A proposition for a new construction method for

cast-in-situ multi-span integral bridges

Journal: IABSE-IASS Symposium London 2011

Manuscript ID: London-0702-2011.R1

Theme: Design and Construction

Date Submitted by the

n/a
Author:

Complete List of Authors: MITOULIS, STERGIOS; ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI,

CIVIL ENG
TEGOS, IOANNIS; ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI,
CIVIL ENGINEERING

Type of Structure: Road < Bridges

Material and Equipment: Concrete, Steel, Prestressing

Conceptual Design and Realization, Innovative Structural Systems,

Other Aspects:
Seismic Design and Response
Page 1 of 9

1
2
3
4 A proposition for a new construction method of
5
6 cast-in-situ multi-span integral bridges
7
8 Ioannis A. TEGOS Stergios A. MITOULIS
9
Professor, Civil Engineering Dr. Civil Engineer,
10
Department, Aristotle University of
11
12
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
13
Thessaloniki, Greece mitoulis@civil.auth.gr
itegos@civil.auth.gr
14
Stergios A. Mitoulis, born 1979,
15 Ioannis A. Tegos, born in 1948, received his BSc, MSc and PhD
16 received his BSc, and PhD degree from the Aristotle
17 degrees from the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,
18 University of Thessaloniki, Greece. His main area of research
Greece. His main area of research is earthquake resistance and
19 is earthquake resistant bridges,
20 serviceability effects on RC
creep and shrinkage effects, flat bridges.
21 slab buildings and design against
22 punching effects and
23 experimental strength of RC
24 members.
25
26
27 Summary
28 A new construction method for cast-in-situ bridges is examined. The method is proper for bridges
29 with span lengths between 30 to 50 m. The construction of the bridge includes the following stages:
30 Two balanced cantilevers are casted on both sides of the elevated piers. Each cantilever has a length
31 equal to half of the corresponding span length of the bridge and is connected to the adjacent one at
32 the mid-span. The height of the cross section of the deck is reduced from the support to the mid-
33 span. The prestressing tendons are straight, while the reinforcements within the bottom flange of the
34 deck consist of ordinary strength steel bars. The applicability of the proposed construction method
35
has been examined to a real cast-in-situ box-girder bridge. Comparative results are illustrated
36
showing that the proposed method has advantages concerning not only the constructability, but also
37
38
the serviceability performance, the earthquake resistance and the structural cost of the bridge.
39
40
41 Keywords: bridge; new construction method; variable cross section; cast-in-situ; straight tendons.
42
43
straight tendons
44 2,0-2,50m 15x19T15 (St 1500/1770) d=150mm d>150mm
45 Pier
46 2X5125 2X6125 2X7125
7,00 7,00
2X5125
47 2X4125 mid-span 8,50 5,50
structural joint 5,50 8,50
48 polygonal
bottom ~4,50m
49 flange
pier 1,00
50 corners of the polygon
51 l=35,0-50,0m L=14,0 m tendons
52 (a) (b)
53 Fig. 1: (a) Longitudinal layout of the ordinary strength steel bars at the bottom flange of the deck and (b)
54
layout of the straight tendons and the reinforcements of the decks top flange at the support (plan view).
55
56
57
58
59
60
 Page 2 of 9

1
2
3
4 A proposition for a new construction method for
5
6 cast-in-situ multi-span integral bridges
7
8 Ioannis A. TEGOS Stergios A. MITOULIS
9
Professor, Civil Engineering Dr. Civil Engineer,
10
Department, Aristotle University of
11
12
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
13
Thessaloniki, Greece mitoulis@civil.auth.gr
itegos@civil.auth.gr
14
Stergios A. Mitoulis, born 1979,
15 Ioannis A. Tegos, born in 1948, received his BSc, MSc and PhD
16 received his BSc, and PhD degree from the Aristotle
17 degrees from the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,
18 University of Thessaloniki, Greece. His main area of research
Greece. His main area of research is earthquake resistance and
19 is earthquake resistant bridges,
20 serviceability effects on RC
creep and shrinkage effects, flat bridges.
21 slab buildings and design against
22 punching effects and
23 experimental strength of RC
24 members.
25
26
27 Summary
28 A new construction method for cast-in-situ bridges is examined. The method is proper for bridges
29 with span lengths between 30 to 50 m. The construction of the bridge includes the following stages:
30 Two balanced cantilevers are casted on both sides of the elevated piers. Each cantilever has a length
31 equal to half of the corresponding span length of the bridge and is connected to the adjacent one at
32 the mid-span. The height of the cross section of the deck is reduced from the support to the mid-
33 span. The prestressing tendons are straight, while the reinforcements within the bottom flange of the
34 deck consist of ordinary strength steel bars. The applicability of the proposed construction method
35 has been examined to a real cast-in-situ box-girder bridge. Comparative results are illustrated
36 showing that the proposed method has advantages concerning not only the constructability, but also
37
the serviceability performance, the earthquake resistance and the structural cost of the bridge.
38
39
40
41
Keywords: bridge; new construction method; straight tendons; variable cross section; cast-in-situ
42
43 1. Introduction
44
Safety, serviceability, cost-effectiveness, aesthetics and particular technical issues are typically the
45
46
controlling factors in the selection of the proper bridge type [1] [2] and construction method. The
47
selection is further complicated by other considerations such as the deflection limit, the life-cycle
48
cost, including traffic obstruction during construction stages and during maintenance works,
49 scheduling, feasibility of falsework layout and seismicity at the site [3]. In many cases, a
50 prestressed concrete or steel bridge is a cost-effective choice. Typically, segmental concrete bridge
51 construction is utilized, which is the most common method of bridge construction.
52 Segmental construction method typically introduces: (a) the conventional cast-in-situ bridge
53 construction, (b) the precast prestressed I-beam deck construction with continuous cast-in-situ slab
54 decks, (c) the balanced cantilever bridge construction, which either utilises scaffolding or precast
55 deck segments and (d) the progressive and span by span incrementally launched bridge construction.
56 Segmental cast-in-situ bridge construction is preferable in case of straight and curved in plan
57 bridges with relatively small bent heights and when prestressing is applied in the longitudinal
58 direction of the superstructure, as shown in Fig. 1(a). The formworks are typically supported
59 directly to the ground or to a well compacted temporary embankment. In most cases, the first span
60 and a 15 to 20 % of the length of the second span are casted together. The construction of the next
bridge segment follows after the application of the prestressing force, while keeping the immediate
Page 3 of 9

1
2
3 prestress losses within normal levels. The final loading of the bridge due to the self-weight of the
4 superstructure is varying with time due to the influence of the creep effect [4] [5] [6], as shown in
5 Fig. 1(b). The final loading of the deck can be estimated by the use of simple formulas as follows:
6
7
8
9 M = + ( - ) (1)
10
1+
11
12
13
In Equation 1 where M is the final bending moment of the deck after the development of creep
14
effects, ME is the bending moment of the total bridge system in the ideal case that the deck is
15
constructed at once, is the sum of the bending moments of the deck at subsequent construction
16 stages considering elastic response of the deck, is the final value of the creep coefficient [7], and
17 is the coefficient of the losses due to the prestressing steel relaxation [7] [8]. It is noted that the
18 calculation of actions, that are the bending moments of the superstructure, the shear and the torsion
19 actions have to be performed at different times, that are at t=0 (time of loading) and t= when the
20 creep effects have been fully developed.
21 3
22 2
23 1
24
25 1
26
27 MA,1
28
29 2
30
MA,2
31
32 3
33
34 MA,3
35
36 ME
37
38 M M
8

39
40
(a) (b)
41 Fig. 1: (a) The structural joint at the mid-span at segmental cast-in-situ bridge construction and (b) the
42 influence of segmental construction on the bending moments of the deck.
43
44
This paper proposes a new bridge construction method, which has similarities with the balanced
45
46
cantilever method. However, the cantilevers do not require the standard connection according to the
47
balanced cantilever method that is the jacking of the meeting segments. The connection of the
48
cantilevers is achieved by the use of tendon couplers. The tendons are straight and the scaffolding,
49 which is used for the deck casting, is removed after the application of the prestressing force. The
50 applicability of the proposed construction method has been attempted to a cast-in-situ benchmark
51 bridge actually built along a major motorway that runs across Northern Greece. The paper shows
52 that the proposed construction method can actually facilitate construction, while providing an
53 effective control of the serviceability needs of the deck. Further to that, the earthquake resistance of
54 the resulting bridge is enhanced due to the monolithic pier-deck and abutment-deck connections,
55 while aesthetics are improved.
56
57 2. Description of the proposed construction method
58
59 2.1 Structural assumptions
60
The proposed structural method, which can be utilised in the construction of cast-in-situ bridges, is
based on the following structural assumptions: (a) The deck cross section has a variable height
 Page 4 of 9

1
2
3 along the longitudinal direction of the bridge with a symmetrical bottom flange, which is modulated
4 by a polygonal shape inscribed in a parabolic arch, as shown in Fig. 2. The cross section of the deck
5 can be either a box girder or a voided slab. (b) The prestressing tendons are straight and continuous
6 in all the deck spans and they are installed in the top flange of the deck. The appropriate concrete
7 cover [7] [8] is provided to protect the tendons against corrosion. Within the bottom flange of the
8 deck only ordinary strength steel is utilised. (c) The construction of the end spans can follow two
9
different design alternatives: (c1) The first alternative introduces the construction of the end spans
10
by maintaining the geometry of the intermediate spans for reasons of aesthetics. In that case, the
11
12
deck is chosen to be rigidly connected to the abutments, as shown in Fig. 3. Possible use of bearings,
13
for the support of the deck on the abutments, would lead to the requirement for their replacement
14
during the service life of the bridge. Replacement of the bearings is feasible, however it is not
15
always convenient. Thus, the monolithic connection of the abutment web with the deck is proposed
16 in this design alternative. (c2) The second design alternative introduces the construction of the end
17 spans with lengths smaller than the ones of the intermediate ones. Half of the length of the end span
18 has a deck cross section with variable height. This corresponds to the part of the deck which
19 extends from the end pier towards the abutment. The other part of the span is seated through
20 bearings to the abutment. It extends from the abutment towards the pier and has a constant cross
21 section height. The need for the smaller length of the end spans was found to be dictated by the
22 relatively small height of the deck cross section that is 0,80 m and by the use of ordinary
23 reinforcements in the bottom fibre of the deck, as stated in (b) above.
24 It is noted that the use of prestressing within the bottom flange of the deck was not deemed to be a
25 rational design selection, as the tendons would induce a large vertical load downwards, due to the
26 variation of the height of the deck cross section. This constraint loading, namely the one induced by
27 possible negative prestressing, would not be compatible with the rational use of tendons, which are
28
typically utilised in order to compensate for the vertical loading.
29
30 P1 c-c
31 a-a h3=0,80m
32 h2=0,80m
33 a b c
34
35 a c
36 b-b b centre of gravity
37 of the deck
38 h1=2.20m
39
40 A1
41 a
42
43 a
44
45
46
47
48
49
Fig. 2: The first stage of the proposed construction method.
50
51
52
2.2 Particular design issues
53 he rigid connection of the deck with the abutments was achieved by the construction of a
54 counterbalance that is a cantilever which extends from the abutment towards the backfill soil, as
55 shown in Fig. 3. The length of this cantilever is 5,0 m and its cross section height reduces from the
56 abutment to the backfill. The end cross section of the cantilever is utilised for the anchorage of the
57 tendons. The tendons are slightly lowered at their anchorages in order to provide the appropriate
58 cover for their anchoring devices, namely the bearing plates. A structural tie, namely a reinforced
59 concrete wall with a thickness of 0,30 m, is utilized in order to receive the bending moments of the
60 counterbalance-cantilever, which are developed due to the vertical loading of the deck. In fact this
wall, namely the structural tie, is under tension, while the subdivided abutment web is under
Page 5 of 9

1
2
3 compression. The structural tie has a length equal to the distance between the wing walls, with
4 which it is in contact but not connected. The reinforcement bars of the structural tie are anchored in
5 the pile cap of the abutments foundation. This pile cap has a relatively small thickness, as the wing
6 walls and the wall that retains the backfill soil formulate a stiff concrete box, which increases the
7 stiffness of the pile cap. It is noted that, the web of the abutment, in case it supports the deck
8 through bearings, can be compact. In case the web is integral with the deck, its in-service
9
constrained movements can be accommodated by subdividing it in walls, as shown in Fig. 3, with
10
small thicknesses in order to reduce the shear stiffness enough, while maintaining adequate moment
11
12
capacity [9].
13 opening tendons tendons
14 (Detail)
15
16 counterbalance
17 backfill cantilever
subdivided
18 abutment Detail
19 retaining structural web
wall tie 2,75 2,75
20
21 R=30m
22 pile cap
23
24 150mm
450mm
25
26 R=30m
27 Fig. 3: The abutment of the proposed construction method.
28
29
The minimum height of the deck cross section is proposed to be not smaller than 0,80 m. After the
30
curing of the casted cantilevers, the tendons are stressed. The design of the prestressing force is
31
based on the objective of the method that is to provide a slight pre-cambering of the cantilevers that
32 is a slight bending deflection upwards. Therefore, at this stage the cantilevers of the deck are set
33 higher than the final design height of the bridge. After the application of prestressing, the steel
34 formwork is removed and the construction procedure is repeated for the adjacent spans. The
35 tendons of the subsequent spans are coupled with the ones of the casted cantilever and the adjacent
36 cantilever is constructed. A detailed description of the prestressing application and the rebar of the
37 deck is given in section 3 of the paper.
38 After the completion of the deck construction and the application of the prestressing force, positive
39 bending moments, which are caused due to the eccentricity of the straight tendons from the decks
40 centre of gravity, are developed along the deck. These positive bending moments overbalance the
41 negative ones that are imposed by the self-weight of the deck. Hence, a pre-cambering of the
42 cantilevers is achieved. The pre-cambering was deemed necessary in order to compensate for the
43 pre-determined long-term prestress losses due to the creep and shrinkage of the deck and due to the
44
relaxation of prestressing steel. The rest of the vertical loads of the deck that are the additional
45
permanent and the variable loading [10] are imposed after the completion of the total bridge system.
46
47
Thus, the frame action of the total bridge structure, in which the meeting cantilevers are connected,
48
receives the additional vertical loading. The final bridge system is then checked against the
49
resulting bending moments, the shear actions and the torsion effects after considering the re-
50 distribution of actions. In particular, the design of the deck against shear actions is facilitated due to
51 the beneficial inclination to the horizontal of the compression zone of the deck in the critical section
52 for shear, namely where the maximum shear stress is acting. Possible deficiency of the deck at the
53 supports against the bending moments caused by either the ultimate or the serviceability limit states
54 [8][11] shall be covered by additional reinforcement bars of ordinary strength steel. The additional
55 reinforcements cover the safety criteria set by codes [8] [11] and the serviceability requirements by
56 limiting the crack width according to the code provisions [7] [8].
57
58
59
60
 Page 6 of 9

1
2
3
4
3. Application of the construction method to a cast-in-situ bridge
5
6 3.1 Description of the benchmark bridge
7 The bridge of Kleidi-Kouloura belongs to Egnatia Motorway that runs across Northern Greece. It is
8 a cast-in-situ structure with a total of three spans and a total length equal to 135.8 m. Figure 4
9 illustrates the longitudinal section of the bridge, the abutment and the cross sections of the box-
10 girder deck, the pier and its foundation. The deck of the bridge has a constant height of 2.18 m,
11 while prestressing consists of tendons 20x19T15 (20 tendons of 19 wires with diameter 15mm each)
12 with a parabolic geometry. The bridge has a seat-type abutment on which the deck is supported
13 through two sliding bearings, while is rigidly connected to the piers. The clearance between the
14 deck slab and the backwall is bridged by an expansion joint with a movement capacity of 100 mm.
15
A1 P1 P2 A2
16 135.80 KLEIDI
KOULOURA
17 45.10 45.60 45.10
18
19 9.50 9.50
20 Abutment
21 approach slab Pier
length: 4.0m T200 (100mm) deck Foundation
22
2.00
23 2.0m
backwall: 3.0m 7.50 2.00
24 sliding bearing
3
25 6.5
2
1.00 22.50
backfill soil Deck at the midspan
26 2
13.50 3.00
27 3 6.75
3
28 2 2.18 0
0.6
29
6.00
30
31
Fig. 4: The benchmark bridge (Kleidi-Kouloura Bridge of Egnatia Motorway).
32
33 3.2 Results
34 The benchmark bridge was re-analysed and re-designed according to current code provisions
35 concerning serviceability [8] [11] and earthquake resistance [12]. The re-design took into account
36 the construction phases of the proposed method and the following predominant design parameters
37 were revealed: (1) The required number of straight tendons was less than the one needed in case a
38 classification category A or B was chosen, (table 4.118 in [8] [11]). However, the total number of
39 tendons ensures that the bridge is classified in category C, when this requirement refers to the
40 performance of the top fibre of the deck, while the use of ordinary strength reinforcements in the
41 bottom fibre of the deck leads to the classification category D. It is noted that, the design of the
42 prestressing force and the resulting number of tendons aims at providing the required pre-cambering
43 of the cantilevers against the self weight of the bridge deck, whose length was half of the total span
44
length that is 45,60/2 = 22,80 m. (2) The re-design of the prestressing showed that 15x19T15 (15
45
tendons of 19 wires with diameter 15mm each) of high strength steel St1500/1770 are adequate to
46
47
receive the bending moment of the deck above its support. Additionally, ordinary steel rebar 7616
48
(76 bars with diameter 16mm each) above the support were utilized, which gradually reduced to
49
2816 at the bridge mid-span. The tendons and the reinforcements needed in the top flange of the
50 deck are illustrated in Fig. 5. The ordinary strength steel bars, which are also required by the code
51 [8], are the ones which allow the safe transition from the uncracked to the cracked deck section and
52 the avoidance of non-ductile failure modes. The lengths of the steel bars were chosen to be
53 submultiples, namely half, of the conventionally produced ones by the steel manufactures in order
54 to avoid material waste. Figures 6 and 7 show in detail the distribution of these reinforcing bars at
55 the support and at the mid-span. Figure 8 shows the steel rebar of the bottom part of the deck. The
56 bars are installed in couples that are 2x7125 (71 couples of bars with diameters 25mm each) at the
57 mid-span, while 2x4125 were found to be required at the bottom flange of the deck at the supports.
58 The reinforcement splices were required to extend 2,15 m. The lengths of the bars were selected to
59 be 7,0 m and they were set parallel to the sides of the polygonal shape of the bottom flange. (4) The
60 thickness and the reinforcement of the structural tie, that is the wall that restrains the vertical
movements of the counterbalance-cantilever at the abutment shown in Fig. 3, were found to be
0,30m and 3x16/100 (3 lines of bars with diameter 16mm at a spacing 100 mm) correspondingly.
Page 7 of 9

1
2
3
4
5 Pier
6
7
8 Y 28O16 52O16 76O16 52O16 28O16 lapping
9 X L=14,0m 3,50 m
L=14,0m L=7,0m L=7,0m L=14,0 m
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34 couplers tendons 15x19T15 (St 1500/1770)
35
36 Fig. 5: The layout of the straight tendons and the ordinary strength steel bars of the decks top flange at the
37 support, (the scale is distorted: 1 unit at X equals 2 units at Y axis).
38
39
40 Pier
41
42 7,00 7,00
43 8,50 5,50
44 5,50 8,50
45
46
47
1,00
48
49
50
51
L=14,0 m tendons
52 Fig. 6: Detail of the straight tendons and the ordinary strength steel bars of the decks top flange at the
53 support.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
 Page 8 of 9

1
2
3 lapping
4
14,00 3,52
5
6 7,00 7,00
7
8
9
10 couplers
11
12 tendons structural joint
13 Fig. 7: Detail of the ordinary strength steel bars of the decks top flange at the mid-span and coupling of the
14 tendons.
15 ~4,50m
16
17 straight tendons
18 2,0-2,50m top flange 15x19T15 (St 1500/1770) d=150mm d>150mm
19
20 2,15m 7,0m 7,0m
21 7,0m 2X6125 2X7125
2X5125
22 2X5125
2X4125 mid-span
23 splicing
length structural joint
24 polygonal
25 bottom
26 flange
27 pier
corners of the polygon
28
29
l=35,0-50,0m
30
31
Fig. 8: Detail of the ordinary strength steel bars at the bottom flange of the deck.
32 The study of the applicability of the proposed structural method by utilising bridges with shorter
33 and longer spans showed that for span lengths up to 35,0 m the deck is not exhibiting cracking,
34 while for longer spans the crack widths can be kept low, namely lower than the limit of 0,02 mm,
35 by means of rational reinforcement ratios of ordinary strength steel nars. As far as it concerns the
36 bottom flange of the deck, it was found that the bending moments of the mid-spans require
37 reinforcement ratios lower than the maximum allowable ones, which are set by codes [7][8]. This is
38 attributed to the fact that the bending moments of the bridge are redistributed due to the frame
39 action of the final bridge system. Hence, the decks bending moments are mainly received by the
40 supports, due to the beneficial variation of the deck cross section height and the aforementioned
41 frame action.
42
43
44 4. Conclusions
45 This paper proposes a new bridge construction method, which can be used as a design alternative to
46 the conventional construction practices. The method has many similarities with the balanced
47 cantilever method. The prestressing tendons are straight and installed within the top flange of the
48 deck cross section, while ordinary strength steel is utilized for the reinforcement within the bottom
49
flange. The deck has a variable cross section height along its longitudinal direction. A benchmark
50
bridge, actually built along the Egnatia Motorway by the conventional segmental cast-in-situ
51
52
method, was utilized as benchmark to identify the applicability of the proposed method. The bridge
53
was checked according to the current code provisions and the study came up with the following
54
findings:
55 The application of the proposed construction method revealed significant structural benefits. The
56 use of straight tendons for the prestressing of the deck facilitates and accelerates the construction of
57 the bridge. The tendons are installed within the upper slab of the decks cross section, which is
58 more preferable than using tendons which are installed in the webs of the box girder. It is noted that
59 the use of tendons in the webs of the box-girder decks is not allowed according to current code
60 design, at least for bridges constructed by the balanced cantilever method. Furthermore, the
prestressing losses due to friction are significantly reduced when the proposed construction method
Page 9 of 9

1
2
3 is employed. The dead load of the bridge deck, which typically constitutes the largest portion of the
4 bridges vertical loading, is decreased due to the reduction in the height of the deck cross section.
5 However, the variation of the deck cross section along the bridge deck obstructs the falsework as
6 the scaffolding is more demanding in terms of geometry, compared to the conventional segmental
7 bridge construction.
8
9 The bridge aesthetics are significantly improved compared to the conventional segmental bridge
10 construction. This is due to the refined arch-type view of the bridge constructed by the proposed
11 method and the reduced deck cross section height.
12
13
As far as it concerns the cracking of the deck, the proposed construction method can be utilized for
14
the construction of bridges with short to medium spans up to 35 m. The check against cracking due
15
to the short term vertical loading of the deck, namely against the infrequent loading, showed that
16 the deck does not exhibit cracking. In case of bridges with longer spans up to 50 m the use of partial
17 prestress shall be used.
18 The deflections of the deck were significantly reduced due to the objective set during the design of
19 the prestressing force, which ensured that the cantilevers had a pre-cambering upwards, at least
20 when the scaffolding was removed.
21
22 Possible differential settlements of the piers can be received by the resulting bridge system without
23 developing high bending loading to the deck, due to flexibility of the arch-type superstructure.
24
25 5. References
26
27 [1] CALTRANS, Bridge Design Aids Manual, California Department of Transportation,
28 Sacramento, 1994.
29 [2] CHEN W.F. and DUAN L., Bridge Engineering Handbook, CRC Press Boca Raton London,
30 New York Washington, D. C., 1999, Chapter 1.
31
32 [3] MITOULIS S.A., TEGOS I.A., K.-C. STYLIANIDIS, Cost-effectiveness related to the
33 earthquake resisting system of multi-span bridges, Engineering Structures, Vol. 32, Issue 9,
34 2010, pp. 2658-2671.
35
36
[4] TROST H., Lastverteilung bei Plattenbalkenbrucken, Werner Verlag, Dusseldorf, West
37
Germany, 1961.
38 [5] PIETRASZEK T.T., Dealing with varying moments of inertia of girders in bridge analysis:1
39 Discussion, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 16, 1989, pp. 203-204.
40
41 [6] KWAK H.-G., and SON J.-K., Determination of design moments in bridges constructed
42 with a movable scaffolding system (MSS), Computers and Structures, Vol. 84 Issue 31-32,
43 2006, pp. 2141-2150.
44 [7] EN 1992-1-1:2004 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures, Part 1-1: General rules and
45 rules for buildings, 2004.
46
47 [8] DIN-FACHBERICHT 102, Betonbrcken, DIN Deutsches Institut fuer Normung e.V, 2003.
48 [9] TEGOU S.D., MITOULIS S.A., TEGOS I.A., An unconventional earthquake resistant
49 abutment with transversely directed R/C walls, Engineering Structures, Vol. 32, Issue 11,
50 2010, pp. 3801-381.
51
52 [10] EN 1991-2:2003 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges, 2003.
53
54
[11] EN 1992-2:2004 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures-Part 2: Bridges, 2004.
55 [12] EN 1998-2:2005 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 2: Bridges,
56 2005.
57
58
59
60