2383
.pdflongitudinal |
post-tensioning. |
The |
such that the last 12 m of the tail span |
|||
amount of prestress provided is the |
is solid except for an access shaft. As- |
|||||
amount required to provide 100% load |
built measurements were taken after |
|||||
balancing for the final dead load |
casting of each section so that the final |
|||||
condition. This required approximately |
static balance could be closely predict- |
|||||
30% more post-tensioning than the |
ed. It was found necessary to explicitly |
|||||
amount re quired to satisfy service load |
account for the measured density of the |
|||||
stress conditions. The deck of the box |
concrete (from quality control test |
|||||
girder is post-tensioned transversely |
cylinders) and the actual weight of re- |
|||||
and vertical post-tensioning is included |
inforcing and prestressing steel in each |
|||||
in |
the |
webs. |
The |
additional |
segment to accurately predict the static |
|
longitudinal post-tensioning reduced |
balance. Allowable static imbalance |
|||||
the need for vertical post-tensioning in |
during construction while the bridge |
|||||
some areas. |
|
|
|
|
rested on temporary service bearings |
|
Static balance of each leaf about the |
was 72 MNm. Static imbalance during |
|||||
pivot pier is achieved by thickening the |
service operations of the movable |
|||||
webs and bottom slab in the tail span |
leaves was limited to 6.8 MNm to |
|||||
and by the addition of ballast concrete |
avoid stick-slip chatter in the pivot |
|||||
and |
galvanized reinforcing |
steel |
bars |
shaft guide bearings. |
Fig. 21
PIER |
HOUSE |
AND |
footing founded on 36 concrete filled |
||||
MACHINERY |
|
|
steel pipe piles, 91 cm diameter, |
||||
|
|
|
|
completes both load paths. |
|||
The 12.8 m diameter pier house carries |
Heavy locks at the tail span joint and at |
||||||
the superstructure loads to the founda- |
the center joint are provided for |
||||||
tions and houses the drive machinery, |
transfer of seismic response loads and |
||||||
emergency generators, and part of the |
to restrain |
differential |
displacements |
||||
control system. The pier table element |
due |
traffic, |
differential |
temperature, |
|||
of each leaf is supported by a transition |
and |
accidental misalignment. The |
|||||
element which provides two load paths |
torsional stiffness of the box section is |
||||||
to the foundation. The closed position |
sufficiently high that locks were pro- |
||||||
path (serving vehicular traffic) is from |
vided only on the longitudinal |
||||||
the superstructure pier table through a |
centerline of the section. The locks are |
||||||
conical shell to the walls of the pier |
driven by hydraulic rams powered by |
||||||
house. Service bearings made up from |
local pumps. |
|
|||||
steel plates with reinforced elastomers |
Twin hydraulic slewing cylinders (56 |
||||||
separate the transition element from |
cm bore x 234 cm stroke) rotate each |
||||||
the roof of the pier house. These |
movable leaf from the closed position |
||||||
service bearings are placed on an 11.4 |
to the open position to allow for pas- |
||||||
m diameter circle. Temporary bearings |
sage of ships. The operational cycle is |
||||||
were placed between the permanent |
based on a normal two minute slewing |
||||||
service bearings to provide stability |
time, total cycle including traffic lights |
||||||
during construction of the cast-in-place |
and gates is approximately 4.5 |
||||||
segmental concrete leaves. |
|
minutes. Friction is minimized due to |
|||||
|
the fact that the structure is supported |
||||||
The operating position load path is |
|||||||
from the pier table through the center |
on the hydraulic fluid of the lift-turn |
||||||
portion of the transition element to the |
cylinder. The principal source of |
||||||
3.66 m diameter pivot shaft. The pivot |
friction is the pivot shaft guide bear- |
||||||
shaft is a concrete-filled steel shell 44 |
ings which maintain vertical align- |
||||||
mm thick which in turn rests on the |
ment. |
|
|
||||
hydraulically |
|
operated |
lift-turn |
Power for raising and rotating the movable |
|||
cylinder. The pivot shaft is maintained |
leaf is provided by 3-75 kW, 8-liter-per- |
||||||
in the vertical position by guide |
|
|
|
|
|||
bearings (Fig. 21) at the roof and |
second hydraulic pumps in each pier house. |
||||||
operating floor level of the pier house. |
Normal operation is with two pumps, the |
||||||
In the operating position, the whole |
|||||||
movable leaf |
including |
transition |
third pump alternates as a spare. Other |
||||
element and pivot shaft are raised |
|
|
|
|
|||
approximately 25 mm to transfer the |
redundancies built into the system include the |
||||||
load from the service bearings to the |
|
|
|
|
|||
pivot shaft. |
A |
reinforced |
concrete |
ability to slew the bridge using only one |
slewing cylinder (with increased cycle time)
and even to slew the bridge against the friction of the service bearings, should the
breakdown for major work categories (based on the low bid) is presented in Table 1. The contract called for a 22 month construction schedule.
lift/turn cylinder fail to operate.
Hydraulic system components are designed to operate at a normal pressure of 11.7 MPa and an emergency (slewing against the service bearing friction) pressure of 41.4 Mpa.
The control unit is a programmable controller which sequences operations, and provides status information to the bridge operator. The primary position control is limit switches which initiate braking via the controller. The control system is essentially the same as manual operation except that the controller "pushes the buttons," checks interlocks, and announces the status on a monitor. Manual override is possible for most steps of the operation.
Diesel powered emergency generator sets (350 kW) are provided in each pier house on the lower floor. Fuel storage is placed in day tanks on the shore.
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Bids for the construction of the project were received in September 1988. Five bids were received for the concrete box girder alternative ranging from USD 33.5 to USD 37.6 million, including demolition of the south bascule, all approach work and site work. The cost
Item |
Cost |
|
USD |
|
Millions |
Mobilization |
2. 80 |
Demolition |
3.76 |
Civil: streets, utilities, |
3.38 |
traffic |
|
Approach spans |
4.66 |
Swing piers |
6.87 |
Swing spans |
5.60 |
Machinery |
3.98 |
Electrical |
1.06 |
Controls, control tower |
0.94 |
Pier protection |
0.48 |
Total |
33.53 |
Table 1: Cost breakdown (low bid)
Owner: City of Seattle, WA
Design:
Andersen Bjornstad Kane Jacobs,
Seattle, WA
Parson Brinckerhoff Quade and
Douglas, Seattle, WA
Tudor Engineering, Seattle, WA
Contractor:
Kiewit-Global Joint Venture,
Seattle, WA
Service date August 1992
PRECAST SEGMENTAL HIGHWAY VIADUCTS, HAWAII
Gerard Sauvageot, Vice Pres. |
J. Muller International, San Diego, CA |
GENERAL DESCRIPTION |
creases at one end where it connects to |
||||||
the two separate tunnels. Crosswise the |
|||||||
Oahu Island, in the Hawaiian Islands, |
elevation of the two parallel decks |
||||||
varies by as much as 4.6 m. |
|
|
|||||
with the state capital Honolulu and the |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bay of Pearl Harbor, is presently expe- |
VALUE |
|
ENGINEERING |
||||
riencing significant new urban arid |
DESIGN |
|
|
|
|
||
tourism development. To link the most |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
populated areas of the south to the |
The structure was designed as a vari- |
||||||
towns and military bases on the north- |
able depth concrete box girder to be |
||||||
east, the Hawaiian Department of |
built in balanced cantilever with 4.9 m |
||||||
Transportation, with the financial sup- |
long superstructure segments cast in |
||||||
port of the US Federal Highway Ad- |
place with travelling forms. The struc- |
||||||
ministration, is building an extension |
ture shown in the base design would |
||||||
of the H-3 Freeway across the steep |
have been supported by cast-in-place |
||||||
and volcanic Koolau Mountains. Be- |
hollow concrete piers with a single row |
||||||
cause of its natural beauty and archae- |
of fixed or sliding bearings at the top. |
||||||
ological significance, the whole area is |
The foundations consisted of 400 mm |
||||||
very sensitive environmentally. From |
diameter, |
octagonal precast |
driven |
||||
the vicinity of Pearl Harbor, the free- |
piles. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
way includes the North Halawa |
After bidding on the base design, an |
||||||
Viaducts, the Haiku Tunnels under the |
alternate was proposed according to |
||||||
mountain range, and the Windward |
"Value |
|
Engineering" |
procedure, |
|||
Viaducts on the north slope, where it |
whereby certain economic and techni- |
||||||
will connect to the north end of H-3 al- |
cal conditions must be met, such as |
||||||
ready in service |
sharing any savings with the owner |
||||||
The new Windward Viaducts consist |
and |
retaining |
the |
appearance, |
|||
of twin parallel prestressed concrete |
geometry, and alignment of the |
||||||
structures approximately 2 km long |
structure, which had been the object of |
||||||
with 24 spans each. The maximum |
a |
lengthy environmental |
impact |
||||
span length is 91.5 m and column |
assessment. |
|
|
|
|||
height varies from 3.6 to 48.8 m. The |
The alternate design accepted by the |
||||||
width of each bridge varies from 12.8 |
contractors’ joint venture and the |
||||||
to 17.4 m. The geometry of the |
owner, |
|
included |
the |
following |
||
viaducts includes reverse curves with |
changes: |
|
|
|
|
||
radius varying between 470 and 753 m |
- |
piers and superstructure were made |
|||||
and cross slope between 5.5 % on one |
monolithic |
|
|
|
|||
side and 6.8% on the other side. The |
- |
precast piles were replaced with 1.5 |
|||||
longitudinal slope of the structure is |
m diameter drilled shafts |
|
|
||||
about 5 %. The horizontal distance be- |
- |
precast segmental construction was |
|||||
tween the structures is constant on |
used for the superstructure. |
|
|
||||
most of the length at 21.3 m, but in- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The project specifications allowed |
and parabolic intrados. The depth |
1360 days for the construction of the |
varies from 4.9 m at pier to 2.45 m at |
viaducts. This schedule did not provide |
midspan (Fig. 22). The length of the |
additional time for rainy days, which |
precast segments are such that the |
are frequent on the windward side of |
maximum weight is 70 t. A 2-segment |
the island. Precast construction has the |
expansion joint is located every four |
advantage of decreasing the amount of |
spans, at about one-quarter of the span. |
work performed at the site, improving |
This disposition reduces deflections |
quality and speed of erection and sig- |
and changes of angle at the joint. The |
nificantly, allowing the superstructure |
two hinge segments are temporarily |
to be entirely constructed from above |
prestressed and treated as one piece |
in this difficult terrain. |
during the erection process. Tendons |
Each viaduct is a single box made of |
through the hinge are released after the |
precast segments with vertical webs |
next span is installed and stressed. |
Fig. 22
The longitudinal post'-tensioning lay- |
deviation blocks running from pier |
out was conventional with straight 19 x |
segment diaphragm to pier segment |
13 mm strand tendons placed within |
diaphragm provide for any future |
the top slab and anchored at the |
external post-tensioning contingencies. |
segment joints, close to the top of the |
A 75 mm thick reinforced overlay is |
webs, 32 tendons were used in each |
applied to the bridge at the end of |
typical cantilever. The continuity post- |
construction according to the original |
tensioning consists typically of 18-19 x |
project specifications. |
13 mm strand tendons placed in the |
|
bottom slab and anchored in concrete |
ERECTION SYSTEM |
blocks. No draped tendons were |
|
required in the webs, except for the |
A special erection system was de- |
hinge and abutment spans. Additional |
signed and used for this structure with |
a self-launching gantry that allowed |
built with the minimum degree of free- |
both viaduct structures to be built si- |
dom compatible with its motion and |
multaneously. The system is designed |
the stability of the gantry crane. The |
to accommodate variable cross slopes, |
longitudinal displacement on top of the |
curves, differential elevations, and |
trusses is by a rack-and-pinion |
variable distances between the two |
hydraulically driven system insuring |
structures. |
total safety on the 5 % longitudinal |
The system includes two independent |
slope of the bridge. The relative |
erection trusses, steel support beams |
longitudinal motion of one leg with |
supporting the trusses, a gantry crane |
regard to the other (each leg running |
and lifting trolley. The gantry crane is |
on one truss 26.2 m away) is entirely |
supported by two trusses, one on each |
controlled by an electronic device |
bridge. |
monitoring the speed of the hydraulic |
Transverse cross beams act as supports |
motors and keeping the "lag" within |
for the trusses. Each truss rests on |
acceptable tolerances. |
three cross beams, one at the rear, at |
The launching of the trusses to the next |
the tip of the previous cantilever, one |
pier is done by fixing the gantry crane |
on top of the pier segment of the can- |
to the concrete deck through a |
tilever under construction and a third, |
temporary attachment and activating |
mobile, on the front arm of the con- |
its hydraulic motors which then push |
crete cantilever and supporting the |
the trusses under the gantry instead of |
truss as the construction progresses, |
moving the gantry on the trusses. The |
reducing deflections and moments in |
trusses are launched one at a time to |
the truss. This was possible because of |
minimize the load on the cantilever. |
the moment-resisting connection be- |
A complete launching from pier to pier |
tween the deck and pier shaft. Each |
took about 18 hours (Fig. 23). After |
cross beam is set horizontally on the |
completion of the learning curve, the |
concrete deck. |
contractor typically achieved the re- |
A gantry crane rolls longitudinally on |
sults shown in Table 2. On the best |
the top members of the two trusses. |
day, the contractor was able to set 16 |
The gantry crane carries a lifting trol- |
segments. |
ley running transversely to the two |
|
trusses. The segments are delivered by |
|
truck at the extremity of the previous |
|
cantilever, picked up by the gantry |
|
crane/lifting trolley and delivered at |
|
either ends of the twin cantilevers un- |
|
der construction. The gantry crane is |
|
equipped with two legs on wheels. The |
|
leg on the mountainside truss is the |
|
"fixed leg." The leg on the ocean side |
|
truss is the pendulum leg. Each leg is |
|
Fig. 23
The remarkable speed that this erection system is able to achieve is due to its separation of the two operations which were performed for each pair of segments, i.e., placing and post-ten- sioning. During the operation of placing a pair of segments, which included bringing the segments to the erection equipment, applying epoxy and temporarily stressing them on one cantilever, the contractor was able to work simultaneously on the other cantilever to perform the post-tensioning operation, threading of tendons and stressing. This made the whole erection process more efficient.
Task |
Days |
|
needed |
Adjust 4 starter segments, |
2.5 |
pour closure joint, stress |
|
post-tensioning tendons |
|
|
|
Erect two parallel |
5 |
cantilevers |
|
Pour central spans closure |
3 |
joint and stress continuity |
|
tendons |
|
Launch trusses |
2 |
|
|
Total |
12.5 |
|
|
Table 2: Typical erection cycle
Base design:
Wilson Okamoto Associates, Honolulu, HI
Contractor:
SCI Contractors, Inc. and E.E. Black, Ltd., Joint Venture, Honolulu, HI
Value engineering design: I Muller Int., San Diego, CA
Launching truss design:
J. Muller Int., San Diego, CA
Engineer of Record:
Libby Engineers, San Diego, CA
H-3 Viaduct completed: 1993
TALMADGE MEMORIAL BRIDGE, SAVANNAH, GEORGIA
Man-Chung Tang, Pres. |
new main river span now provides a |
|
DRC Consultants, Inc., Flushing, NY |
navigational clearance of 183 m |
|
Description |
horizontally and 56.4 m vertically, |
|
which will accommodate any ocean- |
||
|
||
The new Talmadge Memorial Bridge |
going vessels today. |
|
is a 2.31 km long high-level structure |
The Talmadge Memorial Bridge is a |
|
connecting the city of Savannah, |
three-span continuous cable-stayed |
|
Georgia, and Hutchinson Island over |
structure with a center span of 335.4 m |
|
the Savannah Front River. It replaces |
and side spans of 143.2 m, resulting in |
|
an existing bridge which was hit by |
a 621.8 m cable-stayed unit. The main |
|
ships several times because its navi- |
span length was determined by the de- |
|
gational clearance of 41 m was too low |
sire to place the towers outside the |
|
for today's ocean-going vessels. The |
channel to avoid ship collision. |
Design Alternatives
To stimulate competition, the final design consisted of two alternatives: a concrete proposal and a steel alternative with a composite deck. The final designs were each executed by different firms. In order to accommodate the request of the owner to treat the main span and the approach spans as two separate entities for bidding purposes, the total length of the main span units for both alternates had to be identical. Since the center span was predetermined, the designers of the two alternatives worked .together to determine the lengths of the side spans that was acceptable to both designs.
All six bids received were for the concrete alternate. The successful lowest bid price was USD 25.7 million. The approach span was bid at a later date under a separate contract.
Aesthetics
Due to its location, size and height, this bridge is a highly visible structure, dominating Savannah's river front. A slender appearance was deemed preferable, especially for the towers, which reach 122 m above the water. Many shapes for the towers were studied. The final shape selected demonstrates that a functional configuration that is economical to construct can also be aesthetically pleasing: The bridge is also dramatically illuminated at night.
Design Loadings
The bridge was designed for four lane loads according to AASHTO HS20-44.
However, considering that live load generally dominates the design of a ca- ble-stayed bridge girder, no reduction for multi-lanes was applied. In effect this increased the actual design load to approximately the equivalent of six AASHTO lanes.
Calculation of the impact factor followed the AASHTO concept. The total loaded length was used. The impact was to apply to the design of the girder, the cables and the towers.
In addition to the normal AASHTO wind loading, an additional load case of extreme wind was added because hurricanes are quite common at this site. For this static extreme wind load, w - q x c, q is assumed to be 3 kN/m2 at the deck level and varies to 4.0 kN/m2 at the top of the tower and to 1.5 kN/m2 at elevations below 9.1 m. The shape factor c was determined by wind tunnel tests. This extreme wind, however, was not combined with live load in the design.
Due to the sensitivity of cable-stayed bridges to differential temperature variations between the cables, the towers and the deck, several additional thermal load cases were added to the AASHTO requirements. Savannah is not in a seismic active zone. However, a detailed dynamic analysis was carried out to ascertain the safety of the structure in case of a possible earthquake nearby. A modal analysis with multiple support excitations was conducted and the results incorporated in the final design of the structure.
A differential settlement of 15 cm between the towers and the anchor piers was assumed in the design. In sum, the
design criteria have been conservative- |
bottom and the top of the lower tower |
||||||
ly established to assure the safety and |
legs. |
|
|
|
|||
durability of the structure. |
|
Deck |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tower |
|
|
|
Configuration of the bridge girder de- |
|||
|
|
|
termines the method of construction. |
||||
|
|
|
|
||||
Due to its stiffness and ease of con- |
The basic design goal to make the |
||||||
struction, a hollow cross section was |
cross section as simple as possible was |
||||||
selected for the towers. The size of the |
successfully achieved in the Talmadge |
||||||
tower columns was determined by the |
Memorial Bridge. The deckwas not |
||||||
requirements of strength and the space |
only easy to construct, it was also one |
||||||
needed for cable installation. In gener- |
of the lightest possible cross sections |
||||||
al, it is easier to stress cables at the |
for a cable-stayed bridge |
|
|||||
tower anchorages because a jack can |
The deck girder was designed as a re- |
||||||
be suspended from the top of the tower |
inforced |
concrete |
structure, |
even |
|||
column. |
|
|
|
though longitudinal post-tensioning |
|||
A box configuration, with the cables |
was applied in some areas to help con- |
||||||
anchored in the front and the back |
trol possible cracking, notably in the |
||||||
walls of the tower column, was chosen |
middle portion of the center span and |
||||||
for simplicity. The cables are in the |
the end region of the side spans, where |
||||||
same vertical plane. This simplified the |
axial compression induced by the cable |
||||||
cable geometry and reduced the di- |
forces was low. |
|
|
||||
mensional control during construction. |
A preliminary conceptual design of the |
||||||
But cable forces anchored in one wall |
traveler was done during the design |
||||||
must be transferred and connected to |
stage to establish its approximate |
||||||
the cable forces anchored at the oppo- |
weight and the feasibility of construc- |
||||||
site wall of the column. Post- |
tion. It was found that the traveler |
||||||
tensioning bar tendons were used for |
weight should be approximately 175 t, |
||||||
this purpose to prestress all four walls |
assuming that the front cable was used |
||||||
of the tower column in the vicinity of |
to support the traveler. With a well-de- |
||||||
the cable anchorages. Calculation of |
signed traveler, the construction of the |
||||||
this force transfer was by means of a |
deck proved to be a straight forward |
||||||
strut-and-tie method, neglecting all |
operation. |
|
|
||||
tensile capacity of the concrete. |
|
The floor beams were designed in pre- |
|||||
The design of the lower portion of the |
stressed |
concrete. |
Each floor |
beam |
|||
tower was controlled mostly by |
was prestressed by two 19-0.6" |
||||||
transverse |
wind loading. |
Design |
strands. The spacings of the floor |
||||
earthquake |
effect |
approached |
beams were exactly the same as the |
||||
approximately the severity of wind. To |
spacings of the cables. The floor |
||||||
assure the necessary ductility, tie |
beams were located as closely as |
||||||
reinforcement was |
placed |
at the |
possible |
to the cable anchorage to |