SEAOI 13th Annual Midwest Bridge Symposium

April 28, 2016

Planning, Design & Construction of

IL-104 BRIDGE
OVER

ILLINOIS RIVER
in

MEREDOSIA, IL
IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

1
49

Presentation Outline
1. Project Overview
2. Phase I Study (Preliminary Engineering)
3. Bridge Type Study
4. Bridge Design
5. Innovative Details
6. Analysis - Design
7. Construction

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

2
49

Presentation Outline
1. Project Overview
2. Phase I Study (Preliminary Engineering)
3. Bridge Type Study
4. Bridge Design
5. Innovative Details
6. Analysis - Design
7. Construction

3
49

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

Project Location

Project
Location

Pike
County

IL 104

Morgan
County

State of Illinois

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

4
49

MEREDOSIA

5
49

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

Why the project is needed?

Existing Bridge is:
Structurally Deficient Built in 1936 / 80 years old
Sufficiency Rating < 15 (out of 100)
Low Rating => Numerous significantly deteriorated elements;
Requires close monitoring / maintenance / repairs

Functionally Obsolete Narrow Lanes / No Shoulders / Unsafe

Solution:
Replace the
existing bridge

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

6
49

Presentation Outline
1. Project Overview
2. Phase I Study (Preliminary Engineering)
3. Bridge Type Study
4. Bridge Design
5. Innovative Details
6. Analysis - Design
7. Construction

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

7
49

New Bridge - What size to build?

Based on traffic volume, current design standards and
the functional requirements 44.0

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

8
49

Where to build?
255 north of existing
Keep traffic thru town

Selected
Alternative

Build new bridge while

maintaining traffic on
existing bridge
Remove existing bridge
after shifting traffic on new
bridge

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

9
49

Presentation Outline
1. Project Overview
2. Phase I Study (Preliminary Engineering)
3. Bridge Type Study Bridge Configuration & Type
4. Bridge Design
5. Innovative Details
6. Analysis - Design
7. Construction

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

10
49

Bridge Type Study Bridge Profile

Illinois River A Navigational Waterway
U.S. Coast Guards Navigational Clearance Requirements:
Horizontal Clearance = 555 ft.
Vertical Clearance =
55 ft. above 2% Flowline
Profile Grade = 4% Max.
2100 +/-

Navigation
Clearance
Zone

Levee

Levee

Frontage
Road

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

11
49

Bridge Type Study: Bridge Limits & Layout

West Approach

Navigation Span

East Approach

800

600

720

255

Levee

Focus Main Navigation Span

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

12
49

Bridge Type Study: Focus 600 Main Navigation Span

Cable-stayed

Truss

Tied-arch

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

Bridge Type Study

13
49

Estimated Initial Construction Cost

Evaluation Criteria:
Site Constraints
o Span length
o Span arrangement

Annual Life Cycle Cost

Overall Costs
o Construction cost
o Life cycle cost

Other Attributes

Other Attributes
o Constructability
o Inspection and Maintenance
o IDOT Experience

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

14
49

Bridge Type Study Evaluation Criteria & Findings

Site Constraints
o Same for all alternates

Overall Costs
o Virtually the same construction & life cycle costs

Bridge type selected based on:

o Constructability channel encroachment during
construction (Adv Cable stayed; others require erection
towers or shoring)
o Inspection/Maintenance considerations (Adv Arch)
o IDOT Experience - familiarity with particular type of
construction (Adv Arch)

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

Selected Bridge Type

15
49

Tied-Arch

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

16
49

Presentation Outline
1. Project Overview
2. Phase I Study (Preliminary Engineering)
3. Bridge Type Study
4. Bridge Design
5. Innovative Details
6. Analysis - Design
7. Construction

17
49

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

Proposed River Bridge General Plan & Elevation

UNIT 1 = 805

UNIT 2 = 590

5 SPANS

UNIT 3 = 720
4 SPANS

56

West Approach

Main Span

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

East Approach

18
49

Arch Span Features

118

31-4

590

590-foot span; 118-foot rise

Floor beams & hangers spaced at 31- 4

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

19
49

Arch Span Features

590

Rib Bracing - Struts @ approx. 2 times the hanger

spacing; No diagonal or K bracing;
Clean/Open Structure
Struts are offset from hangers Simplifies connections
IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

20
49

10

Arch Span Features

590

Redundant hangers (2 cables) With

loss of 1 cable or when cable needs to
be replaced, a single cable can support
two traffic lanes on far side of the deck

21
49

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

Arch Span Features

53

118 at peak

CL Rib

Vierendeel Strut
4.5 x 5.0

Concrete deck
on steel stringers

Arch rib
3.5 x 5.0

Hanger
2 - 2 cables

Tie girder (Gr 70W)

9 deep

CL Tie

Floor beam
4 to 4.5 deep

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

Diagonal
bracing
22
49

11

Arch Span Features

Relief Jt.

Tie girder

Stringer
Floor Beam
* Relief joints in the deck and stringers
uncouple them from the arch structure

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

23
49

Proposed River Bridge Piers

Approach Piers

Main Piers

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

24
49

12

Presentation Outline
1. Project Overview
2. Phase I Study (Preliminary Engineering)
3. Bridge Type Study
4. Bridge Design
5. Innovative Details
6. Analysis - Design
7. Construction

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

Tie Girders :

25
49

I-sectionsnot Box-sections

Conventional

This Bridge

Advantages:
Very economical
Greatly simplifies the floor beam connections
Torsionally flexible; reduces secondary stresses
and potential fatigue cracking in FB connections
Easier to inspect & maintain
IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

26
49

13

Tie Girders :

I-sectionsnot Box-sections

Overall Torsional Stiffness:

No loss of overall torsional stiffness of the arch system

stiffness
afforded
this way

not
this way

27
49

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

Tie-Rib Knuckle
Connection

Top Flange

Slots in
Rib Plate
CL

Tie

Floor
beam
Bottom Flange

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

28
49

14

Presentation Outline
1. Project Overview
2. Phase I Study (Preliminary Engineering)
3. Bridge Type Study
4. Bridge Design
5. Innovative Details
6. Analysis - Design

Complex Analysis
Unique Design Loads
Unique Design Checks

7. Construction

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

29
49

Analysis & Design

Used LARSA 4D for modeling and analysis

Modeled as line elements, except plate elements for
knuckles and the Floor Beams framing in to the
knuckles
4,695 nodes
IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

30
49

15

Analysis & Design

Live Load AASHTO HL-93
applied as incrementally moving
load
Variable transverse placements to
maximize force effects in various
members
Analysis Data Force envelopes
by member groups
Strength checks by AASHTO LRFD
Knuckle behavior not definitive;
Stresses checked by stress
contours

31
49

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

Unique Design Loads

DL

Nothing in AASHTO on loads

specific to arch bridges, which
are very sensitive to unbalanced
load

LL
LL

Used these load cases for

design:
Dead Load
Live Load *
10% Dead Load reduction
where there is no LL

-0.1DL
LL
-0.1DL

-0.1DL

LL

LL

* Applied as moving loads

-0.1DL
IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

32
49

16

Stability Design of Arch Span

No guidelines in AASHTO Design Specifications
Used AISCs Direct Analysis Method - commonly used
for complex building structures Most rational &
transparent stability design method
Considered geometric imperfections
(L/1000 lateral offset of ribs)
Considered 20% stiffness reduction to
account for unanticipated residual
stresses and local yielding
Performed second-order analysis using
LARSA 4D in both vertical and lateral
directions
Strength checks by AASHTO LRFD
IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

33
49

Vessel Collision Design

River traversed by Large /
Heavy Barges
Operational Classification:
Critical Bridge
VC Force computed using
probability based analysis that
VC
considered:
Waterway depth & geometry
straight or curved
Type, size & frequency of
Vessels
Vessel direction & speed

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

34
49

17

Vessel Collision Design

Design Vessel
VC Force

VC = 3800 Kips

Main Pier

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

35
49

Foundation Design
All Vertical Piles vs. Battered Piles
Lateral Load Resistance:
Battered piles - Only axial capacity
Vertical piles - Axial & bending capacity
of piles in conjunction with soil resistance

Soil Structure Interaction

Used GROUP by Ensoft for analysis

Economical Design less no. of piles,

smaller foot-print of footing & cofferdam,
easier pile installation; $2M saving
IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

36
49

18

Seismic Analysis & Design

Bridge location: SPZ 2 and Site Soil Classification E
Seismic Design for 2500-year Return Period
AASHTO provides Seismic Response Spectrum only for 1000year return period
Used 2500-year Response Spectrum provided by NEHRP(*)
with a 2/3rd Design Factor
(*) NEHRP = National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

37
49

Seismic Analysis & Design

A simplistic 3D elastic model of entire bridge

Approach spans as continuous beams
Arch as two beams (parabolic ribs + struts, straight - tie girders + deck);
Equivalent mass and stiffness derived by vibration analysis of the
full 3D arch model
and piers as vertical cantilevers.
Elastic model analyzed for various modes & frequencies; Seismic
forces were computed by modal superposition using Complete
Quadratic Combination (CQC) method.
IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

38
49

19

Aerodynamic Stability Study by RWDI

1st Stage:
Analytical Desktop (CFD) Study
Vibration modes provided by exp
Findings:
Provided Wind Loads for Design (*)
Aerodynamic Stability Not Clear
Testing Required to Confirm
Stability
(*) Less than AASHTO loads

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

39
49

Aerodynamic Stability
2nd Stage:
Tested Sectional Model in Wind
Tunnel
Investigated stability against
flutter, vortex shedding &
galloping
Findings:
Confirmed Aerodynamic Stability
Flutter - OK
Vortex-Shedding Excitation - OK
Galloping - OK

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

40
49

20

Fabrication Geometry & Pre-stressed Assembly

Fully Constructed Arch Span:
Final geometry
(Under full dead load)

Conforms to theoretical Roadway Profile after DL displacements

Has Minimal Flexural Stresses due to Dead Load

41
49

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

Fabrication Geometry & Pre-stressed Assembly

** Require manipulation to fully assemble;

Cambers it up; induces bending stresses

that will counter bending stresses due to
the Dead Loads

Fully assembled Geometry

DL
Fabricate to
this shape **

Erection on Temporary Shoring;

When assembled in unstressed
condition, the girder ends at
mid-span splice do not meet **
IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

42
49

21

Fabrication Geometry & Pre-stressed Assembly

Fully assembled Geometry

Final geometry
(Under full dead load)

DL

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

43
49

Presentation Outline
1. Project Overview
2. Phase I Study (Preliminary Engineering)
3. Bridge Type Study
4. Bridge Design
5. Innovative Details
6. Analysis - Design
7. Construction

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

44
49

22

Arch Erection (engineered by Hanson Engineers)

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

45
49

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

46
49

Fabrication

23

Construction

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

47
49

Acknowledgements
Client:

Illinois Department of Transportation, District 6

IDOT Bureau of Bridges & Structures
Springfield, IL

Geotechnical:

Wang Engineering, Lombard, IL

Peer Review:

Alfred Benesch Co., Chicago, IL

Wind Engrg.:

RWDI, Ontario, CN

Contractor:

Halverson Construction Co., Springfield, IL

Fabricator:

Industrial Steel Construction, Gary, IN

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

48
49

24

Questions?

IL 104 at MEREDOSIA

49
49

25