Ltd. (TML) CLC-2MNA
center-hole type compression load cell with a capacity of 2
MN] were placed at the midspan of the bridge, as depicted
in Fig. 10. The measurement items were load, deflection
(vertical direction measurement, using TML CDP-25 and
CDP-50 displacement transducers with sensitivities of
~ 500 μ/mm and ~ 200 μ/mm and capacities of 25 mm and
50 mm, respectively), crack development, concrete surface
strain (TML PL 60 series polyester wire strain gauges), and
strains of steel girders and main rebars (TML FLA-5 series
13
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

particular, initial cracks appeared on the top surface of the

deck near the corner (~ 120 kN). When the applied load
was increased up to 210 kN, cracks were generated on the
lower surface of the deck at the center of the span. The joint
between the abutment and the deck then opened slightly at
~ 240 kN. During the process of crack propagation at the
corner portion and midspan, cracks occurred horizontally
near the middle area of the rear of the abutment (~ 570 kN).
The cracks from the joint between the abutment and the deck
then advanced and progressed to the inner parts of the abut-
ment. Finally, compression failure occurred on the upper
surface of the concrete deck at midspan (~ 1000 kN). The
relation between the applied load and the displacement at
midspan is presented in Fig. 12.

Fig. 10  Loading test setup 4.2.2 Strain Variation at the Corner of the Bridge

Figure 13 presents the relation between the load and the

foil strain gauges). Displacement meters were installed at strain of the main reinforcing bars of the abutment with
midspan and quarter span locations to obtain the deflection respect to the strain at the corners of the bridge. The rein-
of the bridge at each loading level. In addition, strain gauges forcing bars at the posterior side of the abutment were in
were attached to the H-shaped steel girders, to the main rein- tensile state during the experiment. It can be seen that only
forcing bars of the abutments and to the concrete slab to
examine strain behaviors occurring at investigation areas,
i.e., the rigid corner, the abutment, the quarter span and 1000
midspan locations of the bridge, shown as dashline areas in 900
Fig. 9a. Regarding data acquisition system, the TML TDS- 800 Compressive failure
302 data logger and a switching box were employed to moni- 700 at midspan
Load (kN)

tor and record the information of sensors during the experi- 600
ment. The footing was fixed on the strong floor to ensure the Horizontal cracks on the
500 posterior side of the abutment
restraints to translational and rotational movements. 400
300 Cracks on the bottom surface at midspan,
Construction joint opened slightly
4.2 Experimental Results and Discussions 200
100 Initial cracks on the top surface near the corner
4.2.1 Fracture Behavior of Rigid Structural Test Specimen 0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Figure 11 shows the crack diagram of the bridge after the Displacement (mm)
loading test. Compression fracture occurred at the midspan
and on the upper surface of the deck at the final state. In Fig. 12  Load–displacement relation at midspan of the test bridge

Fig. 11  Cracking pattern of the bridge at final state

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering

1000 1000
900
800
800
700 Load

Load (kN)
600
UH2 UH3 UH4
Load (kN)

600
U1 400
500 U2 UH2
400 U3 U1
U4 200 UH3
300 U2
U5 UH4
U3
200 U4 0
-1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000
100 U5
0 Strain (µɛ)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 (a)Load–strain relations at the top flange of the H-shaped steel girders
Strain (µɛ)
(a) Load –strain relations of main rebars at the posterior side 1000

800
1000 Load

900

Load (kN)
600
800
400 LH2 LH3 LH4
700
LH2
Load (kN)

600 200 LH3

500 D1 LH4
D2
400 D3 D1 0
D4 D2 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
300 D3
D5 Strain (µɛ)
200 D4
100 D5 (b)Load–strain relations at the bottom flange of the H-shaped steel girders
0
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Fig. 14  Relation between load and strain of steel girders
Strain (µɛ)

(b) Load–strain relations of main rebars at the front side

Fig. 13  Relation between load and strain of main rebars of the abut-
ment
the part at position U3 yielded and plasticized owing to the
influence of the opening at the construction joint. Contrary
to position U1, U4, U5, where the rebars did not yield even
when the ultimate load was applied, the rebars yielded
at position U2 and the tensile strain was measured to be
~ 2095.08 μɛ at the final loading level (see Fig. 13a). Fig-
ure 13b illustrates the load–strain relations obtained from
strain gauges attached to the main rebars at the front side of
the abutment. The compressive strains initially occurred in
the rebars when the load was applied. As the load increased,
the neutral axis shifted, and the compressive strains at posi-
tions D1, D2, D3 decreased gradually and were converted to
tensile strains when the load exceeded ~ 182 kN, ~ 104 kN
and ~ 841 kN, respectively. Moreover, the rebars showed
compressive deformation at positions D4 and D5 throughout
the experiment. The maximum tensile strain occurring at
position D2 was about 847 μɛ and the corresponding ten-
sile stress was estimated to be about 164 N/mm2, which is
equivalent to about 40% of the yield stress of the used rebars.
From the obtained results, it can be asserted that the rebars
at the front side of the abutment did not yield even at the
final loading level.
From Fig. 14a, the top flange of the H-shaped girders
in the cross-sections at the front of the abutment (position
UH2) and at the quarter span (position UH3) showed ten-
sile behaviors with increasing load, contrary to the midspan
position (UH4) being in the compression state. The bottom
flange of the steel girder at midspan (position LH4) started
yielding when the applied load was ~ 760 kN, and the corre-
sponding strain value was measured to be ~ 1658 μɛ. Mean-
while, compressive strain occurred at the bottom surface of
the steel girder at positions LH3 and LH2 when the load was
applied to the bridge. It increased with the increasing load
(see Fig. 14b). Therefore, the positive moment occurred at
the midspan of the bridge and gradually shifted from posi-
tive to negative at the cross-section near the quarter span
position. The use of fixing nuts and metal fittings to fix
the main reinforcing bars of the abutment to the H-shaped
steel girders of the slab could form a rigid-frame struc-
ture at the corner as well as using the inclined rebars and
hooks, as shown in Figs. 4 and 5. Hence, this connection
also explained the reasons for tension in UH2 and UH3 and
compression in LH2 and LH3.
On the other hand, the strain of the top surface of the
concrete slab at midspan was measured to be in a compres-
sion state with the increasing load but changed into the
tensile direction when the maximum load was applied, as
depicted in Fig. 15. Moreover, there was no breakage in the
fixing section at the corner of the bridge where the screw

13
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

1000 separated by a distance of 0.78 m. The height of the concrete

slab was set to 0.53 m near two wheel guards and 0.568 m at
Compressive failure
800 the center. Figure 18a shows the situation where the rubber
at midspan
bearing and the anchor device are installed on the abutment.
Load (kN)

600
Observed position Even for long girders that may be difficult to transport and
400 install, the H-shaped steel girder can be divided into sections
and assembled on-site. Figure 18b, c shows the work of con-
200 necting the girder sections using high-strength bolts and the
installation of H-shaped girders on-site, respectively. Due
0 to the lightness of the steel girders, the installation can be
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0
done using a small crane. Then, the formwork is performed
Strain (µɛ)
by placing formwork modules between the steel girders, as
shown in Fig. 18d. The formwork can be made from wood
Fig. 15  Relation between load and strain of concrete surface at mid-
span
(Fig. 18d). There is also a special form utilizing precast con-
crete. Cross-reinforced bars are installed after completion of
the formwork. The H-shaped girders have been subjected to
simple drilling to make holes allowing screw rebars to pass
through their webs to function as cross beams (see Fig. 18e).
Both ends of the screw rebars are then secured by nuts. Fig-
ure 18f shows the state where the upper rebars have been
assembled. After that, the concrete work and the pavement
work are carried out (Fig. 18g). Finally, Fig. 18h shows the
slab bridge after the pavement work has been finished.

5.2 Rigid‑Frame Bridge Using H‑Shaped Steel

Girders

Figures 19a, b and 20a–h describe the specifications and

Fig. 16  Compressive failure at midspan
reinforcing bars and fixing nuts were used. Hence, from the
strain analysis, the failure mode of the test bridge was not
yielding the steel girders and rebars at the rigid corner. The
final failure probably happened as a result of compression
fracture taking place at the midspan and on the upper surface
of the deck at the ultimate loading state (see Fig. 16). There-
fore, the feasibility of the proposed connection approach was
verified in the full-size specimen.
5 Construction Procedure
5.1 Slab Bridge Using H‑Shaped Steel Girders
The construction process of the slab bridge using H-shaped
girders is described next. The specifications of an actual
slab bridge using H-shaped girders are shown in Fig. 17a,
b. The bridge had a span length of 15 m, an effective width
of 5 m, and used H-shaped girders (height of web: 0.4 m)
construction procedure of a rigid-frame bridge using
H-shaped steel with steel-pipe pile foundation. The bridge
had a span length of 13.5 m and an effective width of 5 m.
The heights of the concrete slab at the center and near the
wheel guard were set to 0.47 m and 0.42 m, respectively.
The bridge contained 11 H-shaped steel girders (height of
web: 0.3 m) arranged longitudinally with a constant interval
of 0.56 m. Construction work of steel piles by vibro method
is shown in Fig. 20a. For this bridge type, many different
foundation designs can be applied such as spread footing
foundation and pile foundations including steel-pipe pile,
cast-in-place pile, and pre-stressed high-strength concrete
pile foundations. The abutment after finishing is shown in
Fig. 20b. The rebars at the top of the abutment constitute the
main reinforcing bars of the abutment. They are employed to
make a rigid connection with the H-shaped steel girders of
the RC slab at the corner of the bridge. Due to the lightness
of the H-shaped girders, the installation of the girders can be
carried out using a small crane, as shown in Fig. 20c. In par-
ticular, the main reinforcing bars of the abutment penetrate
from the lower to the upper flanges of the H-shaped steel
girders through the prefabricated holes, and they are then
secured by high-strength steel bolts. The formwork erection
is performed by placing the formwork modules between the
steel girders, as shown in Fig. 20d. The formwork shown in

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering

A1 Abutment (fixed end) A2 Abutment (movable end)

No.3+16.900m No.4+12.808m
Bridge length 15900
50 400 Span length 15000 400 50
150 H-shaped steel girder A block length 5350 H-shaped steel girder B block length 10150 150
100 300 27@150=4050 Cross reinforced bars (upper row) 11 @ 600 = 6600 27@150=4050 300 100
Cross reinforced bars (lower row) 22@300=6600
Expansion joint Expansion joint
H-shaped steel girder H400×400×13×21×15500( SM490YB)
Anti-corrosion coating for bottom surface
168

168
80

80
100 200 100

100 200 100

568

568
400

400
44
45

Buried formwork Rubber bearing H-shaped steel girder joint Formwork support( top) L50×50×6×440( SS400, HDZ55) Rubber bearing Buried formwork
6767×33×150 Formwork support( bottom) FB65×6×340( SS400, HDZ55) 7844×33×150
Corrosion protected anchor f 60 Bottom surface formwork( cedar board, t=18mm) Corrosion protected anchor f 55
Cylindrical mold( f 150×700) 337 663 Bottom surface formwork 9@1500=13500 663 337 Cylindrical mold( f 150×650)

50 150 H-shaped steel girder length 15500 150 50

(a) Side view

6200
600 5000 600
2500 2500
Asphalt pavement t=80mm
KCL
Waterproof layer (sheet type)
Bridge concrete( 30-8-25N)
80 250

80 250
568 80
1.50% 1.50%
400 130
530 330

530 330
400 130
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8
Fixing nut Fixing nut
( D25) ( D25)
H-shaped steel girder H400×400×13×21×15500( SM490YB) Formwork support ( top) L50×50×6×440( SS400, HDZ55)
Anti-corrosion coating for bottom surface Formwork support ( bottom) FB65×6×340( SS400, HDZ55)
Bottom surface formwork ( cedar board, t=18mm)
370 H-shaped steel girder 7@780=5460 370

(b) Cross-sectional view

Fig. 17  Specifications of a slab bridge using H-shaped steel girders (unit: mm)

the figure is made from precast concrete. After the formwork the middle of the year of periodic inspection. This inspection
erection, screw rebars are passed through the holes opened is based on existing inspection facilities and visual inspec-
in the web of the steel girders, and they are then fixed at tion on the road surface or under the road. For a specific
both ends by nuts (see Fig. 20e). The bridge after steel rein- event such as salt damage, special inspections with a prede-
forcement work is shown in Fig. 20f. In a state where the termined frequency are also performed. Moreover, inspec-
rotational deformation of the steel girder end portion is not tion at an abnormal time refers to an inspection conducted
constrained, the concrete is poured from the center of the when a disaster such as an earthquake, typhoon, torrential
span toward the abutment side to make it possible to form rain, heavy snowfall or a major accident occurs, or when an
a corner portion (see Fig. 20g). Finally, Fig. 20h shows the unexpected abnormality is found in a bridge. This study pro-
rigid-frame bridge after the pavement work and the instal- poses a scheduled inspection of the proposed bridge struc-
lation of protective railing have been finished. tures that contain structural members not falling under the
conventional inspection item list prepared by the Ministry of
Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism [10].
6 Maintenance and Management of the Slab
Bridge and the Rigid‑Frame Bridge Using 6.1 Scheduled Inspection of Bridge
H‑Shaped Steel Girders
According to the revision of the Road Act, the National
Regarding bridge inspection, in order to detect early damage, Highway and Risk Management Division of the Ministry of
regular inspections are mainly based on visual inspection Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism compiled the
from the road patrol car. Moreover, based on close visual manual for scheduled inspections of bridges in Japan in June
observations, scheduled inspections using appropriate 2014 [10]. This inspection procedure is applied to the sched-
inspection machines and instruments are carried out peri- uled inspections of the road bridges with a bridge length of
odically with a prescribed frequency to grasp the occurrence 2 m or more managed by the Ministry of Land, Infrastruc-
and severity of the damage. To compensate for the scheduled ture, Transport and Tourism, and Okinawa General Bureau,
inspections, mid-term inspection is also carried out around Cabinet Office. Moreover, this procedure is also essentially

13
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

Fig. 18  Construction process of a slab bridge using H-shaped steel girders

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering

A2 side Bridge length 14700 A1 side

150 H-shaped steel girder length 14400 150
450 Span length 13500 450
450 Distance between front surfaces of abutments 12600 450
90
1.5
.3+
+1.774 NO

60

60
60
170
+1.640

300 170
+1.573

170
470
+1.980

470
470
A2 S2 S1 A1
+1.612

300
5.00% 6.00% +1.539

300
100

100
602

596
+1.010 +0.943
900

900
300 900 300 900 300
2502

H-shaped steel girder H300x300x10x15x14400(SM490Y) 300

2496
+0.110 Hot-dip galvanizing treatment on the bottom surface
1900

DL=0.00 +0.043 DL=0.00

1900
600 400

600 400
-0.290 -0.357
1000

1000
2000

2000
-0.890 -0.957
200 100

100
200
750 750 750 750

100 1500 100 100 1500 100

Steel-pipe pile (vibro method) Steel-pipe pile (vibro method)

f 400,t=9mm,L=5.50m (SKK490) f 400,t=9mm,L=5.50m (SKK490)

V.C.L=15.000m
V.C.R=136m

(a) Side view

6200
Upstream side 600 5000 600 Downstream side
2500 2500
Asphalt pavement t=60mm
Coating based waterproofing layer
Bridge concrete
(30-8-25N)
Wheel guard concrete
(24-8-25BB)
60
60 250

60 250
470

2.0% 2.0%
300 120
420 310
730

100

G11 G10 G9 G8 G7 G6 G5 G4 G3 G2 G1
900

H-shaped steel girder H300x300x10x15x14400(SM490Y)

2000

Hot-dip galvanizing treatment on the bottom surface

300 H-shaped steel girder 10@560=5600 300
1000

600
200 100

Substructure concrete
(24-8-40BB)

700 Steel-pipe pile 3@1600=4800 700

100 6200 100

Steel-pipe pile (vibro method)

f 400,t=9mm,L=5.50m (SKK490)

(b) Cross-sectional view

Fig. 19  Specifications of a rigid-frame bridge using H-shaped steel girders (unit: mm)

applied to local bridges not belonging to national highways. So far, this procedure refers mainly to common structures
The scheduled inspection procedure includes items and such as girder bridges, truss bridges, arch bridges, rigid-
methods of inspection, deterioration evaluation, counter frame bridges and cable-stayed bridges. Regarding the pro-
measures, health assessments, and contrivances that repeat posed structures such as the RC slab and the rigid-frame
maintenance cycle of inspection–diagnosis–measure–record. bridges using H-shaped steel girders, some structural

13
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

Fig. 20  Construction process of a rigid-frame bridge using H-shaped steel girders

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering
members do not fall under this inspection item list. There-
fore, it is necessary to revise the procedure with new
inspection items corresponding to the proposed bridges.
The H-shaped steel girders (Fig. 21a), the appearance of
the bridge (Fig. 21b), and the bottom formwork modules
(Fig. 21c, d) should be considered as inspection items for
the superstructure, while the piers, the abutments (Fig. 21e)
and the rigid corners (Fig. 21f) should be considered for
the inspection of the substructure. Specifically, for the steel
components, in addition to checking for signs of rebar failure
or corrosion, the inspection process should also consider
the detection of potential factors that can lead to reduced
life expectancy of the main reinforcements, such as deg-
radation of the corrosion protection function, abnormality
of the joint gap, leakage and stagnation, abnormal sound
and vibration, and abnormal deflection. Regarding the con-
crete components, typical types of damage such as cracks,
exposed peeling and rebar, water leakage, damage to the
repair or the reinforcement materials, abnormality of the
joint gap and discoloration should also be mentioned in the
list of items of interest. In addition, the inspection of the
bottom formwork modules should consider wood decay,
which is a damage when a wooden formwork such as a cedar
board is adopted (Fig. 21c). For the proposed rigid-frame
bridge, the rigid corner (Fig. 21f), which connects the main
rebars of the abutment and the H-shaped steel girders of
the deck, is of critical importance. Therefore, the scheduled
investigation at this section is essential to include checking
for signs of cracks, peeling and spalling of concrete, water
leakage or stagnation, etc. Moreover, the inspection also
needs to be made on the pavement at the joint (Fig. 21g)
where the abnormality of the joint gap, the unevenness of
the road surface, the leakage and stagnation, and sediment
clogging can also lead to the degradation of the corner struc-
ture. The proposed standard methods of the inspection are
summarized in Table 3. The scheduled inspection presented
in this study is carried out mainly by visual observation in
combination with other methods, if necessary. For instance,
regarding wood decay, which is one of the typical signs of
degradation of bottom formwork modules (cedar wood) for
the proposed bridge types, in addition to visual inspection,
other approaches such as hammering test, piercing test with
a minus driver, moisture, implantation depth and ultrasonic
wave propagation velocity measurements can be adopted
when necessary.
6.2 Self‑Inspection by the Contractors
As mentioned at the beginning, 16 years have passed since
the development and implementation of slab bridges and
rigid-frame bridges using H-shaped steel girders. Sched-
uled inspections are also being carried out, but no abnor-
mality has been reported so far. Since those bridges are new
structures and there is a possibility that unexpected damage
may occur, voluntary self-inspections are also conducted
by contractors. Specifically, the self-inspection performed
by the contractors pays attention to the specific members of
slab and rigid-frame bridges using steel girders. The objec-
tive is to obtain information for future maintenance plan
and feedback to design/construction along with the sched-
uled inspection conducted by the administrators. Regarding
the inspection frequency, self-inspection is carried out after
1–2 years after the completion of the bridge for the first time.
From that point on, it is desirable to be performed every
5 years separately from the scheduled inspection conducted
by the administrators. The initial inspection is important to
grasp the initial state of the bridge and to clarify the process
of subsequent damage development. Representative exam-
ples of the initial problems that can be considered for slab
and rigid-frame bridges using H-shaped steel girders are
described next.
• Problems relating to construction quality: paint peeling
(scratch), discoloration of the screw portion of the bolt
due to insufficient coating film thickness, degradation
of local anti-corrosion function, cracks due to drying
shrinkage and insufficient compaction of concrete, water
leakage due to poor waterproofing or free lime, installa-
tion defect of rubber bearings, and loosen nuts.
• Problems due to lack of consideration in design or mis-
match with the environment: drainage faults.
• Problems due to unexpected events or complex causes:
vibration caused by traffic load, cracks due to shrinkage
of concrete of slab and wheel guard, temperature-induced
cracks in concrete of piers or abutments, and abnormality
of bottom formwork.
The items and methods of the self-inspection are similar
to those of the inspection by the administrators. Moreover,
the results of self-inspections are recorded and stored in a
self-inspection check sheet after the inspection.
Being conducted on the constructor’s perspective sepa-
rately from regular inspection by the administrators, the
voluntary self-inspection by the contractors as described
above enables accumulation of knowledge for feedback to
the design and construction. From those efforts, sustained
improvements can be expected to increase the structural
durability and extend service life.
7 Conclusions
This study presents a new connection method of H-shaped
steel girders and rebars at the corner of the rigid-frame struc-
ture of a bridge in order to improve the rigid connection to
facilitate and simplify construction.
13
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

Fig. 21  New inspection items corresponding to the proposed bridges

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering

Table 3  Proposed standard method of the inspection

Material Types of damage Standard method of inspection Examples of methods that can be adopted as
necessary

Steel Corrosion Visual inspection, vernier caliper, hammer Thickness measurement by the ultrasonic
inspection thickness meter
Crack Visual inspection Magnetic particle flaw detection test,
ultrasonic flaw detection test, Eddy current
flaw detection test, penetrant examination
Looseness/drop out Visual inspection, hammer inspection Confirmation of bolt head mark, hammering
test, ultrasonic flaw detection (F11T, etc.),
investigation using axial force meter
Break Visual inspection, hammer inspection Hammering test (bolt)
Degradation of the corrosion protection Visual inspection Photo shoot (investigate by image analysis),
function impedance measurement, thickness meas-
urement, adhesion test
Concrete Crack Visual inspection, crack gauge Photo shoot (investigate by image analysis)
Peeling/rebar exposed Visual inspection, hammer inspection Photo shoot (investigate by image analysis),
hammering test
Water leakage/free lime Visual inspection –
Fall out Visual inspection –
Crack on the deck Visual inspection, crack gauge Photo shoot (investigate by image analysis)
Spalling Visual inspection, hammer inspection Hammering test, infrared investigation
Others Abnormality of the joint gap Visual inspection, tape measure –
Unevenness of the road surface Visual inspection, tape measure, measur- –
ing rod rulers
Abnormality of the pavement Visual inspection, tape measure, crack –
gauge
Dysfunction of bearing Visual inspection Moving amount measurement
Wood decay Visual inspection, hammer inspection, Hammering test, piercing test with a minus
palpation driver, moisture meter, implantation depth
measurement, drilling, ultrasonic wave
propagation velocity
Damage to the repair/reinforcement Visual inspection, hammer inspection Hammering test, infrared investigation
materials
Common Abnormality of the fixing section Visual inspection, hammer inspection, Hammering test, infrared investigation
crack gauge
Discoloration/deterioration Visual inspection –
Leakage/stagnation Visual inspection Infrared investigation
Abnormal sound and vibration Hear, visual inspection –
Abnormal deflection Visual inspection Measurement
Deformation/deficiency Visual inspection, levelling string, tape –
measure
Sediment clogging Visual inspection –
Settlement/movement/inclination Visual inspection, levelling string, tape Measurement
measure
Scour Visual inspection, measuring rod rulers Color imaging sonar

• From the results of the load test on the full-size bridge in
the laboratory, compression failure occurred on the upper
surface of the concrete deck at midspan. In addition, plas-
ticization did not occur in the vicinity of the fixing part
and breakage of the fixing nut was not confirmed. There-
fore, the feasibility of the proposed connection approach
was verified.
• The construction and maintenance of the slab and
rigid-frame bridges using H-shaped steel girders were
described for standardization. Regarding maintenance,
self-inspection by the contractors is proposed. To deepen
the understanding of the proposed bridges, workshops
aimed at contractors should be held regularly on a nation-
wide scale. From those efforts, problems can be found

13

quickly during or after the construction, and the correc-
tion and improvement can be performed promptly.
• Moreover, the results of cost analysis showed that the
proposed rigid-frame bridge could potentially provide
significant cost benefits compared to the other bridge
structures considered in this study.
With the careful implementation of the rigid corner
design, the advantages of rigid-frame bridges will become
evident. In the future, based on the coordination of con-
tractors and administrators on the design, construction,
and maintenance work, slab and rigid-frame bridges using
H-shaped girders are expected to be widely used for bridges
with a short span (up to 20 m).
Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the concerned parties
for their valuable collaboration, sub-consultants, and support.
References
1. Kawahara S, Doi H, Shirato M, Kajifusa N, Kutsukake T (2014)
Investigation of the tunnel ceiling collapse in the central express-
way in Japan. In: TRB 93rd Annual Meeting, Washington D.C.,
14–2559
2. Dicleli M (2000) A rational design approach for prestressed-con-
crete-girder integral bridges. Eng Struct 22:230–245. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/S0141​-0296(98)00080​-7
3. Erhan S, Dicleli M (2009) Live load distribution equations for
integral bridge substructures. Eng Struct 31:1250–1264. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engst​ruct.2009.01.020
4. Chung W, Jung D, Kim SM (2013) Strength and behavior of a
vertically pre-tensioned composite rigid frame bridge. Int J Steel
Struct 13:367–378. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1329​6-013-2014-5
5. Iwasaki N, Tenma S, Kurita A (2011) Portal frame bridges in
Japan: state of the art report. Struct Eng Int J Int Assoc Bridg
Struct Eng 21:290–296. https​://doi.org/10.2749/10168​6611X​
12994​96103​4093
13
International Journal of Civil Engineering
6. Nakai Y, Ha TM, Fukada S (2018) Structural behavior of rein-
forced concrete slab rigid-frame bridge with h-shaped steel gird-
ers. Int J Steel Struct 18:1219–1241
7. Kim WS, Laman JA (2010) Integral abutment bridge response
under thermal loading. Eng Struct 32:1495–1508. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.engst​ruct.2010.01.004
8. Rodriguez J, Martinez F, Marti J (2011) Integral bridge for
high-speed railway. Struct Eng Int J Int Assoc Bridg Struct Eng
21:297–303. https​://doi.org/10.2749/10168​6611X​13049​24821​
9881
9. Ülker-Kaustell M, Karoumi R, Pacoste C (2010) Simplified analy-
sis of the dynamic soil-structure interaction of a portal frame rail-
way bridge. Eng Struct 32:3692–3698. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engst​ruct.2010.08.013
10. National Highway and Risk Management Division (2014) Periodi-
cal inspection procedure for bridges. Ministry of Land, Infrastruc-
ture, Transport, and Tourism of Japan
11. Fukada S, Kajikawa Y, Tokuno M (2006) Load-carrying and
fatigue capacity of reinforced concrete slab bridge with H-shaped
steels. In: Proceedings of the Tenth East Asia-Pacific Conference
on structural engineering and construction. Asian Institute of
Technology, Bangkok, Thailand, pp 281–286
12. Zellner W (1987) Recent designs of composite bridges and a new
type of shear connectors. In: Proceedings of ASCE/IABSE engi-
neering foundation conference on composite construction in steel
and concrete. Henniker, New Hampshire, pp 240–252
13. Takagi M, Nakamura S, Muroi S (2003) An experimental investi-
gation on rigid connection of steel-concrete composite rigid frame
bridge using Perfo-Bond Rib. JSCE J Struct Eng 49A:1063–1074
14. Wang X, Zhu B, Cui S, Lui EM (2018) Experimental research on
PBL connectors considering the effects of concrete stress state and
other connection parameters. J Bridg Eng 23:04017125. https​://
doi.org/10.1061/(asce)be.1943-5592.00011​58
15. Kim SH, Lee CG, Davaadorj A, Yoon JH, Won JH (2010) Experi-
mental evaluation of joints consisting of parallel perfobond ribs
in steel-PSC hybrid beams. Int J Steel Struct 10:373–384. https​://
doi.org/10.1007/BF032​15845​
16. Kim SH, Lee CG, Ahn JH, Won JH (2011) Experimental study on
joint of spliced steel-PSC hybrid girder, Part I: Proposed parallel-
perfobond-rib-type joint. Eng Struct. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engst​ruct.2011.04.012-&gt