Structural Engineering Documents Jérg SCHLAICH Hartmut SCHEEF 4') [dita BOX-GIRDER BRIDGES ion for Bridge and Structural Engineering IABSE n Internationale des Ponts et Charpentes = AIPC ereinigung fiir Briickenbau und Hochbau = IVBHAbout the authors: Jorg SCHLAICH ‘Stuttgart. Studies of Archi ‘and Civil Engineering, Dipl.-Ing. of Technical University, Berlin, Master of Science of Case Tech, Cleveland/ USA, and Dr.-Ing. of University Stuttgart. Professor and Director of the Insti- ‘tut flr Massivbau, University of Stuttgart. Teaching and research of ‘reinforced and prestressed concrete structures and of lightweight-struc- ‘ures (cables, membranes). Consulting Engineer and authorized Check Consultant, Schiaich & Partner, Civil Engineering Consultants, Stuttgart, Fed. Rep. of Germany. Selected Structures: Television towers at Kiel and Kéin, Shel! roofs, Cable-net roof for Munich Olympics, Cable-net cooling tower at Schme- hausen, Cable-stayed bridge over river Hooghly in Calcutta, Solar Chimney at Manzanares. & Hartmut SCHEEF Born in Stuttgart in 1944. After completing his Civil Engineering studies at the University of Stuttgart with the Diplom-Ingenieur, he joined Silt chaps nner aetna sulting firm Leonhardt and André, ‘Stuttgart. Since 1975 he has been involved in teaching and research ‘at the Institut fir Massivbau, Univer- sity of Stuttgart. His research is de- voted mainly to computer-aided nonlinear analysis of statically in- ‘determinate reinforced and pre- stressed concrete beams.SAFE 1G Structural Engineering Documents DIPARTIMENTO DL INGEGNERIA, STRUTTURALE POLITFGNICO DI MILANO as ae on 10% e OG CAM - doe Jérg SCHLAICH Hartmut SCHEEF CONCRETE BOX-GIRDER BRIDGES International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering IABSE Association Internationale des Ponts et Charpentes AIPC Internationale Vereinigung fiir Brackenbau und Hochbau = IVBHCopyright © 1982 by International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering All rights raserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. ISBN 385748 0319 Printed in Switzerland JABSE - AIPC - IVBH ETH - Hénggerberg (CH.8093 Zirich, Switzerland Tol.: 01/377 2647 Telex: 822 186 JABS CH Tolegr.: IABSE, CH-8093 ZirichFOREWORD The box girder is today the most widely used superstructure in concrete bridge construction. That fact justifies the suggestion made by the Commission Ill of the {ABSE that a comprehensive survey be wittan concerning this particular bridge type. The authors proceed from the assumption, however, that its contents wil first be drawn upon when all possible design alternatives for the particular bridge pro- ject have been thoroughly examined, and the box girder has been proven appropriate. Their aim is less that of encouraging the one-sided propagation of box. girder bridges but rather much more that of con- tributing to the improvement of the quality of such bridges. They hope to contribute to this by exten- sively relieving the engineer of the study of today’s hardly surveyable mass of literature on the subject 0 that he can better devote that time to the actual design of the bridge. That explains why this paper is kept short, why in particular cases the reader is referred to the literature, and why subjects not per- taining to the central theme are only touched upon and not handled exhaustively. For greater clearness, the survey follows the sequence of a practical bridge design process by dividing itself into three main parts, namely, “Design”, “Structural Analysis”, and “Dimensioning and Structural Detailing”; each section with its individual numbering and literature list. This survey directs itself especially to the design engineer, which manifests itself, for example, in the fact that the construction methods are hendied only briefly and in the section “Design”, because they decisively influence the design at the very beginning, ‘Major contributions to Section ll, “Structural Analysis”, ware made by Prof. Dr.-Ing. Kurt Schafer, a cal- league of the authors in the Institut ir Massivbau at the University of Stuttgart. In this section the attempt is made to portray the calculation of the box-girder sectional forces resulting from eccentric vohicle loads with consideration of the folded plate action or profile deformation so comprehensively that itis not only easily understood but also rapidly applicable in the design office. This thereby elimi- nates the often-discussed, controversial question as to whether the effort involved in the “exact” calcu- lation of this loading case is actually worthwhile or whether an estimation of the transverse load distrib- ution would not suffice. The authors would like to take this opportunity to thank Professors R. Favre, Lausanne, and C. Menn, Ziirich, for their critical examination of the paper. They are indebted to Mrs. I. Paechter and Mrs. E. ‘Schnee for their conscientious preparation of the manuscript; and Mr. E. Kluttz for his empathetical translation of their German original into English. ‘Stuttgart, January 1982TABLE OF CONTENTS Part! DESIGN i: 2 3 4a 5 istorical Development ... . ‘Over All Design 41 Design Principles 3 am a 4.1.1 The Role and Sequence of the Design Process 4.1.2 Remarks as to Form 413 Costs .. 42 Construction Methods 43° Superstructure... . 431° General : 43.2 Longitudinal Direction . 433 Transverse Direction 44 Complete System ond Supports... . . . 45 Substructure... Bm ; 48.1 Abutments se 452 Piers... .. veces 453. Foundations ncn a Literature soeeen Fn in 15 aN a a . Part Il STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 1 2 2 5. Introduction... . . . engi awe Loads and External Influences... ooo e eee eseee Structural System. 3.1 Final State... . 32. During Construction - teen eee wee J Loadings and Sectional Forces. - feces 4:1 Longitudinal Direction . seeensTwawe VR He ES 42 Transverse Direction . : ‘Simplified Structural Analysis of the Superstructure. 51 General... ..... - - 52. Analysis Procedure. 53. Analysis in the Longitudinal Direction 5.2.1 Sectional Forces due to Loads plus Restraints. a 822 Time-Dependent Alteration of the Sections Forces by Creep... 3 54 Analysis in the Transverse Direction . = eee . 5.4.1 Sectional Forces Acting on the Flanges... . 542 Analysis as a Frame io 543. Transverse Bending Moments in the Haunch of Variebe- Depth Girders 6... 55. Folded Plate Action... . . ania meen ne * 55.1 Fundamental Concept 552 Solution by Means of the Anaoay of & Beam on an Elastic Foundation 5.6 Multiple-Cell Box Girders cnet a 57 Curved and Skew Box-Girder Bridges... . Computer-sided Analysis of the Superstructure 6.1 Theory of Prismatic Folded Plates... . . 6.1.1 Hinged Folded Plates nee 6.1.2 Folded Plates with Rigid Joints eens 62. Finite Strips : SEE 63. Finite Elements . SSBBSSar res saws an BEIRRSKLSLLSSSSSSSESEKSSESSS ER7. Abutment... . ae3 : n BP eee n B1 Loadings eee n 82 Effective Length... . : : B 83. Moments According to 2" Order Theory... - ™ 8. Foundation % 10. Literature aanecan 70 Part ill DIMENSIONING AND DETAILING 1. Introduction... . . wees vette cee ee 9 2. General Detailing Principlea . 13 3. Prostressing . . - - : - oa 31 The Level of Prestress.. 6-2... : 83 32 Tendon Profile in the Transverse Direction 5 321 TopFlenge..............2- : 5 322 Prestressing of the Webs... 6. eee eee 87 323 Bottom Flange .. . . 87 33. Tendon Profile in the Longitudinal Di etacee8 sn wa 87 33.1 Inthe Webs a 87 332 Inthe Top and Bottom Flanges : 0 34. Transfer of Concentrated Prestress Force: a1 35. Construction Joints and Coupling Joints ® 4. Dimensioning of the Top and Bottom Flanges . - 5 §. Dimensioning and Reinforcement of the Webs... . BRE 97 5.1 Dimensioning for Sheer, Torsion, and Transverse Bending. 37 2 WebReinforcement ... 2.66.0 e eee eee eee eee eee ee 98 6 Transverse Diaphragms ........ 2... seen cece 100 7. Abutments, Piers and Foundations : 102 & Bridge Bearings . . 103 81 Bearing Types 103 82 Installation and Maintenance . . . 103 83. Design of Bearings z ve 104 9 BridgeFinishes 6.0.0.2... . 106 8.1. Expansion Joints F 2 108 92 Bridge Railing ...... 107 93 Roadway Surface... ... : 107 94 Drainage . . oes : : : 2. 107 WO. Literature eee : ~ 108 Note: Parts 4, I, and fll form @ whole and are only divided for organisation reasons. Should the reader be referred to figure, @ section, or a reference in one of the other parts, he will find that the Roman numeral of the other part of the text is placed before the Arabic number; for example, Figure Il,7 or Section Il, 9.1Part! DESIGN 1, TERMS, SYMBOLS SECTION a-a Terms, Symbols. 1 Fig. 1 Sections through a typical simple box-girder bridge The Elements of a simple Bo: Foundation 1 plate 2 pile plate 3 hored pil 4 driven pil piers (with bearinga) edge beam end diaphragm bridge seat support walle bridge seat beam access chamber bearing (can be fixed or allow movement) expanaion joint Superatructure 19 tranaverse dlaphragn: (at abutments, within the span and over the piera} with opening box-girder web top slab (area between the webs) top stab (cantilever section) bottom slab faxcla beam guard rail railing sealing membrane wearing surface drain inlet crose drain Jongitudinal drain By and large the text and formulas use CEB or ISO symbols.2 Design 2, INTRODUCTION ‘Though box-girder bridges are indeed often not the only solution to a bridge project they are, however,seldom the absolutely false one and really only excluded in the case of very small spans or sharply skewed bridges, This universal applicability they owe, from the point of view of load-carrying, to their indifference as to whether the bending moments are positive or ne- gative and to their torsional stiffness; from the point of view of economy, to their suitability for a factory-like construction sequence; and finally, from the point of view of form, to their sleek lines with which they fit into every landscape and surroundings. He, though, who expects a structure to reflect the flow of forces within it through its outer shape will regret the above-mentioned neutral load-carrying bebaviour of the box-girder bridges, especially those of today, As a result of the need to construct the bridges economically, the development has tended towards bridges with constant depths, even for varying spans. Box-girder bridges therefore deserve special care and attention with respect to pleasing proportions and conscientious shaping of their details. ‘The above mentioned characteristics have made the concrete box-girder bridges the most widespread bridge type today. The fact that this develop- ment will continue for some time justifies this survey concerning a topic that is certainly much too specialised for he who does not like to see his design possibilities restricted, Therefore let one be reminded that the box girder is only a part of the entire bridge structure and that the directly supported box girder continuous over the supports is only the standard case. The box girder can also be found in portal frame bridges, arch and bow bridges, and cable-stayed and suspension bridges of all kinds (Fig. 2). Fig. 2. Bridges with the box girder as main structural elementHistorical Development 3 3. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT ‘The first bridges of reinforced concrete were built as were their predecessors of stone, They were arch bridges with a gravel fill for the road surface between the two bridge parapets over the arch, Later the gravel fill was replaced by a transverse roadway slab, and the transition to a box girder was achieved. ‘The world’s first reinforced concrete bridge, an arch bridge, was built in 1875 [1]. Probably the first box-girder bridge was Hennebique’ s Risorgimento Bridge in 1911, a 3-hinged arch (see Fig. 3). SECTIONG-al SECTION b-b 1 3,50 fef-13,00—+fef 3,50 Fig. 3. Risorgimento Bridge Due to improvements in the quality of concrete and steel as well as a better understanding of the material behaviour of reinforced concrete, the arch lost more and more on importance as a load-carrying system to that of the beam loaded in bending. The longest span simply reinforced bridge to-date was built in 1939 at Ville-Neuve-St, George, a three -celled, thin-walled, vary- ing-depth box girder of three spans with a 78 m middle span, It was only with the development of high-strength prestressing steel that it became possible to span longer distances. The first prestressed concrete bridges, most of 1 or I-cross-section, were built towards the end of the 1920's. The great breakthrough was achieved only after 1945. The Sclayn bridge over the river Maas, which was built by Magnel in 1948, was the first continuous prestressed box-girder bridge with 2 spans of 62, 70 m(see Fig. 4). In the following years the ratio of wages to material costs climbed sharply. This thereby shifted the emphasis of development to the construction method. section prestressing cable (without bond) \ SoS Fig. 4 Sclayn Bridge over the river Maas; Prestressing by means of straight, large bundles of parallel wires without bond4 Design Important development stages were the following: = cantilever construction in situ: the bridge over the river Rhine at Worms in 1953 with a main span of 114 m, the Hamana bridge in Japan in 1978 with a main span of 230 m, the cable-stayed Brotonne bridge in 1978 with a main span of 320 m - cantilever construction with precast elements: the Chillon Viaduct in 1969 with a main span of 104 m, the cable-stayed bridge over the Columbia River in the USA in 1980 with a main span of 300 m - construction with a travelling scaffolding: in situ (bridge on the Kettiger Hang in 1959, with equal spans of 39 m each) or precast (Rio Niteroi Bridge in 1974 with equal spans of 80 m) - incremental launching method: Rio Caroni Bridge in 1962 with equal spans of 96 m and the Taubertal Bridge in 1965 with spans of 54 and 60 m, ‘The box-girder cross-section evolved structurally from the hollow cell deck bridge or the T-beam bridge. The widening of the compression zone that be- gan as a structural requirement at the central piers was in the end extended throughout the entire length of the bridge because of the advantageous trans- verse load-carrying characteristics. The first box-girder cross-sections possessed deck slabs that cantilevered out only slightly from the box portion (see Fig. 5, a - e), With prestressed concrete, the length of the cantilever could be increased, The high form- work costs caused a reduction in the number of cells (see Fig. 5, f and g). In order to reduce the construction loads to the minimum possible or to require only one longitudinal girder in the working state even with multiple traffic-lanes, the one-celled built-up cross-section constructed in modular fashion emerged as the last development (see Fig. 5h ), This allowed the Semorile Viaduct to be built by first incrementally launching the U-shaped portion of the box girder and adding the deck slab afterwards by means of precast elements and insitu concrete infilling (see Fig. 6). Some precast elements were built in before launching to provide stiffness. In the case of the Eschachtal Bridge (Fig. 7), the closed box girder was first constructed with only short cantilever deck slabs using the balanced cantilever method with erection girder. In the follow-up stage of constructions, the main can- tilever deck portion was added in insitu concrete and supported by precast conerete struts. The Kochertal Bridge and the Liesertal Bridge were simi- Jarly constructed, In the case of the West Gate Bridge in Melbourne however, the cantilevered portion was built entirely of precast elements which were covered later with only a thin concrete topping. A further reduction in the construction loads was only possible by dividing the bridge longitudinally as done for the Hammersmith Flyover in London (Fig. 8).Historical Development § ae Qa sLOOOOO, jc at sce Lote Co ,) . Se » NOY Fig. 5 Development of the box-girder cross-section f-—s20m——4 Fig. 6 Semorile Viaduct [3] Fig. 7 Egchachtal Bridge {4] fongitudinal stressing strand Bitéer components insitu conerete joint ad ‘cantilever component pier Fig, 8 Hammersmith Flyover Fig. 9 Brotonne Cable-Stayed in London [1} Bridge with centerline cable attachment [5]8 Design The concrete box girder with streamlined cross-section has also been success- ful recently in the cage of cable-stayed bridges. Ite high dead load favorably influences the dynamic stress amplitudes of the cables and the necessary Iong- itudinal prestressing steel. A torsionally stiff box girder is required to handle the torsional moments incurred by attaching the cables to the bridge’s centerline (see Fig. 9). Attaching the cables to both sides allows a much- reduced section depth. A case in point was the Columbia River Bridge where the side cells of the approach span cross-section (Fig, 10 ) were only requi- red in the area near the cable-stayed portion of the bridge, and transverse diaphragms were added only where the cables were attached to the cross- section. A further area of application for box girders arose from noise and automobile emissions control for inner city elevated highways (Fig, 11). Fig. 10 Columbia River Bridge [6]: a) cable-stayed bridge, b) approach span glezed_ openings for natural. lighting Fig, 11 Closed box girder for inner city elevated highways [7] Even though the structural development of the box girder cross-section is prob- ably close to an end, it will continue to retain its firm place in bridge con- struction for some years to come,