Citation
Designing a new type of bridge compatible with accelerated bridge construction

Material Information

Title:
Designing a new type of bridge compatible with accelerated bridge construction
Creator:
Jaaz, Hussein Abad Gazi
Place of Publication:
Denver, Colo.
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( Master of Science)
Degree Grantor:
University of Colorado Denver
Degree Divisions:
Department of Civil Engineering, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
Civil engineering

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver Collections
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
Copyright HUSSEIN ABAD GAZI JAAZ. Permission granted to University of Colorado Denver to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
DESIGNING A NEW TYPE OF BRIDGE COMPATIBLE WITH
ACCELERATED BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
by
HUSSEIN ABAD GAZI JAAZ B.S., University of Al-Qadisiya, Iraq, 2010
A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Civil Engineering Program
2016


This thesis for the Master of Science degree by Hussein Abad Gazi Jaaz has been approved for the Civil Engineering Program by
Frederick Rutz, Chair Chengyu Li Nien-Yin Chang
Date December 17, 2016


Jaaz, Hussein Abad Gazi (M.S., Civil Engineering)
Designing a New Type of Bridge Compatible with Accelerated Bridge Construction Thesis directed by Associate Professor Chengyu Li.
ABSTRACT
With the aging infrastructure in the United States, there is a need for a change in the bridge construction industry to build and replace bridges quickly and more economically. This study includes a study of decked, precast, prestressed, concrete bridge girders. This type of bridge provides benefits of rapid construction and improved structural performance. The research was performed to develop a model of decked bulb tee girder bridge, which is an ABC project, and compare it with another regular I girder bridge model. Both models will be designed by using LEAP CONSPAN design software as a part of this thesis.
The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication.
m
Approved: Chengyu Li


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, my sincerest thanks to my advisor, Dr. Li for the support and guidance in completion of this thesis. Not only that but his encouragement for me to pursue my higher education. Thanks for all professors who I have been in their classes and I appreciate all the knowledge and experience they have brought to their classes. I would also like to thank Dr. Frederick Rutz and Dr. Nien-Yin Chang for participating on my graduate advisory committee.
Tremendous thanks to CDOT for sharing their confidential documents that I could not have completed my work without them. Also, big thanks to Lee Wegner from Forterra Structural Precast company for providing the thesis with precious cost information.
IV


TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION..............................................................1
1.1 Overview..............................................................1
1.2 Significance of Research..............................................2
1.3 Research Objective....................................................2
II LITERATURE REVIEW.........................................................4
2.1 Introduction..........................................................4
2.2 Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC).................................4
2.3 Conventional Bridge Construction......................................5
2.3.1 Onsite construction time..........................................5
2.3.2 Mobility impact time..............................................6
2.4 PBES Elements.........................................................8
2.4.1 Deck elements.....................................................8
2.4.2 Beam elements.....................................................9
2.4.3 Pier elements....................................................10
2.4.4 Abutment and wall elements......................................11
2.4.5 Other elements...................................................12
2.5 PBES Systems.........................................................12
2.5.1 Superstructure systems...........................................13
2.5.2 Superstructure/Substructure systems..............................14
2.5.3 Total bridge system..............................................14
2.6 Current Standard Bridge Girder Sections That are Used by CDOT and Other
States ....................................................................16
v


2.6.1 Background.........................................................16
2.6.2 Current standard bridge girder sections that are used by CDOT......17
2.6.3 Bridge standard usage by other states..............................17
2.6.4 Disadvantages of current used sections.............................19
2.7 Proposed Section........................................................20
2.7.1 Joints.............................................................22
III DESIGNED MODELS.............................................................23
3.1 Design Criteria.........................................................23
3.1.1 Design specifications..............................................23
3.1.2 Loads..............................................................23
3.1.3 Roadway geometry...................................................24
3.2 Program Used for Design.................................................25
3.3 Designed Models.........................................................25
3.3.1 8-inch deck bridge.................................................25
3.3.2 Decked bulb tee beam bridge........................................45
3.4 Design Verification.....................................................65
3.4.1 Beam properties....................................................65
3.4.2 Cross section properties...........................................65
3.4.3 Stresses at supports @ release.....................................66
3.4.4 Moment capacity at midspan for composite section...................67
3.4.5 Moment distribution factors........................................68
3.4.6 Release camber.....................................................69
IV DISCUSSION..................................................................70
vi


4.1 Cost Estimation..................................................70
4.1.1 8-inch deck model cost......................................71
4.1.2 Decked bulb tee model cost.................................71
4.2 Conclusion.......................................................71
4.3 Recommendations..................................................73
4.4 Suggested Further Research.......................................73
REFERENCES..............................................................74
APPENDIX
A. CDOT Plan Set of the Bridge That has been designed..............75
B. Decked Girder Sections Adopted by WSDOT..........................93
vii


LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
3.1: Beams data of 8-inch deck bridge model...........................................................27
3.2: Shear and moment envelope of an interior beam for service I limit state..33
3.3: Shear and moment envelope of an interior beam for service Dllimit state..33
3.4: Shear and moment envelope of an interior beam for strength I limit state.34
3.5: Shear and moment envelope of an interior beam for fatigue I limit state........................34
3.6: Shear stirrups that used along each girder as an outcome of the..................................43
3.7: Provided deck reinforcement......................................................................44
3.8: Required steel vs. provided steel................................................................44
3.9: Beams data of decked blub tee bridge model.......................................................47
3.10: Shear and moment envelope of an interior beam for service I limit state..52
3.11: Shear and moment envelope of an interior beam for service Dllimit state..52
3.12: Shear and moment envelope of an interior beam for strength I limit state.53
3.13: Shear and moment envelope of an interior beam for fatigue I limit state........................53
3.14: Shear stirrups that used along each girder as an outcome of the..................................63
viii


LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
2.1. Conventional bridge construction............................................7
2.2. Accelerated bridge construction.............................................7
2.3. Decked precast, prestressed bulb tee concrete...............................9
2.4. Truss span without deck of Willis Avenue bridge over Harlem River in New York
City............................................................................10
2.5. Workers lower a prefabricated bent cap of Lake Ray Hubbard Bridge in Dallas, TX 11
2.6. Installation of a precast abutment element.........................................12
2.7. Transferring the prefabricated superstructure of the 4500 South bridge in Salt Lake City, UT, which is a full-width Beam Span with deck superstructure system to the site
using a self propelled modular transporter..............................................13
2.8. Edison bridge in Fort Myers, Florida, which has been built by using total bridge
system..................................................................................14
2.9. Early Saturday morning, installation abutment unit and wingwalls of 86 Bridge over
Mitchell Gulch project..................................................................15
2.10. Saturday afternoon, installation the beams of 86 Bridge over Mitchell Gulch project
.................................................................................16
2.11.1 girder Rothwood road bridge in Spring Houston, TX........................18
2.12. 1-25 box girder overpass reconstruction in Denver downtown................18
2.13. Cracks have developed along the joints in side-by-side box girder bridge...20
2.14. Icicles have seeped from decks surface through the joints between box girders... 20
2.15. Chehalis River Bridge 1 over the Chehalis river near Pe Ell, Washington. It is a
140-foot-long and 20-foot-wide precast prestressed deck-bulb-tee girder bridge..21
3.1. LEAP Conspan general model of the 8-inch deck bridge.......................26
3.2. First model cross section..................................................26
IX


3.3. BT72 girder cross section......................................................27
3.4. Input data of the model in LEAP Conspan........................................28
3.5. Material properties input window of LEAP CONSPAN of first model...............29
3.6. Load factors for load combinations that were inputted into LEAP CONSPAN of the
first model.........................................................................31
3.7. Moment and shear parameters that were specified in LEAP CONSPAN of the first
model...............................................................................32
3.8. Moment of an exterior beam as a composite section due to the dead load of service I
limit state.........................................................................35
3.9. Moment of an exterior beam as a composite section due to the dead load of service IH
limit state.........................................................................35
3.10. Moment of an exterior beam as a composite section due to the dead load of strength
I limit state.......................................................................36
3.11. Moment of an exterior beam as a composite section due to the dead load of fatigue
I limit state.......................................................................36
3.12. Moment of an exterior beam as a composite section due to the live load of service
I limit state.......................................................................37
3.13. Moment of an exterior beam as a composite section due to the dead live of service
IH limit state......................................................................37
3.14. Moment of an exterior beam as a composite section due to the live load of strength
I limit state.......................................................................38
3.15. Moment of an exterior beam as a composite section due to the live load of fatigue I
limit state.........................................................................38
3.16. Moment of an exterior beam on the precast section before the deck has hardened
due to all loads of service I limit state...........................................39
3.17. Moment of an exterior beam on the precast section before the deck has hardened
due to all loads of service IHlimit state...........................................39
3.18. Moment of an exterior beam on the precast section before the deck has hardened
due to all loads of strength I limit state...............................................40
x


3.19. Moment of an exterior beam on the precast section before the deck has hardened
due to all loads of fatigue I limit state...........................................40
3.20. Stress limits and computed stresses for beam number 2 of LEAP CONSPAN first
model................................................................................41
3.21. Provided ultimate moment versus required ultimate moment.....................42
3.22. Shear reinforcement design graph.............................................43
3.23. LEAP Conspan general model of the decked blub tee bridge.....................45
3.24. Decked Blub Tee girder cross section.........................................46
3.25. Second model cross section...................................................46
3.26. Material properties input window of LEAP CONSPAN of second model.............48
3.27. Load factors for load combinations that were inputted into LEAP CONSPAN of the
second model.........................................................................50
3.28. Moment and shear parameters that were specified in LEAP CONSPAN of the
second model.........................................................................51
3.29. Moment of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to the
dead load of service I limit state...................................................54
3.30. Moment of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to the
dead load of service Dllimit state..................................................54
3.31. Moment of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to the
dead load of strength I limit state.................................................55
3.32. Moment of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to the
dead load of fatigue I limit state...................................................55
3.33. Moment of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to the
live load of service I limit state...................................................56
3.34. Moment of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to the
dead live of service Dllimit state..................................................56
3.35. Moment of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to the
live load of strength I limit state.................................................57
xi


3.36. Moment of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to the
live load of fatigue I limit state..................................................57
3.37. Shear of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to dead
loads of service I limit state......................................................58
3.38. Shear of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to dead
loads of strength I limit state......................................................58
3.39. Shear of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to live load
of service I limit state.............................................................59
3.40. Shear of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to live load
of strength I limit state............................................................59
3.41. Stress limits and computed stresses for beam number 1 of LEAP CONSPAN
second model.........................................................................60
3.42. Stresses of an exterior beam at release according to service I limit state....61
3.43. Stresses of an exterior beam at release according to service IHlimit state....61
3.44. Final stresses of an exterior beam according to service I limit state.........62
3.45. Final stresses of an exterior beam according to service IHlimit state.........62
3.46. Shear reinforcement design graph..............................................64
3.47. Ultimate provided and required moments along an exterior beam according to
strength I limit state...............................................................64
xii


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview
There are more than half a million bridges in use in the United States. According to 2013 Report Card for Americas Infrastructure, the average age of the nations 607,380 bridges is about 42 years, and one in nine of the countrys bridges are rated as structurally poor. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) stated that US needs $20.5 billion every year to eliminate the nations bridge deficient backlog by 2028. With such that aging infrastructure, the United States need to change the bridge construction manufacturing in order to build and replace all that bridges rapidly and more economically.
Another obtrusive factor requires thinking of a new system for bridge construction has been presented after the annual statistics for traffic accidents in work zones. According to Colorado Department of Transportation CDOT, only in 2014, Colorado had 1,607 crashes occurred in construction zones resulting in 130 injuries and 9 deaths; other 126 injuries and 14 deaths were the results of 1,326 crashes in 2013. The most recent statistics demonstrated is that 22,260 crashes occurred only in Texas construction zones only in 2015; the outcomes were 140 deaths and 747 Incapacitating Injuries in one year only, one state only, and in the work zones only. Using prefabricated elements to eliminate time-consuming construction activities could drop those numbers significantly and decrease the economic losses due to the destruction of property and infrastructure.
Furthermore, with the temperamental weather in Colorado, the activities at the construction site can be impacted very often. On the other hand, using elements have
1


been fabricated or precast in a controlled environment will accelerate the work by reducing the time the concrete members take to cure and the cost, not only for the owner but for the road users too by reducing fuel usage as well as a savings in time.
1.2 Significance of Research
The common way to construct or replace a bridge, which called conventional bridge construction, requires long construction period to finish all onsite activities and put the bridge in service. During this time, traffic is impacted increasing the chances for more dramatic traffic accidents and casualties. According to Federal Highway Administration, by 2028, United States need to rehabilitate about 14% of their bridges throughout the nation, on this wise, states DOTs should prepare for a constructional renaissance to be implemented in such relatively short time.
If the same project that has been built in conventional bridge construction method could be constructed by using Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC) strategies (this concept will be discussed in the next chapter), the construction period would have been minimized significantly. Currently, the average time needed to replace one span functionally old bridge is between 1-2 years. Thus, it is important to design a type of bridge girder compatible with ABC requirements to accelerate the progress.
1.3 Research Objective
The main purpose of this thesis will be to design a new bridge girder section to be in one line with ABC category. A bridge has been designed to be built in conventional bridge construction method will be redesigned to satisfy ABC requirements. Then the costs and timelines of both designs will be compared to show the benefits of the new
2


model. This paper is intended to provide alternatives to prevailing bridge construction methods.
3


CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter will focus on reviewing and explaining the differences between conventional bridge construction method and Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC), prefabricated bridge elements and system (PBES), and the building strategies of each method. Also, in this chapter, current bridge girder sections that are used by United States departments of transportation will be displayed with all their disadvantages. The last part of this chapter will present the suggested section to be designed for substitution the popular section.
2.2 Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC)
Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC) is bridge construction process that could be used to construct new bridges or to replace and recondition existing bridges where ingenious planning, design, materials, and construction procedure in a safe and cost-effective technique are used to minimize the onsite construction period. Federal Highway Administration describes ABC as a paradigm shift in the project planning by elevating the need to bring down mobility impacts which occur due to onsite construction activities to a higher preference. One of the reasons to use ABC is to improve the safety of public who travel in the construction work-zone and the flow of the transportation network by minimizing traffic impacts that are related to onsite construction activities. Moreover, ABC improves site constructability by providing more functional practical and economical solutions for common issues in bridge projects like long detours and expensive interim structures. Other common advantages of using ABC are reducing total
4


project delivery time, time delays due to weather, environmental impacts, and impacts to existing roadway alignment.
2.3 Conventional Bridge Construction
Conventional bridge construction is usually used to build, replace, or rehabilitate a bridge or more than one bridge when the construction does not significantly reduce the onsite construction time that is needed to do the job. In conventional construction methods, onsite activities, the time-consuming and weather dependent activities, are involved. For instance, constructing in a sequential manner of onsite installation of substructure and superstructure forms, followed by reinforcing steel placement, concrete placement, and concrete curing.
It is important and very beneficial to reduce onsite activities that reduce the safety and flexibility effectiveness of the transportation network due to long-term activities such as placing contractor related equipment, labor, and performance areas can offer driver distractions and traffic commotions.
To apply and measure the effectiveness of ABC, two time periods are focused on: onsite construction time and mobility impact time.
2.3.1 Onsite construction time.
The period of time that start when a contractor modifies the project site location until all construction-related activities are ended including, but is not limited to, removing maintenance of Traffic items, construction materials, construction waste, equipment, and all workers.
5


2.3.2 Mobility impact time.
The period of time that the traffic flow of the transportation network is influenced due to onsite construction activities.
It is worth mentioning that these two periods are not the total project time. Total project time is the period of time from when project planning begins until the time that all bridge work is accomplished. It is onsite construction time added to planning time. However, planning time is required irrespective of whether a project is planned using ABC or conventional construction methods, so it is not considered.
One of the strategies that apply the goals of accelerated bridge construction is using prefabricated bridge elements and system (PBES). In this strategy, the structural components that constitute a bridge are built offsite, or near-site of a bridge, which clearly reduces the onsite construction time and mobility impact time that occur from conventional construction methods. Innovations in design and high-performance materials are involved in PBES that are built off the critical path and under controlled environmental conditions where amelioration in safety, quality, and long-term durability can be better achieved. Irrespective of reasons to indicate PBES, On-site construction time and mobility impact time are characteristically reduced in some way comparative to conventional construction methods. Using prefabricated elements in bridge construction reduces or eliminates the onsite construction time that is necessary to build a similar structural element using conventional construction methods. To offset the costs of prefabricated elements, they are typically built with repeatable and even some states use the same section for most of their bridge projects. PBES could consist of a single
6


prefabricated element of the superstructure such as deck elements or multi elements like adjacent deck bulb tee beams.
i \ Deck X B airier *JT

TBeam-v I
ill
Pier Cap-
Pier Column -
itif- Prefabricated Elements Q Cast in Place Concrete Elements
Figure 2.1. Conventional bridge construction.
Figure 2.2. Accelerated bridge construction.
7


2.4 PBES Elements
Any prefabricated element is one class of PBES which consist of a single structural component of a bridge. In the concept of ABC, prefabricated elements help to finish onsite constructions in a simpler time compare with the time that needed when conventional construction methods are used. This would improve the mobility impact time period and open the traffic in ideal time.
2.4.1 Deck elements.
They are precast deck panels that prefabricated and cured before delivering them to the site. Using this type of deck eliminates many activities that are necessary to do in conventional deck construction. Typically, these actions include installation of deck forms, installation the formwork and brackets for overhang, steel reinforcement placement, setting up paving equipment, casting the concrete, and curing that concrete. All those missions need to be done in sequence, where no activity can start unless the previous one has finished. Michael P. Culmo (2011), who is the vice president of transportation and structures at CME Associates, gave some examples of deck elements including:
o Partial-depth precast deck panels.
o Full-depth precast deck panels with and without longitudinal post-tensioning.
o Lightweight precast deck panels.
o FRP deck panels.
o Steel grid (open or filled with concrete).
o orthotropic deck.
8


2.4.2 Beam Elements.
There are two types of prefabricated beam elements: deck beam elements and full-width beam elements. The deck beams are precast elements in the form of a beam and full depth deck as a one piece to eliminate all forming and activities of placing the conventional onsite deck that noted above. An example of deck beam element is the adjacent deck bulb tee beams, which reduces the total construction time dramatically. On the other hand, full-width beam elements are the largest part of the bridge's superstructure, which is prefabricated and transferred to the site in order to eliminate conventional onsite beam placement process. Truss span without deck element is an example of full-width beam elements.
Figure 2.3. Decked precast, prestressed bulb tee concrete Adapted from University of Tennessees bridge research laboratory website, July 2009.
9


Figure 2.4. Truss span without deck of Willis Avenue bridge over Harlem River in New York City Adapted from Florida University transportation center, 2015.
2.4.3 Pier elements.
By using prefabricated pier elements, the activities that are needed in conventional pier construction can be eliminated. Typically, these onsite actions starting from form installation until the concrete curing all are occurring in a consecutive routine. The pier could be a full prefabricated member from the footing to the cap or consisted of a single prefabricated element such as the cap only. Figure 2.5 shows one of the 43 precast pier caps of Lake Ray Hubbard Bridge, which was a cost effective project because of the forty-three repeating elements (Mary, De 2003).
10


Figure 2.5. Workers lower a prefabricated bent cap of Lake Ray Hubbard Bridge in Dallas, TX. Adapted from Laying The Groundwork for Fast Bridge Construction by Mary L. R. & Benjamin M. T., December 2003, Public Roads Magazine, 67(3).
2.4.4 Abutment and wall elements.
The activities that are associated with conventional abutment construction can be eliminated by using prefabricated abutment and/or wall elements. Typically, these onsite actions are starting from forms installation and reinforcing steel placement until the concrete curing all are occurring in a consecutive routine. Also, in case these prefabricated elements are under or adjacent to an existing bridge, they may be built in stages using conventional construction methods where no traffic will have been disrupted.
11


Figure 2.6. Installation of a precast abutment element Adapted from Guardian bridge rapid construction inc., 2014.
2.4.5 Other elements.
There are some other elements could be used to be consistent with the use of PBES such as deck closure joints, precast approach slabs, and overlays. The overlays improve the durability and rideability of the prefabricated element. However, this operation needs to be done onsite in an accelerated method to decrease the mobility impact, what can be done by using Fast Track Contracting including doing the job in nighttime by using Innovative materials such as fast-set materials.
2.5 PBES Systems
Precast elements can be used to build a bridge in different systems: an entire superstructure system, an entire superstructure and substructure system, or a total bridge system. Choosing the appropriate prefabricated system is determined by some factors
12


such that traffic operations flow normally after finishing the installation. Federal Highway Administration stated in its ABC manual that according to the mechanism in which the prefabricated elements are installed, their systems often require innovations in planning, engineering design, high-performance materials, and Structural Placement Methods.
2.5.1 Superstructure systems.
These systems consist of both deck elements and beam elements combined in a modular method such that traffic breakdown occurs only as a result of the members being positioned. In this system, the members can be rolled, launched, slid, lifted, or otherwise transported to the site, on top of existing or new substructures that have been prepared in a style that does not affect the mobility.
Figure 2.7. Transferring the prefabricated superstructure of the 4500 South bridge in Salt Lake City, UT, which is a full-width Beam Span with deck superstructure system to the site using a self-propelled modular transporter. Adapted from Utah Department of
Transportation UDOT, 2015.
13


2.5.2 Superstructure/Substructure systems.
In additional to the elements of the superstructure system, these systems include either bridge columns/piers or abutments which all are integrated together in a smart construction fashion. Similar to the previous system, the members of superstructure/ substructure systems also can be rolled, launched, slid, lifted, or otherwise transported to the site, on top of part of existing or new substructures that have been prepared in a style that does not affect the mobility.
2.5.3 Total bridge system.
Total bridge system combines all prefabricated elements of both superstructure and substructure including the abutments and the piers, where the substructure elements are integrated with the superstructure elements that have been constructed outside of the bridge site and rolled, launched, slid, lifted, or transported on top of that prefabricated substructure. All that progress needs to be done by innovational design and high-performance materials.
Figure 2.8. Edison Bridge in Fort Myers, Florida, which has been built by using total bridge system. Adapted from panoramio.com, by Jmlrusb, 2010.
14


An example of ABC project is CDOT's State Highway 86 Bridge over Mitchell Gulch between Castle Rock and Franktown in Douglas County southeast of Denver, Colorado. The bridge was built in 2002 to replace the existing two-span timber bridge which was constructed in 1953; it was deteriorated and required replacement. The Average Daily Traffic for that bridge was 12000 vpd. The new bridge is 40-ft-long and 43-ft-wide single-span prestressed concrete slab bridge constructed by Lawrence Construction Company, Littleton in only 38 hours. On Friday evening at 7 pm, the traffic diverted to a detour and the existing timber bridge was destroyed followed by installation the abutment units on top steel H-piles early Saturday morning. The bridge was reopened to traffic at 5 pm on Sunday. The bridge was closed for 46 hours, but only 38 hours of actual construction work was needed. If the conventional construction method had been used to construct the bridge, it would take two to three months to open the bridge to traffic.
Figure 2.9. Early Saturday morning, installation abutment unit and wingwalls of 86 Bridge over Mitchell Gulch project Adapted from PBES Cost Study: Accelerated Bridge Construction Success Stories, 2006, p. 5. by Federal Highway Administration.
15


Figure 2.10. Saturday afternoon, installation the beams of 86 Bridge over Mitchell Gulch project Adapted from PBES Cost Study: Accelerated Bridge Construction Success.
2.6 Current standard bridge girder sections that are used by CDOT and other
states
2.6.1 Background.
Federal Highway Administration stated in its annual report "deficient bridges by highway system" that Colorado has 521 of 8624 bridges are structurally deficient and about 9.5% of that 8,624 bridges are considered functionally obsolete. Therefore, the need for standard bridge plans has become an urgent need to reduce the cost of rebuild this enormous numbers of expensive structures. Standard plans are wholly designed including all the details; they only need plan sheet assembly to create an accomplished design package. All the details of the standard bridge are completely designed including
16


every single piece collected in one bridge plan. However, other input, that relevant to each bridge scheduled to be established, are needed to complete its plan set.
2.6.2 Current standard bridge girder sections that are used by CDOT.
The Colorado DOT currently has detailed plans utilized in the design and construction of its projects called M-Standard Plans (Colorado Miscellaneous Standard Plans). The standard includes plans for culverts, bridge worksheets for several bridge components, and design aids in the CDOT Bridge Design Manual. CDOT has used these tools quite successfully, but they have not been completely developed, and they are outdated compare with design code changes and practice (McMullen and Li, 2015). The worksheets contain precast Bulb-Tee and box girders in deferent sizes. In 1980s, CDOT attempted to improve its standards by developing standard plans for precast double-tee superstructures. McMullen said, these bridges were only suitable for lightly trafficked roads without heavy truck traffic or de-icing use and were used mostly by counties (2015, p.3).
2.6.3 Bridge standard usage by other states.
Recently, most of the states have developed new shapes for precast bridge girders to replace the AASHTO girders, which have been in use for many years, in pursuit of finding the most efficiency shape. As a result of that, a wide variation of girder shapes is being used by various states, where each state has developed its own designs. Most of that developments and changes have focused on "I" girder and box girder shapes and mainly in providing longer span. However, a concrete slab, whether the prefabricated or the cast in place, is still required to be placed on top of those girders. This type of constructions needs temporary or permanent formwork, which is not incompatible with
17


ABC. McMullen emphasized that few states have complete sets of bridge standard plans, that fully designed and detailed and ready for construction with design, layout, or modification (2015, p.5). Texas state is one of these few states which has a complete standard for precast prestressed concrete I-girder bridges with a broad range of lengths. The lone star state has a standard for decked box sections too, which can be assembled into bridge plan sets. However, that standard plan is for spans shorter than 110 feet and it requires the bridge layout, foundation plan, and framing plan to be completed by a designer (McMullen and Li, 2015). In general, the most used sections in bridges construction are I beam section and box beam section additional to Bulb-tee beam section, which has wider flange than I beam. This section has become more popular nowadays.
Figure 2.12. 1-25 box girder overpass reconstruction in Denver downtown. Adapted from Modjeski and Masters, 2016.
Figure 2.11. I girder Rothwood road bridge in Spring Houston, TX. Adapted from Houston chronicle newspaper, July 2014.
18


2.6.4 Disadvantages of current used sections.
The biggest disadvantage this thesis focuses on is the construction system for all girder types that have been discussed in the last section, where all these types need a cast in place deck slab to be placed on top of the beams with all associated minor details.
From the point of time consideration, this system requires a long time to get the job done comparing with the perceptions of ABC. Using this system leads to prolonging onsite construction time period and therefore the traffic flow and the transportation network will be influenced by that. Having work zone for another day means putting all worker, drivers, passengers, and pedestrians at risk for additional time. On top of that, the construction itself is accompanied by many issues. For instance, the main issue of box decks construction is that they are difficult to cast on the site because of the difficulty of reaching the bottom surface of the slab, which makes the frameworks more challenging and time-consuming. One of other disadvantages of using these girders is that in most cases predicted girder camber does not match the actual girder camber which makes deck construction more complicated. One other example of popular sections is the side-by-side box beam bridge system which has been used widely since the 1950s representing the preferred precast prestressed bridge system. This section is favored because of its low depth, unneeded slab formwork on site, and relative high torsional capacity. However, in the recent years, problems started to appear with using this type of section; most remarkably problem is developing longitudinal deck cracks between the box girders which produce seeps of water and deicing chemicals through these cracks.
According to a survey has been conducted by New York state department of transportation, which involved 187 bridges built between the years 1985 and 1990 in the
19


state of New York, 101 bridges of the 187 bridges inspected have developed longitudinal cracks along the joints between their side-by-side box girders. The survey showed that six of fourteen bridges that built in 1990, the same year the survey established, have developed the same type of cracks after few months of their construction (Grace and Bebawy, 2015).
Figure 2.13. Cracks have developed along the joints in side-by-side box girder bridge. Adapted from Grace and Bebawy, 2015.
Figure 2.14. Icicles have seeped from decks surface through the joints between box girders. Adapted from Grace and Bebawy, 2015.
2.7 Proposed Section
To work around disadvantages of current sections, a proposed section will be considered in this paper. The Suggested beam is a precast prestressed decked bulb tee beam, which does not need to a separate deck on top of it. Instead, the flanges of the bulb tee girders are connected longitudinally to procedure a smooth slab for riding. Decked
20


bulb tee girders can be a promising system for ABC if the matters regarding the longitudinal connection along the girders are fully inspected and resolved.
More than a few DOTs have designed implemented bulb T-beams in their design guidelines with some differences in geometry and assembly methods. For instance, Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) puts bulb tee beam bridges in three categories according to construction system. First class is Bulb tee beams with concrete deck; second class is decked bulb tee beams without concrete deck; and third class is post-tensioned bulb tee beams with a concrete deck and post-tensioning strands (Grace and Bebawy, 2015). Similarly, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) offers both sections: bulb tee beams with deck and decked bulb tee beams without decks
(WSDOT 2008).
For the considered model in this thesis, WF53DG decked BT section with top flange of 78 inches wide has been used to assemble the modeled bridge. This section is one of WSDOT sections, where it has been used in completed project in Washington state.
Figure 2.15. Chehalis River Bridge 1 over the Chehalis River near Pe Ell, Washington. It is a 140-foot-long and 20-foot-wide precast prestressed deck-bulb-tee girder bridge. Adapted from McGee Engineering, Inc.,2014.
21


2.7.1 Joints.
2.7.1.1 Longitudinal joints.
In conventional construction, decked bulb tee girders are connected longitudinally by using a system of welded plates and grouted longitudinal keyways. Mechanical connectors are embedded in the flanges and spaced four to eight feet apart along the entire length of the beams. The plates are welded in the site to make the connections before grouting the longitudinal joints. Transverse tensile capacity is provided by those mechanical connections to guarantee that the joint stays together, on the other hand, the grouted shear keys provide the primary vertical load-carrying capacity for the joint. Structurally, this joint longitudinal system is designed as a hinge. Thus, it transfers shear between units, but not a moment.
For the system that this paper considered, a rigid longitudinal connection has been assumed along the BT girders. This type of connection can be produced by using transverse post tension tendons or other techniques to make joints able to transfer both shear and moment.
2.7.1.2 Transverse joints.
Transverse joints are the links at the end of the girders. In decked bulb tee beams, they are similar to transverse joints that used in conventional I-girder bridges. R. G. Oesterle, from Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc. in Chicago, said that A variety of conventional expansion joints have been used successfully, such as strip seals and compression seals. Alternatively, a transverse joint can be sealed with grout or by using a closure pour (2009, p. 16).
22


CHAPTER III
DESIGNED MODELS
3.1 Design Criteria
In this paper, two models will be designed to carry the same loads. One bridge is a conventional I-girder beam bridge and the other is a decked bulb tee beam bridge.
3.1.1 Design specifications.
Most DOTs in the U.S. have approved the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, including all corrections and revisions. The models in this thesis are designed based on the LRFD Specifications.
3.1.2 Loads.
Two main loads have been considered to design the two models of this thesis.
3.1.2.1 Dead load.
Dead loads include member weight, any accessories attached to the bridge, and loads expected to be placed in the future, such as a wearing surface, all have been considered.
3.1.2.2 Live load.
Design live load ought to be recognized for the task as well as identifying any vehicles for which the bridge must be load rated. It is becoming more common to require that a bridge is rated at the time of design (Oesterle, 2009). In the design of this thesiss models, the two bridges have been designed for design lane load of 0.64 kip/ft, design tandem load of two 25 kips concentrated forces 4 feet apart, and HL-93 design truckload. The transverse spacing of wheels has been taken as 6.0 ft. Also, the dynamic load allowance was considered according to LRFD Specifications.
23


3.1.3 Roadway geometry.
Colorado Department of Transportation has provided this work with a plan set for a bridge that the department has developed to replace an existing bridge over Dolores River in Colorado. The plan set was used to design two models of the same bridge; one model is a conventional BT girder bridge and the second one is a decked BT girder bridge.
3.1.3.1 Design and analysis parameters.
The design and analysis of both models were established according to the current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.
Specific parameters included:
One span bridge of 131 feet long.
Span length is to centerlines of girder bearings which is 129.5 feet.
Precast girder weights per span limited to 238 kips.
The overall bridge width is 39 feet.
Curb-to-curb width is 36 feet.
Prestressed concrete strength for girders at release (/c'£) of 7,500 psi has been used.
Final prestressed concrete strength (/c') of 10,000 psi has been used.
Horizontal and vertical shear stress limited to 1,350 psi.
Final class D concrete strength for cast-in-place deck of 4,500 psi has been used.
Live-load deflection limited to Span/800 (L/800).
24


3.2 Program used for Design
To reflect the behavior of the bridges as truthfully as possible and to make an accurate comparison, a 3D model was established for each bridge by using computer modeling program LEAP Bridge CONSPAN from Bentley. Powerful, efficient, and accurate modeling and analysis software for concrete bridges, LEAP CONSPAN is a confirmed design, analysis, and load rating application. The program was selected because of not only that but also because it supports the ABC ideology by using what called Integrated BrIM Solution Accelerates Concrete Bridge Design. On top of that, this software gifts analysis results in different easy-to-understand formats including one-page summary and detailed inclusive reports. One other advantage of this software is that it was already updated to AASHTO LFRD 7th edition.
3.3 Designed Models
3.3.1 8-inch deck bridge.
This bridge is a four concrete girder bridge and has been designed to be built in conventional bridge construction method. This model was designed entirely including the abutments and the H-pile foundations. However, only the superstructure design will be considered to compare the two models. For more comprehensive details, see the CDOT bridge set plan in Appendix A.
The girder that was used for this model is an I-girder BT72 girder, which is a very typical section and has been used for many bridges in the United States including Colorado state. Figure 3.3 shows the detailed dimension of the girder and Table 3.1 listed the information of each beam the model consists of.
25


A slab of 8 inches thickness has been designed to be cast in sit on top of the four BT72 girders. Epoxy coated grade 60 reinforcement steel is assigned to the deck reinforcement design. The details of the cross section of the bridge are displayed in below figure 3.2.
Figure 3.1. LEAP Conspan general model of the 8-inch deck bridge.
, lu.i/ ii i iu.li ii ... iv. i / ii it _i
T T -------T T rl

Figure 3.2. First model cross section.
26


3'-7"
Figure 3.3. BT72 girder cross section.
Table 3.1: Beams data of 8-inch deck bridge model.
Beam # ID Loc-prev Area MI(Ixx) Height Yb B-topg B-Trib
ft in2 in4 in in in ft
1 BT-72 4.250 892.0 620573.0 72.00 36.73 43.00 9.333
2 BT-72 10.167 892.0 620573.0 72.00 36.73 43.00 10.167
3 BT-72 10.167 892.0 620573.0 72.00 36.73 43.00 10.167
4 BT-72 10.167 892.0 620573.0 72.00 36.73 43.00 9.333
27


ty Project / Geometiy / Bridge Layout Overal Width Skew Angle
Start
Lane Data Number
Width
Topping Data Deck Thick (effective) Deck Thick (sacrificial)
d Auto Set Haunch width
Materials / Loads / Span Data
f1? Im5 I*
Length '--------1
sST* 1305 lft
Bearing to rj^ U
Bearing 1--------1
Beam Type / Location
L j
] View Options... | ri ] r
Span: Beam Type: | i-Gjrder
Beam No Beam ID Dist. From Last Beam, ft
1 B T-72 CD 0T Project 4.2500
2 BT-72 CDOT Project 10.1687
3 BT-72CD0T Project ^ 10.1667
4 BT-72 CDOT Project , 10.1667


] Post-Tensioned Total: 34.7501
c Add Row Delete Row Copy Row Copy To Al Generate...
Figure 3.4. Input data of the model in LEAP Conspan.
Low relaxation strands of 0.6 inches diameter, which are meeting the requirements of ASTM A-416, has been assigned to use for all girders. The minimum clear distance between groups or individual strands shall be 2.3ds but not less than 1.25" and The minimum cover for prestressing steel is 1.5". Two harping points has been used in the design per girder at 0.4L from each ends.
The total of 42 strands that have been required for each girder is 9.114 square inches draped at 0.40L (52.20 ft from member end). The strand end pattern is 12.48 inches and the midspan pattern is 4.76 inches. The required jacking force for each girder has been specified to be 1,846 kips which is 75% of the tensile strength of the tendons
(270 ksi).
This model consists of three main materials: concrete, steel rebar, and prestressing tendons. The properties of each material have been inputted manually to the program as figure 3.5 below shows.
28


{Â¥ Project Geometry >/ Materials Concrete
Unit weight
Strength
K1
Elasticity
Poisson's Ratio
Thermal coeff. Tension Rebar
Elasticity
Girder Girder Deck
Release Final
150. v 150. v 150. v

7.5 v 10.0 v 4.5 v

1. 1. 1.

5249.69 5772.5 4435.31
pcf
ksi
ksi
0.2
0.000006
1/F
29000. ksi fy 60
ksi
Transformation of Steel
I I Transform All Prestressing Tendons l~l Transform Rebars
Rebar Area foT in2 Ycg 0.
Prestressing Tendon Tendon ID
1/2-270K-1
1/2-270K-LL
1/2-270K-LL-1
1/2-270K-LL-M
1/2-270K-SP
1/2-270K-SP-1
3/8-250K-1
3/8-270K
3/8-270K-LL
6/10-270K
6/10-270K-LL
7/16-270K
7/16-270K-LL
9/16-270K
9/16-270K-LL
Pattern
O Straight
() Draped/Straight
Depress Pt Fraction
Midspan
Increment
0.4
Debonding Length Increment, in 36
Maximum Auto-Debonding Percentage
75.
Per Row, X Total. X 50
Figure 3.5. Material properties input window of LEAP CONSPAN of the first model.
29


3.3.1.1 Model analysis.
The load combinations for this model design were based on AASHTO LFRD Bridge Design Specifications 7th edition, where ultimate loading capacity was based on Service I, Service III, Strength I, and Fatigue I limit states.
According to tables 3.4.1-1 and 3.4.1-2 in AASHTO LFRD, the load combinations and load factors were defined for each limit state as following:
Service I: U = 1.00 DC + 1.00 DW + 1.00 LL
Service III: U = 1.00 DC + 1.00 DW + 0.80 LL
Strength I: U = 1.25/0.90 DC + 1.50/0.65 DW + 1.75 LL 1
Fatigue I: U=1.50LL
Figure 3.6 next page shows how all these parameters inputted into the LEAP CONSPAN program.
1For strength I limit state two load combinations have been used. According to AASHTO LFRD Bridge Design Specifications 7th edition, one maximum combination with 1.25 DC & 1.50 DW and one minimum combination with 0.90 DC & 0.65 DW
30


Figure 3.6. Load factors for load combinations that were inputted into LEAP CONSPAN of the first model.
Other parameters have been considered to establish completed design. Some of these parameters are showed in figure 3.7, where the unlimited concrete strain was assumed to be 0.003 in/in and the horizontal shear in beams and slab were included in the design.
31


S3
Limiting Stress Resistance Factor/Losses Moment Method O AASHTO equations () Strain Compatibility
Ultimate Concrete Strain:
Multipliers
Moment and Shear Provisions
0.003
I I Consider Bottom Tension Steel Contribution
Horizontal Shear Method () Include Beam and Slab Contribution in Vu
0 Exclude Beam and Slab Contribution from Vu
1 I User Input Interface Width, bvi
I I Horizontal Shear Autodesign for Intentionally Roughened Vertical Shear Method
O General (LRFD 5.8.3 4.2) Beta Theta Tables General (LRFD 5.8.3.4.2) Beta Theta Equations O Simplified (LRFD 5.8.3 4.3)
Modulus of Rupture AASHTO equation
O User Defined 0.24 xsqrt (F'c)
OK
Cancel
Figure 3.7. Moment and shear parameters that were specified in LEAP CONSPAN of the first model.
The following four tables were borrowed from LEAP CONCPAN to show the envelopes of the four limit states at all different load components. One of the interior beams has been elected to show an example of analysis data.
32


Table 3.2: Shear and moment envelope of an interior beam for service I limit state.
shears: kips, moments: kft
Bearing T tans. H/2 0.10L 0.20L 0.30L 0.40L MidSpan 0.60L 0.70L 0.80L 0.90L H/2 T tans. Bearing
Location (ft) 0.00 2.50 3.33 12.55 25.60 38.65 51.70 64.75 77.80 90.85 103.90 116.95 126.17 127.00 129.50
Self wt. :M 0.0 147.5 195.4 G81.9 1235.7 1631.3 1868.7 1947.8 1868.7 1631.3 1235.7 681.9 195.4 147.5 0.0
Self wt. :V GO. 2 57.8 57.1 48.5 36.4 24.3 12.1 0.0 12.1 24.3 36.4 48.5 57.1 57.8 60.2
DL-Prec. :M 0.0 28. G 37.8 132.1 239.4 316.0 362.0 377.3 362.0 316.0 239.4 132.1 37.8 28.6 0.0
(DC) :V 11.7 11.2 11.1 9.4 7.0 4.7 2.3 0.0 2.3 4.7 7.0 9.4 11.1 11.2 11.7
DL-Prec. :M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
(DW) :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Deck :M 0.0 161.4 213.8 746.1 1352.1 1784.9 2044.6 2131.2 2044.6 1784.9 1352.1 746.1 213.8 161.4 0.0
Haunch: V G5.8 G3.3 G2.4 53.1 39.8 26.5 13.3 0.0 13.3 26.5 39.8 53.1 62.4 63.3 65.8
Diaphragm: M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Diaphragm: V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
DL-Comp :M 0.0 55.7 73.8 257. G 466.8 616.2 705.9 735.8 705.9 616.2 466.8 257.6 73.8 55.7 0.0
(DC) :V 22.7 21.8 21.G 18.3 13.7 9.2 4.6 0.0 4.6 9.2 13.7 18.3 21.6 21.8 22.7
DL-Comp :M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
(DW) :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LL + I :M+ 0.0 297.5 394.0 13G9.4 2464.2 3223.4 3675.6 3804.7 3675.6 3223.4 2464.2 1369.4 394.0 297.5 0.0
LL + I:V 152.7 148.6 147.3 132.1 111.1 90.1 60.6 39.6 60.6 90.1 111.1 132.1 147.3 148.6 152.7
LL +1 :M- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LL +1 :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LL +1 :Vmax 152.7 148.7 147.3 132.3 112.8 94.3 76.8 60.2 76.8 94.3 112.8 132.3 147.3 148.7 152.7
LL +1 :M 0.0 293.7 388.3 1324.1 2303.2 2906.6 3164.8 3107.9 3164.8 2906.6 2303.2 1324.1 388.3 293.7 0.0
Pedestrian :M+ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :M- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :Vmax 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Table 3.3: Shear and moment envelope of an interior beam for service IHlimit state.
shears: kips, moments: kft
Bearing T tans. H/2 0.10L 0.20L 0.30L 0.40L MidSpan 0.60L 0.70L 0.80L 0.90L H/2 T tans. Bearing
Location (ft) 0.00 2.50 3.33 12.55 25.60 38.65 51.70 64.75 77.80 90.85 103.90 116.95 126.17 127.00 129.50
Self wt. :M 0.0 147.5 195.4 681.9 1235.7 1631.3 1868.7 1947.8 1868.7 1631.3 1235.7 681.9 195.4 147.5 0.0
Self wt. :V 60.2 57.8 57.1 48.5 36.4 24.3 12.1 0.0 12.1 24.3 36.4 48.5 57.1 57.8 60.2
DL-Prec. :M 0.0 28.6 37.8 132.1 239.4 316.0 362.0 377.3 362.0 316.0 239.4 132.1 37.8 28.6 0.0
(DC) :V 11.7 11.2 11.1 9.4 7.0 4.7 2.3 0.0 2.3 4.7 7.0 9.4 11.1 11.2 11.7
DL-Prec. :M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
(DW) :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Deck :M 0.0 161.4 213.8 746.1 1352.1 1784.9 2044.6 2131.2 2044.6 1784.9 1352.1 746.1 213.8 161.4 0.0
Haunch: V 65.8 63.3 62.4 53.1 39.8 26.5 13.3 0.0 13.3 26.5 39.8 53.1 62.4 63.3 65.8
Diaphragm: M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Diaphragm: V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
DL-Comp :M 0.0 55.7 73.8 257.6 466.8 616.2 705.9 735.8 705.9 616.2 466.8 257.6 73.8 55.7 0.0
(DC) :V 22.7 21.8 21.6 18.3 13.7 9.2 4.6 0.0 4.6 9.2 13.7 18.3 21.6 21.8 22.7
DL-Comp :M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
(DW) :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LL + I :M+ 0.0 238.0 315.2 1095.5 1971.4 2578.7 2940.5 3043.8 2940.5 2578.7 1971.3 1095.5 315.2 238.0 0.0
LL +1 :V 122.2 118.9 117.8 105.7 88.9 72.1 48.5 31.7 48.5 72.1 88.9 105.7 117.8 118.9 122.2
LL +1 :M- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LL +1 :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LL +1 :Vmax 122.2 118.9 117.9 105.8 90.2 75.4 61.4 48.1 61.4 75.4 90.2 105.8 117.9 118.9 122.2
LL +1 :M 0.0 235.0 310.6 1059.3 1842.6 2325.3 2531.8 2486.3 2531.8 2325.3 1842.6 1059.3 310.6 235.0 0.0
Pedestrian :M+ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :M- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :Vmax 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
33


Table 3.4: Shear and moment envelope of an interior beam for strength I limit state.
shears: kips, moments: kft
Bearing T tans. H/2 0.10L 0.20L 0.30L 0.40L MidSpan 0.60L 0.70L 0.80L 0.90L H/2 T tans. Bearing
Location (ft) 0.00 2.50 3.33 12.55 25. GO 38. G5 51.70 64.75 77.80 90.85 103.90 116.95 126.17 127.00 129.50
Self wt. :M 0.0 184.4 244.2 852.3 1544.G 2039.1 2335.8 2434.7 2335.8 2039.1 1544.6 852.3 244.2 184.4 0.0
Self wt. :V 75.2 72.3 71.3 GOG 45.5 30.3 15.2 0.0 15.2 30.3 45.5 60.6 71.3 72.3 75.2
DL-Prec. :M 0.0 35.7 47.3 1G5.1 299.2 395.0 452.5 471.7 452.5 395.0 299.2 165.1 47.3 35.7 0.0
(DC) :V 14.G 14.0 13.8 11.7 8.8 5.9 2.9 0.0 2.9 5.9 8.8 11.7 13.8 14.0 14.6
DL-Prec. :M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
(DW) :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Deck :M 0.0 201.7 2G7.2 932. G 1690.1 2231.2 2555.8 2664.0 2555.8 2231.2 1690.1 932.6 267.2 201.7 0.0
Haunch: V 82.3 79.1 78.1 GG.3 49.8 33.2 1G.G 0.0 16.6 33.2 49.8 66.3 78.1 79.1 82.3
Diaphragm: M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Diaphragm: V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
DL-Comp :M 0.0 G9.7 92.3 322.0 583.5 770.3 882.4 919.7 882.4 770.3 583.5 322.0 92.3 69.7 0.0
(DC) :V 28.4 27.3 26.9 22.9 17.2 11.5 5.7 0.0 5.7 11.5 17.2 22.9 26.9 27.3 28.4
DL-Comp :M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
(DW) :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LL + I :M+ 0.0 520.7 G89.5 239G.4 4312.3 5G41.0 6432.2 6658.3 6432.2 5641.0 4312.3 2396.4 689.5 520.7 0.0
LL +1 :V 2G7.3 2G0.1 257.7 231.2 194.4 157.G 10G.1 69.3 106.1 157.6 194.4 231.2 257.7 260.1 267.3
LL + I :M- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LL +1 :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LL +1 :Vmax 2G7.3 2G0.2 257.8 231.5 197.4 1G5.0 134.3 105.3 134.3 165.0 197.4 231.5 257.8 260.2 267.3
LL + I :M 0.0 514,0 G79.5 2317.2 4030.6 5086.6 5538.3 5438.9 5538.3 5086.6 4030.6 2317.2 679.5 514.0 0.0
Pedestrian :M+ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :M- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :Vmax 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Table 3.5: Shear and moment envelope of an interior beam for fatigue I limit state.
shears: kips, moments: kft
Bearing T tans. H/2 0.10L 0.20L 0.30L 0.40L MidSpan 0.60L 0.70L 0.80L 0.90L H/2 T tans. Bearing
Location (ft) 0.00 2.50 3.33 12.55 25.60 38.65 51.70 64.75 77.80 90.85 103.90 116.95 126.17 127.00 129.50
Self wt. :M 0.0 147.5 195.4 681.9 1235.7 1631.3 1868.7 1947.8 1868.7 1631.3 1235.7 681.9 195.4 147.5 0.0
Self wt. :V 60.2 57.8 57.1 48.5 36.4 24.3 12.1 0.0 12.1 24.3 36.4 48.5 57.1 57.8 60.2
DL-Prec. :M 0.0 28.6 37.8 132.1 239.4 316.0 362.0 377.3 362.0 316.0 239.4 132.1 37.8 28.6 0.0
(DC) :V 11.7 11.2 11.1 9.4 7.0 4.7 2.3 0.0 2.3 4.7 7.0 9.4 11.1 11.2 11.7
DL-Prec. :M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
(DW) :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Deck :M 0.0 161.4 213.8 746.1 1352.1 1784.9 2044.6 2131.2 2044.6 1784.9 1352.1 746.1 213.8 161.4 0.0
Haunch: V 65.8 63.3 62.4 53.1 39.8 26.5 13.3 0.0 13.3 26.5 39.8 53.1 62.4 63.3 65.8
Diaphragm: M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Diaphragm: V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
DL-Comp :M 0.0 55.7 73.8 257.6 466.8 616.2 705.9 735.8 705.9 616.2 466.8 257.6 73.8 55.7 0.0
(DC) :V 22.7 21.8 21.6 18.3 13.7 9.2 4.6 0.0 4.6 9.2 13.7 18.3 21.6 21.8 22.7
DL-Comp :M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
(DW) :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LL I :M+ 0.0 112.6 148.9 513.1 908.7 1184.9 1333.8 1342.3 1333.8 1184.9 908.7 513.1 148.9 112.6 0.0
LL +1 :V 68.3 66.7 66.2 60.3 52.4 39.6 31.6 23.7 31.6 39.6 52.4 60.3 66.2 66.7 68.3
LL +1 :M- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LL +1 :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LL +1 :Vmax 68.3 66.7 66.2 60.3 52.4 44.4 36.5 28.5 36.5 44.4 52.4 60.3 66.2 66.7 68.3
LL +1 :M 0.0 112.6 148.9 513.1 908.7 1163.9 1278.5 1252.6 1278.5 1163.9 908.7 513.1 148.9 112.6 0.0
Pedestrian :M+ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :M- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :Vmax 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
The flowing graphs have selected to exhibit part of the analysis result. Detailed information will clarify the data under each figure.
34


BR01 Composite Moment (SERVICE I)
Legend:
Composite DC (M) Composite DW (M)
0.00 12.95 25.90 38.85 51.80 64.75 77.70 90.65 103.60 116.55 129.50
Location (ft)
Figure 3.8. Moment of an exterior beam as a composite section due to the dead load of
service I limit state.
BR01 Composite Moment (SERVICE III)
Legend:
Composite DC (M) Composite DW (M)
0.00 12.95 25.90 38.85 51.80 64.75 77.70 90.65 103.60 116.55 129.50
Location (ft)
Figure 3.9. Moment of an exterior beam as a composite section due to the dead load of
service IHlimit state.
35


BR01 Composite Moment (STRENGTH I)
Legend:
Composite DC (M)
Composite DW (M)
0.00 12.95 25.90 98.85 51.80 64.75 77.70 90.65 103.60 116.55 129.50
Location (ft)
Figure 3.10. Moment of an exterior beam as a composite section due to the dead load of
strength I limit state.
BR01 Composite Moment (FATIGUE I)
Moment (Kip-ft) Span: 1, Beam: 1: Total length = 129.50 ft (Max: 735.8 Kip-ft, Min: 0.0 Kip-ft) Legend:
----Composite
----Composite
DC{M)
DW{M)
Location (ft)
Figure 3.11. Moment of an exterior beam as a composite section due to the dead load of
fatigue I limit state.
36


BR01 Live Moment (SERVICE I)
Legend:
LL + I 0.00 12.95 25.90 38.85 51.80 64.75 77.70 90.65 103.60 116.55 129.50
Location (ft)
Figure 3.12. Moment of an exterior beam as a composite section due to the live load of
service I limit state.
Moment (Kip-ft)
BR01 Live Moment (SERVICE III)
Span: 1, Beam: 1: Total length = 129.50 ft (Max: 3,650.5 Kip-ft, Min: 0.0 Kip-ft)
Legend:
LL + I (M+) LL + I (M-)
Location (ft)
Figure 3.13. Moment of an exterior beam as a composite section due to the dead live of
service IHlimit state.
37


BR01 Live Moment (STRENGTH I)
Legend:
LL + I (M+) LL +1 (M-)
0 00 12.95 25.90
38.85 51.80 64.75 77.70 90.65 103.60 116.55 129.50
Location (ft)
Figure 3.14. Moment of an exterior beam as a composite section due to the live load of
strength I limit state.
BR01 Live Moment (FATIGUE I)
Legend:
LL + I (M+) LL + I (M-)
0.00 12.95 25.90 38.85 51.80 64.75 77.70 90.65 103.60 116.55 129.50
Location (ft)
Figure 3.15. Moment of an exterior beam as a composite section due to the live load of
fatigue I limit state.
38


BR01 Precast Moment (SERVICE I)
Moment (Kip-ft)
Span: 1, Beam: 1: Total length = 129.50 ft (Max: 1,956.5 Kip-ft, Min: 0.0 Kip-ft) Legend:
----Self Beam (M+)
----Self Deck (M+)
----Precast DC (M+)
----Precast DW (M+)
----Diaphragm (M+)
Location (ft)
Figure 3.16. Moment of an exterior beam on the precast section before the deck has hardened due to all loads of service I limit state.
BR01 Precast Moment (SERVICE III)
Moment (Kip-ft)
Span: 1, Beam: 1: Total length = 129.50 ft (Max: 1,956.5 Kip-ft, Min: 0.0 Kip-ft) Legend:
Self Beam (M+) Self Dec* (M+) Precast DC (M+) Precast DW (M+) Diaphragm (M+)
Location (ft)
Figure 3.17. Moment of an exterior beam on the precast section before the deck has
hardened due to all loads of service IHlimit state.
39


BR01 Precast Moment (STRENGTH I)
Moment (Kip-ft)
Span: 1, Beam: 1: Total length = 129.50 ft (Max: 2,445.7 Kip-ft, Min: 0.0 Kip-ft) Legend:
3,000.00
2.700.00
Self Beam (M+) Self Dec* (M+) Precast DC (M+) Precast DW (M+) Diaphragm (M+)
Location (ft)
Figure 3.18. Moment of an exterior beam on the precast section before the deck has hardened due to all loads of strength I limit state.
BR01 Precast Moment (FATIGUE I)
Moment (Kip-ft) Span: 1, Beam: 1: Total length = 129.50 ft (Max: 1,956.5 Kip-ft, Min: 0.0 Kip-ft) Legend.
Self Beam (M+) Self Dec* (M+) Precast DC (M+) Precast DW (M+) Diaphragm (M+)
Location (ft)
Figure 3.19. Moment of an exterior beam on the precast section before the deck has
hardened due to all loads of fatigue I limit state.
40


3.3.1.2 Design results.
The stresses at ten points along the girder have been checked with the stress limitations at release and final stresses as well. The following figure shows the stresses for one beam as an example of stress checking.
Release Stress, computed vs. iming OK Final Stress, computed vs. Smiling OK Uimate Moment required vs. provided OK |
RELEASE STRESSES (ksi)
Limiting Stresses
Compression Tens with Reinf Tens without Reinf
4 500__________-0657____________-0.200
Computed Stresses
Trans 0.10L/0.90L 0.20L0.80L 0.30L0.70L 0.40L0.60L Midspan
Locafcon, t 3.000 13.050 26.100 39.150 52.200 65.250
Precast-top -0.352 -0.129 0065 0.151 0.129 0.183
Bolom 4202 3.970 3.768 3.679 3.702 3.646
As top, in2 1.363 0000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Ast_prvd, m2 1.680 1.680 1.680 1.680 1.680 1.680
FINAL STRESSES (ksi)
Limiting Stresses
Precast
Final (P/S-DL+LL) Compression 6000
Final 1 Tension -0.600
Final 2 (P/S+DL) Compression 4.500
Fnal 3 (0.5(P/S+DL)+F_LL) Compression 4 000
Computed Stresses
POSITIVE MOMENT ENVELOPE : SERVICE I (Final 1)
Bearing Trans H/2 0.10L/0.90L 0.20L0.80L 0.30L/0.70L 0.40L0.60L Midspan
Location, t 0.000 2.500 3.333 12.550 25.600 38.650 51.700 64.750
Precast-top -0.071 -0.169 -0.087 0.739 1 642 2 233 2.515 2.665
Bolom 0.692 3.762 3 636 2.370 0.972 0.039 -0.446 -0.657
POSITIVE MOMENT ENVELOPE : SERVICE III (Final 1)
Bearing Trans H/2 0.10L/0.90L 0.20L/0.80L 0.30L/0.70L 0.40L/0.60L Midspan
Precast-top -0.071 -0.179 -0.100 0.694 1.560 2.126 2.393 2.539
Bolom 0.692 3.793 3.678 2.513 1.230 0.376 -0.061 -0.259
POSITIVE MOMENT ENVELOPE : SERVICE I (Final 2)
Bearing Trans H/2 0.10L/0.90L 0.20L0.80L 0.30L0.70L 0.40L0.60L Midspan
Precast-top -0.071 -0.218 -0.152 0.512 1.233 1.697 1.905 2.033
Bottom 0.692 3.918 3.843 3.087 2.262 1.726 1.479 1.335
POSITIVE MOMENT ENVELOPE : FATIGUE I (Final 3)
Bearing Trans H/2 0.10L/0.90L 0.20L0.80L 0.30L0.70L 0.40L0.60L Midspan
Precast-top -0.035 -0.090 -0.051 0.341 0.767 1.045 1.174 1.239
Bottom 0.346 1.900 1.843 1.275 0.655 0.243 0.041 -0.035
Figure 3.20. Stress limits and computed stresses for beam number 2 of LEAP CONSPAN first model.
41


The model has been checked for the ultimate strength according to LRFD specifications. Figure 3.21 shows the provided ultimate moment capacity versus the required for left external girder.
Ultimate Moment (STRENGTH I)
Moment (Kip-ft) Span: 1, Beam: 1: Total length = 129.50 ft (Max: 14,772.3 Kip-ft, Min: 0.0 Kip-ft) Legend:
20,000.00
18,000.00
16,000.00
14.000. 00
12.000. 00
10,000.00
8.000.00
6,000.00
4.000. 00
2.000. 00 0.00
0.00 12.95 25.90 38.85 51.80 64.75 77.70 90.65 103.60 116.55 129.50
Location (ft)
Figure 3.21. Provided ultimate moment versus required ultimate moment.
Also, shear reinforcement has been designed for all girders where two legs stirrups of 60-grade steel rebar were provided along the beam and extended into the deck as Table 3.6 below lists the details.
One of the LEAP CONSPAN features has been used to design the shear reinforcement, a feature that makes designing bridge straightforward and clear. The tool is to assign the bar size, stirrups spacing, and legs number then let the program design it automatically with showing a nice graph demonstrates required shear capacity versus the provided. Figure 3.22 below is a sample of that graphs for one of the four beams.
----mu proviaea
----Mu required
42


Table 3.6: Shear stirrups that used along each girder as an outcome of the shear design of LEAP CONSPAN first model.
#of Size fy Area Spacing Start End Extends
legs (ksi) (in2) (in) (ft) (ft) into Deck
2 US#4[M13] 60 0.4 3 0 0.25 Yes
2 US#5[M16] 60 0.62 3 0.25 1.75 Yes
2 US#5[M16] 60 0.62 4 1.75 5.4167 Yes
2 US#5[M16] 60 0.62 6 5.4167 10.9167 Yes
2 US#5[M16] 60 0.62 9 10.9167 19.1667 Yes
2 US#5[M16] 60 0.62 12 19.1667 30.1667 Yes
2 US#5[M16] 60 0.62 18 30.1667 100.3333 Yes
2 US#5[M16] 60 0.62 12 100.3333 111.3333 Yes
2 US#5[M16] 60 0.62 9 111.3333 119.5833 Yes
2 US#5[M16] 60 0.62 6 119.5833 125.0833 Yes
2 US#5[M16] 60 0.62 4 125.0833 128.75 Yes
2 US#5[M16] 60 0.62 3 128.75 130.25 Yes
2 US#4[M13] 60 0.4 3 130.25 130.5 Yes
Transverse Reinforcement Design Av/S (inA2/ft) Span 1, Beam 1
3.000
2.700 2.400 2.100 1.800 1.500 1.200 0.900 0.600 0.300 0.000
0.00 12.95 25.90 38.85 51.80 64.75 77.70 90.65 103.60 116.55 129.50
Locations (ft)
Figure 3.22. Shear reinforcement design graph.
43


For deck design, the empirical method according to article 9.7.2 of LFRD has been used. The interior region of the deck 20.33 feet and the effective length of the composite section is 8.08 feet. The tables further down list the provided reinforcement in longitudinal and transverse directions and comparison between required and provided steel.
Table 3.7: Provided deck reinforcement.
Longitudinal Steel provided
Size fy Spacing Dist. From Top End Cover
(ksi) (in) (in) (in)
US#5[M16] 60 8 3.06 2
US#5[M16] 60 8 6.44 2
Transverse Steel provided
Size fy Spacing Dist. From Top End Cover
(ksi) (in) (in) (in)
US#6[M19] 60 6.5 2.38 2
US#6[M19] 60 6.5 7.13 2
Table 3.8: Required steel vs. provided steel.
Reinforcement Units Required Provided State
Longitudinal Steel top layer in2/ft 0.18 0.47 OK
Longitudinal Steel bottom layer in2/ft 0.27 0.47 OK
Longitudinal Steel Max. Spacing in 18 8 OK
Longitudinal Steel Min Grade Steel ksi 60 60 OK
Transverse Steel top layer in2/ft 0.18 0.81 OK
Transverse Steel bottom layer in2/ft 0.27 0.81 OK
Transverse Steel Max. Spacing in 18 6.5 OK
Transverse Steel Min Grade Steel ksi 60 60 OK
44


3.3.2 Decked bulb tee beam bridge.
This bridge is a six concrete girder bridge and has been designed to be built in line with Accelerated Bridge Construction, where the girders that have been chosen to be decked girders so the bridge does not need cast-in- site deck. This model was designed entirely including the abutments and the H-pile foundations. However, only the superstructure design will be considered to compare the two models. Figure 3.23 displays the bridge as a three-dimensional model.
Figure 3.23. LEAP Conspan general model of the decked bulb tee bridge.
The girder that was used for this model is a WF53DG girder, which is a certified girder by Washington State Department of Transportation. WSDOT has been used this girder in many projects in the state with flange width range from 5 to 8 feet depending on bridge span length, where 5 feet flange wide is for 145 feet long span and 8 feet flange for 124 feet long span as described in Appendix B. According to that and the total bridge
45


width, the model needed to be six girders of 6.5 feet wide bridge. Figure 3.24 shows the detailed dimensions of the girder and Table 3.9 listed the information of each beam the model consists of. The details of the cross section of the bridge are displayed in below figure 3.25.
Figure 3.24. Decked Blub Tee girder cross section.
Figure 3.25. Second model cross section.
46


Table 3.9: Beams data of decked bulb tee bridge model.
Beam # ID Loc-prev Area MI(Ixx) Height Yb B-top B-bot
ft in2 in4 in in in in
1 WF53DG 3.25 785 294350 53.00 31.71 78 38.38
2 WF53DG 6.5 785 294350 53.00 31.71 78 38.38
3 WF53DG 6.5 785 294350 53.00 31.71 78 38.38
4 WF53DG 6.5 785 294350 53.00 31.71 78 38.38
5 WF53DG 6.5 785 294350 53.00 31.71 78 38.38
6 WF53DG 6.5 785 294350 53.00 31.71 78 38.38
Low relaxation strands of 0.6 inches diameter also were used in this model and for all girders, which are meeting the requirements of ASTM A-416. The minimum clear distance between groups or individual strands shall be 2.3ds but not less than 1.25" and The minimum cover for prestressing steel is 1.5". Two harping points has been used in the design per girder at 0.4L from each ends. The top flange should have 8 inches thickness at less to provide durable to traffic wear riding surface which able to absorb traffic collisions.
40 strands have been required for both external girders and 36 strands for all four interior girders. For exterior girders, the total prestressing area was 8.68 square inches
47


draped at 0.40L (52.20 ft from member end) with strand end pattern of 16.6 inches and midspan pattern of 6.6 inches. The required jacking force for these two girders has been specified to be 1757.7 kips which is 75% of the tensile strength of the tendons (270 ksi). On the other hand, each interior girder has a total prestressing area of 7.812 square inches draped at 0.40L (52.20 ft from member end) with strand end pattern of 13.78 inches and midspan pattern of 5.44 inches. The required jacking force for these two girders has been specified to be 1581.93 kips. The six girders have been assumed to be rigidly longitudinally connected with connection transfers both moment and shear.
This model consists of three main materials: concrete, steel rebar, and prestressing tendons. The properties of each material have been inputted manually to the program as figure 3.26 below shows.
Project */ Geometry 'Z Materials y Loads >/ Analysis >/ Beam 2E Deck
Concrete
Unit weight
Strength
K1
Easticity
Poisson's Ratio
Thermal coeff. Tension Rebar
Easticity
Girder Girder
Release Rnal
Deck
pcf
ksi
ksi
29000.
ksi
60.
ksi
Prestressing Tendon Tendon ID
1/2-250K-LL-1
1/2-270K
1/2-270K-1
1/2-270K-LL
1/2-270K-LL-1
1/2-270K-LL-M
1/2-270K-SP
1/2-270K-SP-1
3/8-250K-1
3/8-270K
3/8-270K-LL
6/10-270K
6/10-270K-LL
7/1C-77nK-
Pattern
O Straight
(8) Draped/Straight
Depress Pt. Fraction
Midspan
Increment
0.4
Debonding Length Increment, in
36
I I Transform All Prestressing Tendons
Maximum Auto-Debonding Percentage
l~1 Transform Rebars
Per Row, X
75
Rebar Area
Total. X
50.
Figure 3.26. Material properties input window of LEAP CONSPAN of the second model.
48


3.3.2.1 Model analysis.
Same as the first model, the load combinations for this model design were based on AASHTO LFRD Bridge Design Specifications 7th edition, where ultimate loading capacity was also based on all Service I, Service III, Strength I, and Fatigue I limit states.
According to tables 3.4.1-1 and 3.4.1-2 in AASHTO LFRD, the load combinations and load factors were defined for each limit state as following:
Service I: U = 1.00 DC + 1.00 DW + 1.00 LL
Service III: U = 1.00 DC + 1.00 DW + 0.80 LL
Strength I: U = 1.25/0.90 DC + 1.50/0.65 DW + 1.75 LL 1
Fatigue I: U=1.50LL
Figure 3.27 next page shows how all these parameters inputted into the LEAP CONSPAN program.
1For strength I limit state two load combinations have been used. According to AASHTO LFRD Bridge Design Specifications 7th edition, one maximum combination with 1.25 DC & 1.50 DW and one minimum combination with 0.90 DC & 0.65 DW
49


Figure 3.27. Load factors for load combinations that were inputted into LEAP CONSPAN of the second model.
Other parameters have been considered to establish completed design. Some of these parameters are showed in figure 3.28, where the unlimited concrete strain was assumed to be 0.003 in/in and the horizontal shear in beams and slab were included in the design.
50


S3
Limiting Stress Resistance Factor/Losses Moment Method O AASHTO equations () Strain Compatibility
Ultimate Concrete Strain:
Multipliers
Moment and Shear Provisions
0.003
I I Consider Bottom Tension Steel Contribution
Horizontal Shear Method () Include Beam and Slab Contribution in Vu
0 Exclude Beam and Slab Contribution from Vu
1 I User Input Interface Width, bvi
I I Horizontal Shear Autodesign for Intentionally Roughened Vertical Shear Method
O General (LRFD 5.8.3 4.2) Beta Theta Tables General (LRFD 5.8.3.4.2) Beta Theta Equations O Simplified (LRFD 5.8.3 4.3)
Modulus of Rupture AASHTO equation
O User Defined 0.24 xsqrt (F'c)
OK
Cancel
Figure 3.28. Moment and shear parameters that were specified in LEAP CONSPAN of the second model.
The following four tables were borrowed from LEAP CONCPAN to show the
envelopes of the four limit states at all different load components. One of the interior
beams has been elected to show an example of analysis data.
51


Table 3.10: Shear and moment envelope of an interior beam for service I limit state
shears: kips, moments: kft
Bearing T rans. H/2 0.10L 0.20L 0.30L 0.40L MidSpan 0.60L 0.70L 0.80L 0.90L H/2 T rans. Bearing
Location (ft) 0.00 2.25 2.21 12.35 25.45 38.55 51.65 64.75 77.85 90.95 104.05 117.15 127.29 127.25 129.50
Self wt. :M 0.0 117.1 114.9 591.5 1082.7 1433.5 1644.0 1714.1 1644.0 1433.5 1082.7 591.5 114.9 117.1 0.0
Self wt. :V 52.9 51.1 51.1 42.8 32.1 21.4 10.7 0.0 10.7 21.4 32.1 42.8 51.1 51.1 52.9
DL-Prec. :M 0.0 25.8 25.3 130.2 238.3 315.6 361.9 377.3 361.9 315.6 238.3 130.2 25.3 25.8 0.0
(DC) :V 11.7 11.3 11.3 9.4 7.1 4.7 2.4 0.0 2.4 4.7 7.1 9.4 11.3 11.3 11.7
DL-Prec. :M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
(DW) :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Deck :M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
+Haunch: V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Diaphragm: M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Diaphragm: V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
DL-Comp :M 0.0 33.5 32.9 169.3 309.8 410.2 470.5 490.5 470.5 410.2 309.8 169.3 32.9 33.5 0.0
(DC) :V 15.2 14.G 14.G 12.3 9.2 6.1 3.1 0.0 3.1 6.1 9.2 12.3 14.6 14.6 15.2
DL-Comp :M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
(DW) :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LL +1 :M+ 0.0 177.2 173.9 891.3 1620.2 2126.2 2428.3 2515.3 2428.3 2126.2 1620.2 891.3 173.9 177.2 0.0
LL +1 :V 112.0 109.2 109.3 96.9 81.5 66.1 44.5 29.0 44.5 66.1 81.5 96.9 109.3 109.2 112.0
LL +1 :M- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
LL +1 :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LL +1 :Vmax 112.0 109.2 109.3 97.0 82.7 69.1 56.3 44.1 56.3 69.1 82.7 97.0 109.3 109.2 112.0
LL +1 :M 0.0 174.8 171.6 861.4 1513.7 1916.6 2090.2 2054.6 2090.2 1916.6 1513.7 861.4 171.6 174.8 0.0
Pedestrian :M+ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :M- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :Vmax 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Table 3.11: Shear and moment envelope of an interior beam for service IHlimit state.
shears: kips, moments: kft
Bearing Trans. H/2 0.10L 0.20L 0.30L 0.40L MidSpan 0.60L 0.70L 0.80L 0.90L H/2 Trans. Bearing
Location (ft) 0.00 2.25 2.21 12.35 25.45 38.55 51.65 64.75 77.85 90.95 104.05 117.15 127.29 127.25 129.50
Self wt. :M 0.0 117.1 114.9 591.5 1082.7 1433.5 1644.0 1714.1 1644.0 1433.5 1082.7 591.5 114.9 117.1 0.0
Self wt. :V 52.9 51.1 51.1 42.8 32.1 21.4 10.7 0.0 10.7 21.4 32.1 42.8 51.1 51.1 52.9
DL-Prec. :M 0.0 25.8 25.3 130.2 238.3 315.6 361.9 377.3 361.9 315.6 238.3 130.2 25.3 25.8 0.0
(DC) :V 11.7 11.3 11.3 9.4 7.1 4.7 2.4 0.0 2.4 4.7 7.1 9.4 11.3 11.3 11.7
DL-Prec. :M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
(DW) :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Deck :M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
+Haunch: V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Diaphragm: M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Diaphragm: V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
DL-Comp :M 0.0 33.5 32.9 169.3 309.8 410.2 470.5 490.5 470.5 410.2 309.8 169.3 32.9 33.5 0.0
(DC) :V 15.2 14.6 14.6 12.3 9.2 6.1 3.1 0.0 3.1 6.1 9.2 12.3 14.6 14.6 15.2
DL-Comp :M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
(DW) :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LL +1 :M+ 0.0 141.7 139.1 713.1 1296.2 1701.0 1942.6 2012.2 1942.6 1701.0 1296.2 713.1 139.1 141.7 0.0
LL +1 :V 89.6 87.4 87.4 77.6 65.2 52.9 35.6 23.2 35.6 52.9 65.2 77.6 87.4 87.4 89.6
LL +1 :M- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
LL +1 :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LL +1 :Vmax 89.6 87.4 87.4 77.6 66.1 55.3 45.0 35.3 45.0 55.3 66.1 77.6 87.4 87.4 89.6
LL + I :M 0.0 139.8 137.3 689.1 1210.9 1533.2 1672.1 1643.7 1672.1 1533.2 1210.9 689.1 137.3 139.8 0.0
Pedestrian :M+ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :M- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :Vmax 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
52


Table 3.12: Shear and moment envelope of an interior beam for strength I limit state.
shears: kips, moments: kft
Bearing T tans. H/2 0.10L 0.20L 0.30L 0.40L MidSpan 0.60L 0.70L 0.80L 0.90L H/2 Trans. Bearing
Location (ft) 0.00 2.25 2.21 12.35 25.45 38.55 51.65 64.75 77.85 90.95 104.05 117.15 127.29 127.25 129.50
Self wt. :M 0.0 146.3 143.7 739.4 1353.3 1791.9 2055.0 2142.7 2055.0 1791.9 1353.3 739.4 143.7 146.3 0.0
Self wt. :V 66.2 63.9 63.9 53.6 40.2 26.8 13.4 0.0 13.4 26.8 40.2 53.6 63.9 63.9 66.2
DL-Prec. :M 0.0 32.2 31.6 162.8 297.9 394.4 452.4 471.7 452.4 394.4 297.9 162.8 31.6 32.2 0.0
(DC):V 14.6 14.1 14.1 11.8 8.8 5.9 2.9 0.0 2.9 5.9 8.8 11.8 14.1 14.1 14.6
DL-Prec. :M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
(DW) :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Deck :M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
+Haunch: V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Diaphragm: M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Diaphragm: V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
DL-Comp :M 0.0 41.9 41.1 211.6 387.3 512.8 588.1 613.2 588.1 512.8 387.3 211.6 41.1 41.9 0.0
(DC) :V 18.9 18.3 18.3 15.3 11.5 7.7 3.8 0.0 3.8 7.7 11.5 15.3 18.3 18.3 18.9
DL-Comp :M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
(DW) :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LL 1 :M+ 0.0 310.0 304.4 1559.9 2835.4 3720.8 4249.5 4401.7 4249.5 3720.8 2835.4 1559.9 304.4 310.0 0.0
LL +1 :V 195.9 191.1 191.2 169.6 142.6 115.6 77.8 50.8 77.8 115.6 142.6 169.6 191.2 191.1 195.9
LL +1 :M- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LL +1 :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LL +1 :Vmax 195.9 191.1 191.2 169.7 144.7 121.0 98.5 77.2 98.5 121.0 144.7 169.7 191.2 191.1 195.9
LL + I :M 0.0 305.8 300.3 1507.5 2649.0 3354.0 3657.8 3595.6 3657.8 3354.0 2649.0 1507.5 300.3 305.8 0.0
Pedestrian :M+ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :M- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :Vmax 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Table 3.13: Shear and moment envelope of an interior beam for fatigue I limit state.
shears: kips, moments: kft
Bearing T rans. H/2 0.10L 0.20L 0.30L 0.40L MidSpan 0.60L 0.70L 0.80L 0.90L H/2 T rans. Bearing
Location (ft) 0.00 2.25 2.21 12.35 25.45 38.55 51.65 64.75 77.85 90.95 104.05 117.15 127.29 127.25 129.50
Self wt. :M 0.0 117.1 114.9 591.5 1082.7 1433.5 1644.0 1714.1 1644.0 1433.5 1082.7 591.5 114.9 117.1 0.0
Self wt. :V 52.9 51.1 51.1 42.8 32.1 21.4 10.7 0.0 10.7 21.4 32.1 42.8 51.1 51.1 52.9
DL-Prec. :M 0.0 25.8 25.3 130.2 238.3 315.6 361.9 377.3 361.9 315.6 238.3 130.2 25.3 25.8 0.0
(DC) :V 11.7 11.3 11.3 9.4 7.1 4.7 2.4 0.0 2.4 4.7 7.1 9.4 11.3 11.3 11.7
DL-Prec. :M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
(DW) :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Deck :M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Haunch: V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Diaphragm: M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Diaphragm: V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
DL-Comp :M 0.0 33.5 32.9 169.3 309.8 410.2 470.5 490.5 470.5 410.2 309.8 169.3 32.9 33.5 0.0
(DC) :V 15.2 14.6 14.6 12.3 9.2 6.1 3.1 0.0 3.1 6.1 9.2 12.3 14.6 14.6 15.2
DL-Comp :M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
(DW) :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LL +1 :M+ 0.0 70.3 69.0 350.2 626.5 819.9 924.3 930.9 924.3 819.9 626.5 350.2 69.0 70.3 0.0
LL +1 :V 55.2 54.0 54.1 48.8 42.4 32.0 25.6 19.1 25.6 32.0 42.4 48.8 54.1 54.0 55.2
LL +1 :M- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LL +1 :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LL +1 :Vmax 55.2 54.0 54.1 48.8 42.4 35.9 29.5 23.1 29.5 35.9 42.4 48.8 54.1 54.0 55.2
LL +1 :M 0.0 70.3 69.0 350.2 626.5 805.1 885.8 868.7 885.8 805.1 626.5 350.2 69.0 70.3 0.0
Pedestrian :M+ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :M- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :V 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :Vmax 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pedestrian :M 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
53


The flowing graphs have selected to exhibit part of the analysis result. Detailed
information will clarify the data under each figure.
Moment (Kip-ft)
BR01 Composite Moment (SERVICE I)
Span: 1, Beam: 1: Total length = 129.50 ft (Max: 490.5 Kip-ft, Min: 0.0 Kip-ft)
Legend:
Composite DC (M) Composite DW (M)
0.00 12.95 25.90 38.85 51.80 64.75 77.70 90.65 103.60 116.55 129.50
Location (ft)
Figure 3.29. Moment of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due
to the dead load of service I limit state.
BR01 Composite Moment (SERVICE III)
Legend:
Composite DC (M) Composite DW (M)
0.00 12.95 25.90 38.85 51.80 64.75 77.70 90.65 103.60 116.55 129.50
Location (ft)
Figure 3.30. Moment of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due
to the dead load of service IHlimit state.
54


BR01 Composite Moment (STRENGTH I)
Legend:
Composite DC (M)
Composite DW (M)
0.00 12.95 25.90 38.85 51.80 64.75 77.70 90.65 103.60 116.55 129.50
Location (ft)
Figure 3.31. Moment of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due
to the dead load of strength I limit state.
Moment (Kip-ft)
500.00
450.00
400.00
350.00
300.00
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00 50.00
0 00
BR01 Composite Moment (FATIGUE I)
Span: 1, Beam: 1: Total length = 129.50 ft (Max: 490.5 Kip-ft, Min: 0.0 Kip-ft)
Legend:
Composite DC (M)
Composite DW (M)
0.00 12.95 25.90 38.85 51.80 64.75 77.70 90.65 103.60 116.55 129.50
Location (ft)
Figure 3.32. Moment of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due
to the dead load of fatigue I limit state.
55


Moment (Kip-ft)
BR01 Live Moment (SERVICE I)
Span: 1, Beam: 1: Total length = 129.50 ft (Max: 2,930.0 Kip-ft, Min: 0.0 Kip-ft)
Legend:
LL +1 Location (ft)
Figure 3.33. Moment of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due
to the live load of service I limit state.
Moment (Kip-ft)
3.000.00
2.700.00
2.400.00
2.100.00 1.800.00
1.500.00
1.200.00
900.00
600.00 300.00
0 00
BR01 Live Moment (SERVICE III)
Span: 1, Beam: 1: Total length = 129.50 ft (Max: 2,344.0 Kip-ft, Min: 0.0 Kip-ft)
Legend:
LL + I (M+) LL I (M-)
0.00 12.95 25.90 38.85 51.80 64.75 77.70 90.65 103.60 116.55 129.50
Location (ft)
Figure 3.34. Moment of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due
to the dead live of service IHlimit state.
56


Moment (Kip-ft)
BR01 Live Moment (STRENGTH I)
Span: 1, Beam: 1: Total length = 129.50 ft (Max: 5,127.5 Kip-ft, Min: 0.0 Kip-ft)
Legend:
LL +1 (M+) LL + l (M-)
Location (ft)
Figure 3.35. Moment of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due
to the live load of strength I limit state.
Moment (Kip-ft)
BR01 Live Moment (FATIGUE I)
Span: 1, Beam: 1: Total length = 129.50 ft (Max: 1,548.2 Kip-ft, Min: 0.0 Kip-ft) Legend:
0.00 12.95 25.90 38.85 51.80 54.75 77.70 90.65 103.60 116.55 129.50
----LL + I (M+)
----LL + I (M-)
Location (ft)
Figure 3.36. Moment of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due
to the live load of fatigue I limit state.
57


BR01 Composite Shear (SERVICE I)
Legend:
----Composite DC (V Absolute)
----Composite DW (V Absolute)
0.00 12.95 25.90 38.85 51.90 54.75 77.70 90.55 103.60 116.55 129.50
Location (ft)
Figure 3.37. Shear of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to
dead loads of service I limit state.
BR01 Composite Shear (STRENGTH I)
Legend:
----Composite EX} (V Absolute)
----Composite DW (V Absolute)
0.00 12.95 25.90 38.85 51.80 54.75 77.70 90.55 103.60 116.55 129.50
Location (ft)
Figure 3.38. Shear of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to
dead loads of strength I limit state.
58


Shear (Kips)
100.00
Legend:
----LL + I (Vmx Absolute)
BR01 Live Shear (SERVICE I)
0.00 12.95 25.90 38.85 51.80 64.75 77.70 90.65 103.60 116.55 129.50
Location (ft)
Figure 3.39. Shear of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to
live load of service I limit state.
Shear (Kips)
BR01 Live Shear (STRENGTH I)
Span: 1, Beam: 1: Total length = 129.50 ft (Max: 164.2 Kips, Min: 64.7 Kips)
Legend:
----LL + I (Vmx Absolute)
0.00 12.95 25.90 38.85 51.80 64.75 77.70 90.65 103.60 116.55 129.50
Location (ft)
Figure 3.40. Shear of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to
live load of strength I limit state.
59


3.3.2.2 Design results.
The stresses at ten points along the girder have been checked with the stress
limitations at release and final stresses as well. The following figure shows the stresses
for one beam as an example of stress checking.
Release Stress, computed vs. im#ng OK Final Stress, computed vs. imidng OK Ulimate Moment, required vs. provided OK
RELEASE STRESSES (ksi)
Limiting Stresses
Compression Tens with Reinf Tens without Reinf
4.500 -0.657 -0.200
Computed Stresses
Trans 0.10L/0.90L 0.20L0.80L 0.30U0.70L 0.40L/0.G0L Midspan
Location, t 3.000 13.100 26.200 39.300 52.400 65500
Precast-top 0.358 0.548 0.688 0706 0.602 0.663
Bodom 4.495 4.211 4.003 3.976 4131 4.040
As top, in2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0000 0.000 c
Ast_prvd, in2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
FINAL STRESSES (ksi)
Limiting Stresses
Preeast
Final (P/S+DL+LL) Compression 6.000
Final 1 Tension -0.600
Final 2 (P/S+DL) Compression 4.500
Final 3 (0.5(P/S+DL)+F_LL) Compression 4.000
Computed Stresses POSITIVE MOMENT ENVELOPE: SERVICE I (Final 1)
Bearing Trans H/2 0.10L0.90L 0.20L0.80L 0.30L0.70L 0.40L0.60L Midspan
Localion, 1 0.000 2.250 2.208 12.350 25.450 38.550 51.650 64.750
PrecasHop 0.065 0544 0.536 1.675 2780 3475 3.782 3.961
Bodom 1.107 4.002 3.947 2.317 0.672 -0.365 -0.821 -1.088
POSITIVE MOMENT ENVELOPE: SERVICE III (Final 1)
Bearing Trans H/2 0.10L70.90L 0.20L0.80L 0.30U0.70L 0.40U0.60L Midspan
Precast-top 0.065 0.508 0.501 1.495 2.452 3.045 3.291 3.453
Bodom 1 107 4.055 3.999 2.586 1.160 0.276 -0.089 -0.331
POSITIVE MOMENT ENVELOPE :! SERVICE I (Final 2)
Bearing Trans H/2 0.10L0.90L 0.20L0.80L 0.30L/0.70L 0.40U0.60L Midspan
Precast-top 0.065 0.365 0.360 0.774 | 1.141 | 1326 1.327 1.418
Bottom 1.107 4.268 4.209 3.659 3.112 2.837 2 836 2.699
POSITIVE MOMENT ENVELOPE: FATIGUE I (Final 3)
Bearing Trans H/2 0.10L0.90L 0.20L0.80L 0.30L0.70L 0.40L0.60L Midspan
Precast-top 0.032 0.284 0.280 0.892 1.475 1.846 1.997 2.053
Bottom 0.553 1.983 1.956 1.077 0.209 -0.344 -0.569 -0 652
Figure 3.41. Stress limits and computed stresses for beam number 1 of LEAP CONSPAN second model.
60


Legend:
Stress (ksi)
5.00
4.50 4 00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50 1.00 0.50
BR01 Stresses at Release (SERVICE I)
Span: 1, Beam: 1: Total length = 129.50 ft (Max: 4.500 ksi, Min: 0.068 ksi)
T
0 00
Computed Precast Top Computed Bottom Limiting Compression
0.00 12.95 25.90 38.85 51.80 64.75 77.70 90.65 103.60 116.55 129.50
Location (ft)
Figure 3.42. Stresses of an exterior beam at release according to service I limit state.
Stress (ksi)
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00 1.00 0.00 -1.00 -2.00 -3.00 -4.00 -5.00
BR01 Stresses at Release (SERVICE III)
Span: 1, Beam: 1: Total length = 129.50 ft (Max: 4.495 ksi, Min: -0.657 ksi) Legend:
Computed Precast Top Computed Bottom
Limiting Tension w/ Reinf.
Limiting Tension w/o Reinf.
0.00 12.95 25.90 38.85 51.80 64.75 77.70 90.65 103.60 116.55 129.50
Location (ft}
Figure 3.43. Stresses of an exterior beam at release according to service IHlimit state.
61


Legend:
Stress (ksi)
BR01 Positive Stresses at Final 1 (SERVICE I)
Span: 1, Beam: 1: Total length = 129.50 ft (Max: 6.000 ksi, Min: -1.088 ksi)
7.00 i-------1-------1-------1-------1-------1-------1-------1-------1-------1-------1 ----Computed Precast-top
_______________________________________ _______________________________________________Computed Bottom
5.60 ----Limiting Precast Compr
-2.80 -4 20 -5.60 -7.00
0.00 12.95 25.90 38.85 51.80 64.75 77.70 90.65 103.60 116.55 129.50
Location (ft)
Figure 3.44. Final stresses of an exterior beam according to service I limit state.
Stress (ksi)
BR01 Positive Stresses at Final 1 (SERVICE III)
Span: 1, Beam: 1: Total length = 129.50 ft (Max: 4.055 ksi, Min: -0.600 ksi)
5 00
-1.00
-2.00
-3.00
-4.00
-5.00
Legend:
----Computed Precast-top
----Computed Bottom
----Limiting Precast Tens
0.00 12.95 25.90 38.85 51.80 64.75 77.70 90.65 103.60 116.55 129.50
Location (ft)
Figure 3.45. Final stresses of an exterior beam according to service IH limit state.
62


Also, shear reinforcement has been designed for all girders where two legs stirrups of 60-grade steel rebar were provided along the beam as following table lists the details:
Table 3.14: Shear stirrups that used along each girder as an outcome of the shear design of LEAP CONSPAN second model
#of Size fy Area Spacing Start End Extends
legs (ksi) (in2) (in) (ft) (ft) into Deck
2 US#4[M13] 60 0.4 3 0 2.25 No Deck
2 US#4[M13] 60 0.4 6 2.25 3.25 No Deck
2 US#4[M13] 60 0.4 9 3.25 4.75 No Deck
2 US#4[M13] 60 0.4 18 4.75 16.75 No Deck
2 US#4[M13] 60 0.4 15 16.75 24.25 No Deck
2 US#4[M13] 60 0.4 12 24.25 28.25 No Deck
2 US#4[M13] 60 0.4 15 28.25 37.00 No Deck
2 US#4[M13] 60 0.4 18 37.00 94.00 No Deck
2 US#4[M13] 60 0.4 15 94.00 102.75 No Deck
2 US#4[M13] 60 0.4 12 102.75 106.75 No Deck
2 US#4[M13] 60 0.4 15 106.75 114.25 No Deck
2 US#4[M13] 60 0.4 18 114.25 126.25 No Deck
2 US#4[M13] 60 0.4 9 126.25 127.75 No Deck
2 US#4[M13] 60 0.4 6 127.75 128.75 No Deck
2 US#4[M13] 60 0.4 3 128.75 131.00 No Deck
Figure 3.46 below shows required shear capacity versus the provided for one of the six beams.
63


Av/S (inA2/ft) 2.00
1.80
1.60
1.40
1 20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Transverse Reinforcement Design (STRENGTH I)
Span: 1, Beam: 1: Total length = 129.50 ft (Max: 1.60 inA2/ft, Min: 0.12 inA2/ft)
Legend:
l---------__u,----------1
Av/S provided Av/S required
0.00 12.95 25.90 38.85 51.80 64.75 77.70 90.65 103.60 116.55 129.50
Location (ft)
Figure 3.46. Shear reinforcement design graph.
LEAP CONSPAN creates a chart for each beam shows how the provided ultimate strength covers the required capacity. Figure 3.47 is one of the six graphs of bulb tee girder model.
Moment (Kip-ft)
9,000.00
Ultimate Moment (STRENGTH I)
Span: 1, Beam: 1: Total length = 129.50 ft (Max: 8,662.3 Kip-ft, Min: 0.0 Kip-ft) Legend:
----Mu provided
Mu required
Location (ft)
Figure 3.47. Ultimate provided and required moments along an exterior beam according
to strength I limit state.
64


3.4 Design Verification
To prove that the analysis and design of the software that was used in this thesis, several parameters hand calculations will be presented in this section and compare them with their counterparts in LEAP CONSPAN. Girder number two of the first model has been randomly selected to do the hand calculation for.
3.4.1 Beam properties. fpu = 270 ksi
ft = 10 ksi fdi = 7-5 ksi
Strand0 0.6 Area = 0.217 in2 of strand 42 Total As = 9.114 in2 p, 1846
fvi =^r = ttttt = 202.55 ksi Jpj As 9.114
fi after initial losses 9.21% = 183.9 ksi
fe after final losses 11.77% = 162.25 ksi Pi = 183.9x9.114 = 1676.06 kips pf = 162.25x9.114 = 1478.75 kips
3.4.2 Cross section properties.
Non-Composite Section
A = 892 in2 I = 620573 in2 yb = 36.73 in yt = 35.27 in
892 kin /
girder self weight = 0.15x = 0.929 ^ I ft
65


Composite Section
bE = The smaller of Leff 129.5
= = 32.375 ft = 388.5 in
4 4 J
hf 43
12ts + = 12x8 + = 117.5 in
s 2 2
mS = 10.17x12 = 122 in
bjr = 122 in
Ec = 33000 (wc)15V^
Jcslab
33000 (0.15)1 5a/4^5 = 4067 ksi
Ecbeam = 33000 C0-15)15VlO = 6062.5 ksi
n
Jcslab
4067
ECh 6062.5
Lbeam
0.676
Composite Section Properties are: A = 892 in2
/ = 620573 in4
ts = 8 in yb = 36.73 i
3.4.3 Stresses at supports @ release.
P = pt = 183.9x9.114 = 1676.06 kips
_P Pe
fbottom i ^
A = 892 in2 I = 620573 in2 yb = 36.73 in e = yb cgs @ support = 36.73 12.48 = 24.25 in I 620 573
Sh=
16 895.5 in3
ho
yb 36.73
1676.06 1676.06x24.25
ttom
892
16 895.5
66


= -1.879 2.406
= 4.285 ksi
\According LEAP Conspan 4.202 ksi§
3.4.4 Moment capacity at midspan for the composite section.
Assume rectangular section
c
m d
^ps fpu
-85 ft + kArs¥-
u,p
p = 72 + 8 4.76 = 75.24 in
uk = 2
1.04 El
Jpu.
= 2 [1.04 0.9] = 0.28
9.114 x 270
c -------------------------------------------
0.85x4.5x122x0.825 + 0.28x9.114x 270/75 24
= 6.243 in <8 in assumption is O.K. a = /?xc = 0.825x6.243 = 5.15 in
r 6.2431
= 270 1 0.28 = 263.727 ksi [ 75.24J
r 5.15]
= 9.114x263.727 175.24-----
= 174 658.02 in kips = 14 554.83 ft kips
\According LEAP Conspan 14 826.39 ft kipsj
67


3.4.5 Moment distribution factors.
Kg=n(l+A eg2)
n = = = 1.49 eg=yt + ts/2 = 35.27 + 4 = 39.27 in
Eslab V4.5
Kg= 1.49 (620 573 + 892x(39.27)2) = 2 975 693 in4
3.5 < 5 = 10.17 ft < 16
4.5 < ts = 8 in < 12
20 < L = 129.5 ft < 240
Number of Beams = 4
10 000 < kg = 2 975 693 < 7 000 000
interior beam one lane
DF = 0.06 +
o.i
= 0.06 +
10.17\0-4/10.17\0-3 / 2 975 693 \
14 ) X V 129.5 ) X \12xl29.5x83/
= 0.528
\According LEAP Conspan 0.520] interior beam two lanes
DF = 0.075 +
o.i
= 0.075 +
10.17 \0-6/10.17 \0-2 / 2 975 693 \
9.5 ) X V 129.5 ) X \12xl29.5x83/
= 0.789
68


\According LEAP Conspan 0.779]
3.4.6 Release camber.
Pi = 1676.06 kips ...Equivalent Load
e' = 12.48 4.76 = 7.72 in
N =
1676.06x7.72
52.2x12
20.656 kips
M = p e
M = 1676.06 (36.73 12.48) M = 1676.06 (24.25)
M = 40 644.455 in. kips Eci = 33000 (0.15)1,5V7000 = 5250.26 ksi
b{3 4b2)Nl3 i M L2 ~ 24 El + 8 El
0.4 (3 4(0.4)2) X20.656 (129.5xl2)3 40 644.455 x (129.5xl2)2
_ 24 (5 250.26)x(620 573) + 8 (5 250.26)x(620 573)
= 0.936 + 3.765
= 4.702 in upward
\According LEAP Conspan 4.776 in upward]
69


CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION
4.1 Cost Estimation
Project cost estimating is an important part of project planning and execution where it is the biggest issue to consider for any project. Only the cost of the superstructure for each model will be inspected assuming that both projects are constructed on the same substructure. The most expensive elements in superstructure construction are the girders and the bridge deck including transportation and installation costs.
In order to get accurate and verified estimated cost for both models, help from a leading supplier of prestressed and precast products in the United States has been requested.
The girder cost is given for each foot length and the deck cost is provided for each one square foot. According to the dimensions of each girder, their compressive strength, and their prestressing, the cost of each element has been calculated as subsequent:
The conventional BT72 girder of the first model cost is $300 per foot long including the transportation and insulation.
The decked bulb tee girder of the second model cost is $425 per foot long including the transportation and insulation.
The cost of the cast in place deck is $34 per square.
The total expenses of each model are:
70


4.1.1 8-inch deck model cost.
This model consists of 4 girders with 130.5 feet precast length and 39 feet wide deck. Thus, the total cost of this superstructure is about:
[4x130.5 ft x300 $//J + [39 A X130.5 /tx34 ^/ftz\ = $329 643
4.1.2 Decked Bulb Tee model cost.
This model consists of only six decked girders with 130.5 feet precast length.
[6x130.5 ft x425 $//J = $332 775
4.2 Conclusion
The two models that have been designed in this paper are designed for same load capacity and they have same span length and overall width. The primary objective of this work was to stimulate and encourage departments of transportation to use Accelerated Bridge Concertation ABC more often in their future projects; and therefore, they are considering a bridge construction method that is expected to reduce the total construction time, improve public acceptance, reduce accident risk, and yield economic and environmental benefits. That has been done by developing a long-span decked precast, prestressed concrete girder bridge as a model of Accelerated Bridge Construction projects along with developing another model of conventional construction bridge for the same project.
In order to show the benefits of using ABC, a brief comparison between the two models has been established as following:
71


The costs of construction for the two models are very close to each other. That cost is only the cost of supplies and installation the superstructure. When we consider the time of the constructions, labor cost for each project, lifetime cost, and the cost of implementing each project, ABC construction would be favored method to build that project.
Concrete curing is a time-consuming task that can take up to 28 days to gain full strength. Thus, the superstructure of the first model requires 28 days only for its deck to cure. On the other hand, the superstructure of the second model can be installed and opened to traffic in few hours.
According to (McMullen, 2015), an average of 64 bridges are constructed and replaced yearly in Colorado. If all 1081 bridges that have been built in Colorado between 1993 and 2013 have been built by using ABC, most of the over two million crashes in Colorados construction zones during that 21 years that caused 221 deaths would not have accrued and many lives would have been saved. In addition to that significant amount of losses in public and private properties would have been minimized, where ABC improves work-zone safety for the traveling public.
Constructing a bridge with ABC technologies is cost effective way, where in many cases, the direct and indirect costs of traffic detours that result from the loss of a bridge during construction can exceed the actual cost of the structure itself with all significant economic impacts on commercial and industrial activities in the area. With the short construction time that ABC offers, the need for many of that detours can be eliminated.
72


Since construction is considered as one of the main sources of environmental
pollution in the world. ABC with the life cycle cost benefits enhances the preservation of a healthy environment.
4.3 Recommendations
The main benefit of using Prefabricated Bridge Elements System is to accelerate the construction and reduce traffic impact time, so contractors need to ensure that the individual members of the bridge prefabricated off site and they are ready when needed at the site.
Camber should be within (L/800 +1/2 inches) at all times in service, considering the variability of dead loads, prestressing force and eccentricity, shrinkage, differential shrinkage, creep, initial and final concrete strengths, girder properties, and any other factors.
4.4 Suggested Further Research.
With using decked precast concrete girders, connections between adjacent units and longitudinal joints are the most design concerns and construction issues. In addition, longitudinal camber and cross slope, live load distribution, continuity for live load, lateral load resistance, skew effects, maintenance, replaceability, and other factors can influence constructibility and performance of decked girder bridges. Thus, Research is needed to address the issues that significantly affect the performance of long-span decked precast, prestressed concrete girder bridges and to develop guidelines for their design and construction.
73


REFERENCES
Culmo, M. P. (November 2011). Accelerated bridge construction experience in design, fabrication and erection of prefabricated bridge elements and systems. Federal Highway Administration.
Grace, N. F., Bebawy, M. (March 2015). Evaluation and analysis of decked bulb t beam bridges.
Mary, L. R., Benjamin, M. T. (December 2003). Laying the groundwork for fast bridge construction. Public Roads, 67(3).
McMullen, M. L., Li, C. (September 2015). Feasibility study of developing and creating a standardized subset of bridge plans. Colorado Department of Transportation.
Oesterle, R.G., Elremaily, A. F. (July 2009). Guidelines for design and construction of decked precast prestressed concrete girder bridges.
PBES Cost study: Accelerated Bridge Construction success stories, (2006). Federal Highway Administration, 5-8.
The American society of civil engineers (2013). Report card for America's infrastructure.
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (December 2015). Deficient bridges by highway system.
74


APPENDIX A
CDOT PLAN SET OF THE BRIDGE
THAT HAS BEEN DESIGNED
75


i)"rqry Stgy! Oily)
SUMMARY OF QUANTITIES
^1
On
ITEM NO DESCRIPTION UNIT SUPERSTRUCTURE ABUT 1 ABUT 2 TOTAL
202-00400 REMOVAL OF BRIDGE EA 1 1

206-00000 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION CY 600 600 1200

206-00100 STRUCTURE BACKFILL (CLASS 1) CY 575 575 1150

206-00200 STRUCTURE BACKFILL (CLASS 2) CY 75 75 150

403-3*741 HOT MIX ASPHALT (GRADING SX) (75) (PG 64-22) TON 89 89

411-10255 EMULSIFIED ASPHALT (SLOW SETTING) GA_ 53 160 53

420-00510 GEDTEXTILE (CRACK REDUCTION) (HIGH DENSITY) SY 160 3600 320

501-00200 STEEL SHEET PILING (TYPE II) SF 3628 8 7228

502-00460 PILE TIP EA 8 424 16

502 11489 STEEL PILING (HP 14x89) LF 424 4 848

512-00101 BEARING DEVICE (TYPE 1) EA 4 8

515-00120 WATERPROOFING (MEMBRANE) SY 524 524

515-00410 CONCRETE SEALER (CALCIUM NITRATE) SY 104 2 104

601-21xxx PRECAST CONCRETE CURTAIN WALL EA 2 1 4

601-21xxx PRECAST CONCRETE ABUTMENT CAP EA 1 1 2

601-21xxx PRECAST CONCRETE END DIAPHRAGM EA 1 2

606-11030 BRIDGE RAIL TYPE 10M LF 262 262

613-00200 2 INCH ELECTRICAL CONDUIT LF 528 528

618-00172 PRESTRESSED CONCRETE I (BT72) LF 518 518

618-04xxx PRECAST CONCRETE DECK PANEL WITH P05"-TENSIDNING (8.5 INCH) SF 5109 5109

631-10000 ALTERNATE BRIDGE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION LS 1 1
i
1"
I.
(1) Does not include removal of detour bridge and roadway. See 250 Items for environmental related work.
(2) Includes excavation limits as shown in the plans. Additional excavation for bridge demolition B
and other work shall not be paid for. Replacement of any overexcavation shall be Structural Bockfill (Class 1).
Includes abutment droirage system components.
@ Includes sawcut grooves with hot poured joint and crack sealant and asphalt cement binder.
HMA quantities for bridge also shown in the tabulation of surfacing.
Includes geogrid in HMA on bridge and in approach roadway as shown on sheet B31.
Includes sheetpile stabilization components, sheet pile caps, curtain wall return plate, concrete cap adjacent to precast concrete curtain walls, and all hardware.
Includes installation template. Includes pile tip protectors for sheet piles as requiured.
See sheet pile notes on sheet B18.
Includes shear connectors, steel forms, and installation template.
(8) Includes adhesive.
Includes embedded curtcin wall connection hardware, neoprene strip with protective plate, and Class D concrete in connection to H-Piles.
Includes non-embedded end diaphragm connection hardware, grout, temporary supports, ond neoprene strip with protect've plate and hardware.
Includes high performance reinforcing, wcterstops, and USGS utility anchors.
Includes caps, Conduit shall be rigid galvanized metal,
Includes embedded end diaphragm connection hardware and embedded bearing end plate.
Includes high performance reinforcing, grout, post-tensioning strand and anchors,
USGS utility anchors, and all required hardware, and any deck grinding required to meet tolerances.
Includes all required Engineering for approved alternate design. Schedule may not be altered.
- Prirt Dote: 2/15/2016
File Name: B02-20817-Quontities-01.drjn
Horiz. Scale: Nor
Vert. Scale: Same
Staff Bridge Brcnch: Unit 0221 Unit Leoder:STW
Cham
Sheet Revisions
Date: Comments Init.




Colorado Department of Transportation
3803 North Main Avenue Suite 200
Durango, CO 81301
Phone: 970-385-1440 FAX: 970-385-8365
Region 5
As Constructed
SUMMARY DF QUANTITIES
Designer: J. imenheiser Structure K-Ol-L
Detailer: E. Maechler Numbers
Sheet Subset: Bridge Subset Sheets: B02 of 33
12 I 13 I 14
Project No./Code
FBR 090A-007 20817
Sheet Number 43 ~ I 16
F0F! SUBMITTAL -"Not FflR CONSTRUCTION '


FDft SUBMITTAL -"NOt FflR (iONSTRlldltlN '


8 L


39'-0" Out to Out
3" Hot Mix Asphalt Over Waterproofing Membrane Bridge Rail Type 10M (Typ
2- 2"0 Electrical Conduits for Future Use (Typ ir Curb, Both Sides)
HCL SH 90 1

girder alternate.
Sheet Pile Waif
The contractor may bia a prestressed concrete deck bulb tee This option would require approval from CDCT.
Bearing seat elevations shall not be lowered-
The roadway PGL shall not be raised.
It is anticipated that the substructure elements may need to be strengthened for this alternate due to the increased weight of additional girder lines. The cost of all design associated with the substructure check and strengthening shall be included in the cost of the prestressed concrete deck bulb tee alternate.
The mirimum top flange depth shall be 8". The girders shall be designed and constructed such that the top half of the top flange can be readily removed as part of a future deck rehabilitation project.
Girders shall be longitudinally connected.
All primary bridge elements/members other than the sheet pile walls and Bridge Rail shall be precast concrete elements similar to as shown throughout these plans. Cast-in-place concrete elements/members are not permitted.
For specific requirements associated with this alternate superstructure, see the Project Special Provisions-Alternate Structure Design & Construction.
NOTE:
Existing Temporary Detoi not shown for clarity.
TYPICAL SECTION PRECAST DECK BULB TEE GIRDER
(Looking Aheod Station)
Sheet Revisions
Date: Comments Init.




ALTERNATE SUPERST (FOR INFORMATION RUCTURE ONLY)
Designer: J. Emenheiser Structure K-Ol-L
Detailer: E. Maechler Numbers
Sheet Subset: Bridge Subset Sheets: B05 of 33
- Prirt Dote: 2/15/2016
File Nome: B05-20817-AltSect-01.dgn
Horiz. Scale: 1:8
Vert. Scale: Same
Staff Bridge Brcnch: Unit 0221 Unit Leoder:STW
cham
Colorado Department of Transportation
3803 North Main Avenue Suite 200
Durango, CO 81301
Phone: 970-385-1440 FAX: 970-385-8365
Region 5
As Constructed
Project No./Code
FBR 090A-007
Sheet Number 46
FOR! SUBMITTAL NOt FflR CONSTRUCTION


08
dknight 8:23:21 PM M:\PR0JECTS\318.03 RAMP Bridge Preservation Project\20A89 Sheet FilesV20+BSGE0-ErgGeo-01.dgn


Toe of Fill v
,, s' __------Prop Fei
LEGEND:
SUMMARY OF RIPRAP PROTECTION QUANTITIES
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT
STRUCTURE EXCAVATION 2537 CY
BACKFILL 44 CY
FILTER MATERIAL (CLASS A) 387 CY
GEOTEXTILE (DRAINAGE) (CLASS 2) 1773 SY
RIPRAP (6-INCH) 10 CY
RIPRAP (18-INCH) 1629 CY
RIPRAP CONTROL TABLE
Existing Ground Elevations
High Chord Elev. 5032.381
Low Chord Eev. 5021.67'
^"Proposed K-01-L Bridge
Proposed 50-yeor WSEL Ipper Riprap Reference

"Lower Riprap Refer*
102400
roposed Ground Elevation
Sheet Revisions
Date: Comments Init.




PROFILE OF WATER SURFACE AND RIPRAP REFERENCE LINES
Scale: Horiz 1" 30
Vert 1" = 151
Distance Along Channel Centerline in Feet__
Line (URL), Dgg-IB"
s (LRL), D50-18"
Point ID Northing Easting Elevation
A 49930.58 78741.03 5020'
B 49912.43 78742.58 5020'
C 49908.52 78742.39 5020'
D 49913.89 78721.86 5027'
E 49910.02 78720.85 5028'
F 49900.14 78758.59 5012'
G 49876.22 78752.32 5012'
H 49852.30 78746.05 5012'
I 49856.33 78730.65 5020'
J 49834.99 78713.47 5020'
K 49790.01 78885.20 5020'
L 49792.91 78881.36 5020'
M 49818.31 78875.78 5020'
N 49822.38 78860.28 5012'
0 49870.21 78872.82 5012'
P 49B60.44 7B910.14 5028'
Q 4986^.31 78911.15 50271
R 49869.54 78891.21 5020'
S 49888.70 78900.93 50201
T 49920.73 78778.66 5001'
U 49867.45 78785.80 5001'
As Constructed BRIDGE HYDRAULIC DATA 1 OF 2
No Revisions:
Revised: Designer: s. Kormacharya Structure K-Ol-L
Detailer: E. Maechler Numbers
Void: Sheet Subset: Bridge Subset Sheets: B07 of 33
Prirt Dote: 2/15/2016
File Name: B07-20817-HydraulicDota-01.dgn
Horiz. Scale: 1:30
Vert. Scale: As Shown
Staff Bridge Brcnch: Unit 0221 Unit LeodertSTW
cham
Colorado Department of Transportation
3803 North Main Avenue Suite 200
Durango, CO 81301
Phone: 970-385-1440 FAX: 970-385-8365
Region 5
Project No./Code
FBR 090A-007
Sheet Number 48
FOF! sOBMITTAlL -"Not FflR CONSTRUCTION '


:siUsisqns laBpuJ'
latocTiriilmTalwIa^ fjPl
id! Ill II
SI f: I ail !i|*: I _|ll*f
Q, DISCHARGE IN CFS
i i i i I I I I I

8
I \
8 \ \
! \ \
i \ \
ELEVATION IN FEET
1 sa 1 a I

5! r
S N.
's' s\. Snv
s\ ''O vs
SUBMITTAL -'NOt FflR

i
Existing Concrete
Existing Steel Truss Superstructure
Partial removal of Existing Bridge Wingwalls os necessary to facilitate Existing Bridge Superstructure removcl
Legend:
jH||j Existing Concrete Deck Removal Approx.
83 CY (168 tons)
East Crane Access East Crane Pad
itas: STAGE 1
Existing and Proposed Utilities not shown for clarity. See Project Plcns and Project Special Provisions for designation of Existing Utilities and relocation requirements in odvance o' bridge removal and relocation activities.
Prior to relocating the Steel Truss Superstructure, remove the Existing Concrete Deck without damaging the Existing Steel Superstructure. All domoge to the Existing Steel Superstructure shall be repaired ot the Contractor's expense.
Provide sufficient room between the Existing Bridge and the West Crane Access Road connection (as shown) for relocction and disassembly of the Existing Steel Truss Superstructure.
IXMxMxM
,tes STAGE 3
At the location of the Proposed Sheet Piles/Walls ond in advarce of installing the Sheet Piles/Walls, proper y grade and compact the soil in accordance with the Project Special Provisions.
-Pi Temporary Detour Approach
4_| I Roadway or Woll
t-Fn --Sheet Pile Wall
Bottom of Detour Wal Elevations 5012.5 (West Abut)' 5010.3 (East Abut)
Work Area After Removal of Existing Bridge Substructure (Not to be Lower Than Bottom of Detour Wall)
Relocate Existing Steel _Truss Superstructure to West Approach Roadway (See Stage 1, Note 3)
Notes:
STAGE 2
j Existing Abutments and Wingwalls to be Removed including all Steel Piling and Timber Lagging. Piles shall not be cut below grade.
1. Existing Steel Truss Superstructure, excluding the Existing Concrete Deck, weighs approximately 83 tons. Tne Steel Truss Superstructure is approximately 126 feet long, 28 feet wide, and 28 feet tall at its highest point.
2. The Existing Steel Truss Superstructure shall be disassembled and hauled in accordance with the Project Special Provisions.
GENERAL BRIDGE REMOVAL AND DISASSEMBLY NOTES:
1. Staging shown is conceptual in nature ond is only intended to reflect generalized staging & sequencing. The Contractor shall determine the final staging plan based on the Contractor's means and methods as well as compliance with the requirements of the Project Plans and Project Special Provisions.
2. The Contractor shall submit bridge removal related documentation to the Engineer, including the Bridge Removal Plan and Healtn and Safety Plan, in accordance with the Project Special Provisions.
3. See Project Special Provisions for:
- Bridge removal requirements including relocation, disassembly, hauling and disposal requirements.
- Lead based paint handling, containment and disposal requirements.
- Erosion contro requirements and project specific environmental requirements.
4. Bridge removal, including relocation, disassembly, hauling and disposal are included in bid item 202-00400. Leod based paint handling, containment and disposal, as well as other environmen:al, health and safety related items, are included in other bid items as reflected in the Project Special Provisions.
5. Removal of Temporary Bridge Superstructure paid for under Bid Item 202-00401.
Sheet Revisions
Date: Comments Init.




As Constructed BRIDGE REMOVAL PLAN & STAGING
No Revisions:
Revised: Designer: T. Vesco Structure K-Ol-L
Void: Detailer: K. Pope Numbers
Sheet Subset: Bridge Subset Sheets: B09 of 33
£ Prirt Dote: 2/15/2016
File Name: B09-20817-Removol-01.dgn
Horiz. Scale: Nor
Vert. Scale: Same
Staff Bridge Brcnch: Unit 0221 Unit Leoder:STW
cham
Colorado Department of Transportation
9 3803 North Main Avenue r Suite 200 Durango, CO 81301
Phone: 970-385-1440 FAX: 970-385-8365
Region 5
Project No./Code
FBR 090A-007
Sheet Number 50
F0F! sOBMITTAlL -"Not FflR CONSTRUCTION '


£
9 -
i-
CONSTRUCTIPN LAYOUT
USGS ATTACHMENT DETAILS
NOTES:
1. Existing bridge and temporary bridge not shown for clarity.
2. Precast concrete abutment caps end supporting H-Piles not shown for clarity.
3. See sheets B14 and B15 for sheet pile wall layouts.
4. Existing utilities not shown. See "Utility Plan and Pothole Location Plan" sheet for existing utilities and associated designations.
5. Contractor shall be responsible for labor and materials for all anchors (deck and curb).
6. The Contractor shall coordinate with USGS representative on location of anchors in curb so that anchor placement is compatible with brackets to be installed by USGS. Anchor type (Mechanical or Epoxy) to be determined
by USGS.
- Prirt Dote: 2/15/2016___________________________
File Name: B10-20817-ConstLoyo.jt-01.dgn_______
Horiz. Scale: 1:16____________Vert. Scale: Same
K Staff Bridge Brcnch: Unit 0221 Unit Leader: STW
ch2nt
Sheet Revisions
Date: Comments Init.




Colorado Department of Transportation
3803 North Main Avenue Suite 200
Durango, CO 81301
Phone: 970-385-1440 FAX: 970-385-8365
Region 5 DV
7 I B I 9 I 10-
As Constructed CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT Project No./Code
No Revisions: FBR 090A-007
Revised: Designer: T. Vesco Structure K-Ol-L 20817
Void: Detailer: K. Pope Sheet Number 51
Sheet Subset: Bridge Subset Sheets: BIO of 33
FOF! SUBMITTAL -"Not FflR CONSTRUCTION '


I-
Q. Existing Abutment
I 7^.
*(T) Remove existing concrete deck.
Relocate existing steel truss superstructure.
Ground* (?) Remove existing abutments, Une wingwalls, and pile foundations.
(4) Level a stable wo'k area large enough for pile driving equipment.
PHASE 1
(5) Install sheet pile walls.
Excavate on front side of sheet pile walls as necessary for riprop protection.
Place riprop protection to final configuration, except for the areas adjacent to the temporary detour bridge 8< approach roadway.
PHASE 2
Ploce structure backfill behind sheet pile wall up to bottom of precast concrete abutment cap.
Place precast concrete abutment cap (Cap weight = 90 kips).
Pour concrete to connect H-Piles to precast concrete abument cap.
@
Place bearing pacs and precast concrete girders (Girder weight 120 kips/girder). Secure/brace all girders in-place (full length).
Place precast concrete end diaphragms with temporary supports (End Diaphragm weight 41 kips). Attach/grout precast concrete end diaphragms to end of girders and remove temporary supports. Place and attoch precast concrete curtain walls (Curtain wall weight =
6 kips)
(l^ Place precast concrete deck panels (Deck panel weight = 43 k'ps/panel) and complete grouting between all panels. Post-tension deck panels together. Attach/grout deck panels to top of girders.
PHASE 4
PHASE 5
(?) Install H-Piles.
PHASE 3




PHASE 6
Place sheet oils return walls and attach to precast concrete end diaphragms (both sides of each abutment). Place and attach sheet pile cap plates.
Place structure backfill behind precast concrete end diaphragm. Place backfill concurrently at both abutments up to Elev 5020.0 and tension wire ropes for sheet pile wall stabilization system (see sheet B18 for details). Finish placing rest of backfill to finished grade.
Apply Concrete Sealer and install bridge rail and guardrail.
Place approach roacway. Ploce waterproofing membrane and HMA overlay on bridge deck with geotextile pavement reinforcement (see sheet B30).
Move traffic onto new bridge.
Remove temporary bridge deLour bridge & opproach roadway as necessary to place the remaining riprap for the northern wing walls and grading to the final configuration.
Sheet Revisions
Date: Comments Init.




As Constructed CONSTRUCTION PHASING
No Revisions:
Revised: Designer: T. Vesco Structure K-01-L
Detailer: K. Pope Numbers
Void: Sheet Subset: Bridge Subset Sheets: Bll of 33
Prirt Dote: 2/15/2016
File Name: Bll-20817-ConstPhasing-Ol.dgn
Horiz. Scale: Nor
Vert. Scale: Same
Staff Bridge Brcnch: Unit 0221 Unit Leoder:STW
Cham
Colorado Department of Transportation
3803 North Main Avenue Suite 200
Durango, CO 81301
Phone: 970-385-1440 FAX: 970-385-8365
Region 5
Project No./Code
FBR 090A-007
Sheet Number 52
FOR! sOBMITTAlL NOt FflR CONSTRUCTION


J------------1----------4----------1----------3-----------1----------£-----------1----------l-----------1----------2----------1----------2-----------1----------12----------1----------11---------1----------12----------1----------12----------1----------12.
k
i I
U
Â¥ H
s
h
NOTES:
1. Existing ut'lities shown. Proposed utilities not shown for clarity. See "Utility Plan and Pothole Location Plan" sheet for new utilities and designation of existing utilities. Utility relocation activities required in advance of primary construction.
2. See sheets 014 and B15 for layout of sheet pile walls and sheet pile return
3. Existing abutments and their supporting piles are in the footprint of the
proposed abutment H-Piles. Contractor to remove these elements in advance of new bridge construction. See sheet Bll for proposed construction phasing.
S 4. Geotechnical boring logs irdicate c water table elevation ranging from
? _ approximately elevation 50G2.00 to 5007.00. Water control ana dewatering may be
required. See Project Special Provisions Revision of Section 208, Water Control and Revision of Section 211, Dewatering.
i
5. One test pile (HP 14x89) is required. The Contractor shall propose which pile will serve as the test pile ond submit to the Engineer for approval. See notes on sheet B13.
1 - Prirt Date: 2/15/2016___________________________
2 File Name: B12-20817-PileLayout-01.dgn_________
§ Horiz. Scale: 1:20_______________Vert. Scale: Same
a K Staff Bridge Brcnch: Unit 0221 Unit Leader: STW
ch2nt
Sheet Revisions
Date: Comments Init.




Colorado Department of Transportation
3803 North Main Avenue Suite 200
Durango, CO 81301
Phone: 970-385-1440 FAX: 970-385-8365
Region 5 DV
7 I B I 9 I ID-
Know whats beiOW.
Call before you dig.
As Constructed H-PILE LAYOUT Project No./Code
No Revisions: FBR 090A-007
Revised: Designer: T. Vesco Structure K-01-L 20817
Void: Detailer: K. Pope Sheet Number 53
Sheet Subset: Bridge Subset Sheets: B12 of 33
F0F! sOBMITTAlL -"Not FflR CONSTRUCTION '


NOTES;
1. All piles shell be HP 14x89 and shall conform to AASHTQ M270 with a minimum yield strength of 50 ksi.
2. Pile tips and pile points shall be ASTM A148 Grade 90/60 (Fu = 90 ksi 8c Fy = 60 ksi).
3. Concept pile tip details are shown. Contractor shall provide commercial pile tips welded to piles along outside of pile web ond flanges in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations.
4. Pile sleeve shall be Corrugated Metal 3fpe. Pipe sleeve shall not be paid for separately but shall be included in cost of Item 601, Precast Concrete Abutment Cap.
5. Pile sleeve shall be galvanized.
6. Shear Studs to be field welded to piles after driving/cutoff of piles. Use full penetration welds per manufacturer's recommendations.
. Void between H-Pile and Precast Concrete Abutment Cap shall be filled with Class D concrete before placing Precast Concrete I (0T 72). Concrete shall not be paid for separately but shall be included in cost of Bid Item 601, Precast Concrete Abutment Cap.
10. The tip elevations provided in the table shall be reached. Hammers shall be sized in accordance with Section 502 of the Standard Specifications. Monitoring for pile driving sholl be conducted by Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) per Section 502 of the Standard Specifications.
11. Predrilling is recuired if refusal has occured before the H-Pile has reached the specified tip elevation. The contractor shall be aware that the material in which the IPiles are to be driven may contain cobbles. Predrilling is not anticipated. One test pile is required to corrirm that predrilling is not required.
12. Top of H-Piles shall be locatec within 3 inches of the specified locations shown. See Section 502 of the Project Special Provisions.
13. Ties of equ'valent size and spac'ng may be substituted for spiral reinforcing.
Notch CMP to pass longitudinal -reinforcing (Typ)
Pile Cutoff Elev
(Min)
x 6" High
Strength Shear Studs EF (8 Tot per pile, Typ)
Precast Concrete End Diaphragm
Design Pile Tip Elev
Top of Precast Concrete Abutment-Cap
Trim CMP 1" below surface for Bearing Pad Seat, see sheet B21
#3 Spiral 4" Pitch, see Note 13
Note:
Not all Precast Concrete Abutment Cap reinforcing
2'-6" ID IB gauge galvanized CMP centered on pile
Bottom of Preccst Concrete Abutment-Cap
Pile Tip |
PILING DETAIL
PILE DESIGN SUMMARY
LOCATION FOUNDATION TYPE & SIZE ESTIMATED PILE TIP ELEVATION AS-BUILT TIP ELEVATION MAXIMUM LOAD (TONS) FACTORED AXIAL RESISTANCE (TONS)
SERVICE STRENGTH
Abut 1 HP14x89 4967 78 100 133
Abut 2 HP14x89 4967 78 100 133
(Typ)
PILE TIP DETAIL?
Sheet Revisions
Date: Comments Init.




As Constructed H-PILE DETAILS
No Revisions:
Revised: Designer: T. Vesco Structure K-01-L
Void: Detailer: K. Pope Numbers
Sheet Subset: Bridge Subset Sheets: B13 of 33
- Prirt Dote: 2/15/2016
File Name: B13-20817-HPileDet-01.dgn
Horiz. Scale: Nor
Vert. Scale: Same
Staff Bridge Brcnch: Unit 0221 Unit Leoder:STW
cham
Colorado Department of Transportation
3803 North Main Avenue Suite 200
Durango, CD 81301
Phone: 970-385-1440 FAX: 970-385-8365
Region 5
Project No./Code
FBR 090A-007
Sheet Number 54
F0F! sOBMITTAlL -"Not FflR CONSTRUCTION '


I nf Shoot Pile Wnll
Begin Wall Sta 15+36.29 50+0 [T Elev 5029.39
; Proposed Finished Grade along-HCL SH 90
End Wall Sta 13+36.39
Elev 5028.46 ~n 5040
Proposed Finished ~rade along CL SH 90
Elev 4991.00
\ Bottom of
^Precast Concrete |
1 Front Face Abutment Cap ,
of Wall i i
Bottom of Wall Level (Typ)
Elev 4991.00
|-Angle
H
DEVELOPED ELEVATION
Sheet Revisions
Date: Comments Init.




As Constructed ABUTMENT 1 SHEET PILE WALL GEOMETRY
No Revisions:
Revised: Designer: T. Vesco Structure K-Ol-L
Detailer: K. Pope Numbers
Void: Sheet Subset: Bridge Subset Sheets: B14 of 33
l Prirt Dote: 2/15/2016
File Nome: B14-20B17-PileGeometry-01.dgn
Horiz. Scale: 1:16
Vert. Scale: Same
Staff Bridge Brcnch: Unit 0221 Unit LeodertSTW
cham
Colorado Department of Transportation
3803 North Main Avenue Suite 200
Durango, CO 81301
Phone: 970-385-1440 FAX: 970-385-8365
Region 5
Project No./Code
FBR 090A-007
Sheet Number 55
for! sObmittaIl -"Not fOr ConStr0dTbN


Full Text

PAGE 1

DESIGNING A NEW TYPE OF BRIDGE COMPATIBLE WITH ACCELERATED BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION by HUSSEIN ABAD GAZI JAAZ B.S., University of Al Qadisiya, Iraq, 2010 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Civil Engineering Program 2016

PAGE 2

ii This thesis for the Master of Science degree by Hussein Abad Gazi Jaaz has been approved for the Civil Engineering Program by Frederick Rutz Chair Chengyu Li Nien Yin Chang Date December 17 2016

PAGE 3

iii Jaaz Hussein Abad Gazi (M.S., Civil Engineering) Designing a New Type of Bridge Compatible with Accelera ted Bridge Construction Thesis directed by Associate Professor Chengyu Li ABSTRACT With the aging infrastructure in the United State s, there is a need for a change in the bridge construction industry to bu ild and replace bridges quickly and more economically. This study includes a study of decked, precast, prestressed, concrete bridge girders. This type of bridge provides benefits of rapid construction and improved structural performance. The research was performed to develop a model of decked bulb tee girder bridge, which is an ABC project, and compare it with another r egular I girder bridge model. Both models will be designed by using LEAP CONSPAN design software as a part of this thesis. The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication. Approved: Chengyu Li

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, my sincerest thanks to my advisor, Dr. Li for the support and guidance in completion of this thesis. Not only that but his encouragement for me to pursu e my higher education. Thanks for all professors who I have been in their classes and I appreciate all the knowledge and experience they have brought to their classes. I would also like to thank Dr. Frederick Rutz and Dr. Nien Yin Chang for participating on my graduate advisory committee. Tremendous th anks to CDOT for sharing their confidential documents that I could not have completed my work without them Also, big thanks to Lee Wegner from Forterra Structural Precast company for providing the thesis with precious cost information.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS C H A PTER INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 1 1.1 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 1 1.2 Significance of Research ................................ ................................ ...................... 2 1.3 Research Objective ................................ ................................ ............................... 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ ........................... 4 2.1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 4 2.2 Accelera ted Bridge Construction (ABC) ................................ ............................. 4 2.3 Conventional Bridge Construction ................................ ................................ ....... 5 2.3.1 Onsite construction time. ................................ ................................ .............. 5 2.3.2 Mobility impact time. ................................ ................................ .................... 6 2.4 PBES Elements ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 8 2.4.1 Deck e lements ................................ ................................ ............................... 8 2.4.2 Beam e lements ................................ ................................ .............................. 9 2.4.3 Pier e lements ................................ ................................ ............................... 10 2.4.4 Abutment and wall e lements ................................ ................................ ....... 11 2.4.5 Other e lements ................................ ................................ ............................ 12 2.5 PBES Systems ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 12 2.5.1 Superstructur e s ystems ................................ ................................ ................ 13 2.5.2 Superstructure/Substructure s ystems ................................ .......................... 14 2.5.3 Total bridge s ystem ................................ ................................ ..................... 14 2.6 Current Standard Bridge Girder Sections That are Used by CDOT and Other S tates 16

PAGE 6

vi 2.6.1 Background. ................................ ................................ ................................ 16 2.6.2 Current standard bridge girder sections that are used by CDOT. ............... 17 2.6.3 Bridge standard usage by other s tates ................................ ......................... 17 2.6.4 Disadvantages of current used sections. ................................ ..................... 19 2.7 Proposed S ection ................................ ................................ ................................ 20 2.7.1 Jo ints ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 22 DESIGNED MODELS ................................ ................................ ............................. 23 3.1 Design Criteria ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 23 3.1.1 Design s pecifications ................................ ................................ .................. 23 3.1.2 Loads. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 23 3.1.3 Roadway geometry. ................................ ................................ .................... 24 3.2 Program Used for D esign ................................ ................................ ................... 25 3.3 Designed M odels ................................ ................................ ................................ 25 3.3.1 8 inch deck bridge. ................................ ................................ ...................... 25 3.3.2 Decked bulb tee beam bridge. ................................ ................................ ..... 45 3.4 Design Verification ................................ ................................ ............................ 65 3.4.1 Beam properties. ................................ ................................ ......................... 65 3.4.2 Cross section properties. ................................ ................................ ............. 65 3.4.3 Stresses at supports @ release ................................ ................................ .... 66 3.4.4 Moment capacity at midspan for composite section ................................ ... 67 3.4.5 Moment distribution f actors. ................................ ................................ ....... 68 3.4.6 Release camber ................................ ................................ ........................... 69 DISCUS SION ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 70

PAGE 7

vii 4.1 Cost E stimation ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 70 4.1.1 8 inch deck model cost. ................................ ................................ .............. 71 4.1.2 Decked bulb t ee model cost. ................................ ................................ ....... 71 4.2 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 71 4.3 Recommenda tions ................................ ................................ .............................. 73 4.4 Suggested Further R esearch. ................................ ................................ .............. 73 REF E RENCES ....74 APPENDIX A. CDOT Plan Set of the Bridge That has been d esigned ....75 B. Decked Girder Sections Adopted by WSDOT ..... 93

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF TABLES TABLE 3.1: Beams data of 8 inch deck bridge model. ................................ ............................. 27 3.2: Shear and moment envelope of an interior beam for service limit state. ......... 33 3.3: Shear and moment envelope of an interior beam for service limit state. ......... 33 3.4: Shear and moment envelope of an interior beam for strength limit state. ........ 34 3.5: Shear and moment envelope of an interior beam for fatigue limit state. .......... 34 3.6: Shear stirrups that used along each girder as an outcome of the .......................... 43 3.7: Provided deck reinforcement. ................................ ................................ ............... 44 3.8: Required steel vs. provided steel. ................................ ................................ ......... 44 3.9: Beams data of decked blub tee bridge model. ................................ ...................... 47 3.10: Shear and moment envelope of an interior beam f or service limit state. ......... 52 3.11: Shear and moment envelope of an interior beam for service limit state. ......... 52 3.12: Shear and moment envelope of an interior beam for strength limit state. ........ 53 3.13: Shear and moment envelope of an interior beam for fatigue limit state. .......... 53 3.14: Shear stirrups that used along each girder as an outcome of the .......................... 63

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 2.1. Conventional bridge construction. ................................ ................................ ............... 7 2.2. Accelerated bridge construction. ................................ ................................ ................. 7 2.3. Decked precast, pres tressed bulb tee concrete ................................ ............................ 9 2.4. Truss span without deck of Willis A venue bridge over Harlem R iver in New York City ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 10 2.5. Workers lower a prefabricated bent cap of Lake Ray Hubbard Bridge in Dallas TX ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 11 2.6. Installation of a preca st abutment element ................................ ................................ 12 2.7. Transferring the prefabricated superstructure of the 4500 South bridge in Salt Lake City, UT, which is a full width Beam Span with deck superstructure s ystem to the site using a self propelled modular transporter ................................ ................................ ........ 13 2.8. Edison bridge in Fort Myers, Florida, which has been built by using total bridge system ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 14 2.9. Early Saturday morning, installation abutment unit and wingwalls of 86 Bridge over Mitchell Gulch projec t ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 15 2.10. Saturday afternoon, installation the beams of 86 Bridge ove r Mitchell Gulch project ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 16 2.11. I girder Rothwood road bridge in Spring Ho uston, TX. ................................ .......... 18 2.12. I 25 box girder overpass reconstruct ion in Denver downtown ............................... 18 2.13. Cracks have developed along the joints in side by side box girder bridge ............ 20 2.14. Icicles have seeped from deck's surface through the joints between box girders. 20 2.15. Chehalis River Bridge 1 over the Chehalis river near Pe Ell, Washington. It is a 140 foot long and 20 foot wide precast prestressed deck b ulb tee girder bridge. .......... 21 3.1. LEAP Conspan general model of the 8 inch deck bridge. ................................ ......... 26 3.2. First model cross section. ................................ ................................ ........................... 26

PAGE 10

x 3.3. BT72 girder cross section. ................................ ................................ ......................... 27 3.4. Input data of the model in LEAP Conspan. ................................ ............................... 28 3.5. Material properties input window of LEAP CONSPAN of first model. ................... 29 3.6. Load factors for load combinations that were inputted into LEAP CONSPAN of the first model. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 31 3.7. Moment and shear parameters that were specified in LEAP CONSPAN of the first model. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 32 3.8. Moment of an exterior beam as a composite section due to the dead load of service limit state. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 35 3.9. Moment of an exterior beam as a composite section due to the dead load of service limit state. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 35 3.10. Moment of an exterior beam as a composite section due to the dead load of strength limit state. ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 36 3.11. Moment of an exterior beam as a composite section due to the dead load of fatigue limit state. ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 36 3.12. Moment of an exterior beam as a composite section due to the live load of service limit state. ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 37 3.13. Moment of an exterior beam as a composite section due to the dead live of service limit state. ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 37 3.14. Moment of an exterior beam as a composite section due to the live load of strength limit state. ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 38 3.15. Moment of an exterior beam as a composite section due to the live load of fatigue limit state. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 38 3.16. Moment of an exterior beam on the precast section before the deck has hardened due to all loads of service limit state. ................................ ................................ ............ 39 3.17. Moment of an exterior beam on the precast section before the deck has hardened due to all loads of service limit state. ................................ ................................ ............ 39 3.18. Moment of an exterior beam on the precast section before the deck has hardened due to all loads of strength limit state. ................................ ................................ .......... 40

PAGE 11

xi 3.19. Moment of an exterior beam on the precast section before the deck has hardened due to all loads of fatigue limit state. ................................ ................................ ............ 40 3.20. Stress limits and computed stresses for beam number 2 of LEAP CONSPAN first model. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 41 3.21. Provided ultimate moment versus required ultimate moment. ................................ 42 3.22. Shear reinforcement design graph. ................................ ................................ .......... 43 3.23. LEAP Conspan general model of the decked blub tee bridge. ................................ 45 3.24. Decked Blub Tee girder cross section. ................................ ................................ .... 46 3.25. Second model cross section. ................................ ................................ .................... 46 3.26. Material properties input window of LEAP CONSPAN of second model. ............ 48 3.27. Load factors for load combinations that were inputted into LEAP CONSPAN of the second model. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 50 3.28. Moment and shear parameters that were specified in LEAP CONSPAN of the second model. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 51 3.29. Moment of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to the dead load of service limit state. ................................ ................................ .................... 54 3.30. Moment of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to the dead load of service limit state. ................................ ................................ .................... 54 3.31. Moment of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to the dead load of strength limit state. ................................ ................................ ................... 55 3.32. Moment of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to the dead load of fatigue limit state. ................................ ................................ ..................... 55 3.33. Moment of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to the live load of service limit state. ................................ ................................ ...................... 56 3.34. Moment of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to the dead live of service limit state. ................................ ................................ ..................... 56 3.35. Moment of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to the live load of strength limit state. ................................ ................................ .................... 57

PAGE 12

xii 3.36. Moment of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to the live load of fatigue limit state. ................................ ................................ ...................... 57 3.37. Shear of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to dead loads of service limit state. ................................ ................................ ........................... 58 3.38. Shear of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to dead loads of strength limit state. ................................ ................................ .......................... 58 3.39. Shear of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to live load of service limit state. ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 59 3.40. Shear of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to live load of strength limit state. ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 59 3.41. Stress limits and computed stresses for beam number 1 of LEAP CONSPAN second model. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 60 3.42. Stresses of an exterior beam at release according to service limit state. ............. 61 3.43. Stresses of an exterior beam at release according to service limit state. ............. 61 3.44. Final stresses of an exterior beam according to service limit state. ..................... 62 3.45. Final stresses of an exterior beam according to service limit state. ..................... 62 3.46. Shear reinforcement design graph. ................................ ................................ .......... 64 3.47. Ultimate provided and required moments along an exterior beam according to stre ngth limit state. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 64

PAGE 25

13 such that traffic operations flow normally afte r finishing the installation. Federal Highway Administration stated in its ABC manual that according to the mechanism in which the prefabricated elements are installed their systems often require innovations in planning, engineering design, high performan ce materials, and "Structural Placement Methods ." 2.5.1 Superstructure s ystems These systems consist of both deck elements and beam elements combined in a modular method such that traffic breakdown occurs only as a result of the members being positioned In thi s system, the members can be rolled, launched, slid lifted, or otherwise transported to the site, on top of existing or new substructures that have been prepared in a style that does not affect the mobility. Figure 2 7 Transferring the prefabricated superstructure of the 4500 South bridge in Salt Lake City, UT, which is a full width Beam Span with deck superstructure system to the site using a self propelled modular transporter. Adapted f rom Utah D epartment of T ransportation UDOT, 2015.

PAGE 26

14 2.5.2 Superstructure/Substructure s ystems In additional to the elements of the superstructure system, these systems include either bridge columns/piers or abutments which all are integrated together in a smart c onstr u ction fashion. Similar to the previous system, the members of superstructure / substructure systems also can be rolled, launched, slid lifted, or otherwise transported to the site, on top of part of existing or new substructures that have been prepared in a style that does not affect the mobility. 2.5.3 Total b ridge s ystem Total bridge system combines all prefabricated elements of both superstructure and substructure including the abutments and the piers, where the substructure elements are integrated with the superstructure elements that have been constructed outside of the bridge site and rolled, launched, slid lifted, or transported on top of that prefabricated substructure. All that progress needs to be done by innovational design and hi gh performance materials. Figure 2 8 Edison B ridge in Fort Myers, Florida, which has been built by using total bridge system. Adapted from p anoramio.com, by Jmlrusb 2010.

PAGE 27

15 An example of ABC project is CDOT's State Highway 86 Bridge over Mitchell Gulch between Castle Rock and Franktown in Douglas County southeast of Denver, Colorado. The bridge was built in 2002 to replace the existing two span timber bridge which was constru cted in 1953; it was deteriorated and required replacement. The Average Daily Traffic for that bridge was 12000 vpd The new bridge is 40 ft long and 43 ft wide single span prestressed concrete slab bridge constructed by Lawrence Construction Company, Litt leton in only 38 hours. On Friday evening at 7 pm, the traffic diverted to a detour and the existing timber bridge was destroyed followed by installation the abutment units on top steel H piles early Saturday morning. The bridge was reopened to traffic at 5 pm on Sunday. The bridge was closed for 46 hours, but only 38 hours of actual construction work was needed. If the conventional construction method had been used to construct the bridge, it would take two to three months to open the bridge to traffic. Figure 2 9 Early Saturday morning, installation abutment unit and wingwalls of 86 Bridge over Mitchell Gulch project Adapted from "PBES Cost Study: Accelerated Bridge Construction Success Stories ", 2006, p 5. by Federal Highway Administration.

PAGE 28

16 Figure 2 10 Saturday afternoon, installation the beams of 86 Bridge over Mitchell Gulch project Adapted from "PBES Cost Study: Accelerated Bridge Construction Success. 2.6 C urrent standard bridge girder sections that are use d by CDOT and other states 2.6.1 Background Federal Highway Administration stated in its annual report "deficient bridges by highway system" that Colorado has 521 of 8624 bridges are structurally def icient and about 9.5% of that 8,624 bridges are considered functionally obsolete. Therefore, the need for standard bridge plans has become an urgent need to reduce the cost of rebuild this enormous numbers of expensive structures. Standard plans are wholly designed including all the details; they only need plan sheet assembly to create a n accomplished design package. All the details of the standard bridge are completely designed including

PAGE 29

17 every single piece collected in one bridge plan. However, other input, that relevant to each bridge schedul ed to be established are n eeded to complete its plan set. 2.6.2 Current standard bridge girder sections that are used by CDOT The Colorado DOT currently has detail ed plans u tiliz ed in the design and construction of its projects called M Standard Plans (Colorado Miscellaneous Standard Plans). The standard includes plans for culverts, bridge worksheets for several bridge components, and design aids in the C DOT Bridge Design Manual. CDOT has used these tools quite successfully, but they have not been completely developed and they are outdated compare with design code changes and practice ( Mc Mullen and Li, 2015) The worksheets contain precast Bulb Tee and bo x girders in de ferent sizes. In 1980's, CDOT attempted to improve its standards by developing standard plans for precast double tee superstructures. Mc Mullen said "t hese bridges were only suitable for lightly trafficked roads without heavy truck traffic or de icing use a nd were used mostly by counties" (2015, p.3). 2.6.3 Bridge standard u sage by other s tates Recently, most of the states have developed new shapes for precast bridge girders to replace the AASHTO girder s, which have been in use for many years, in pursuit of finding the most efficiency shape. As a result of that, a wide variation of girder shapes is being used by various states, where each state has developed its own designs. Most of that developments and changes have focused on "I" girder and box girder shapes and mainly in providing longer span. However, a concrete slab, w hether the prefabricated or the cast in place, is still required to be placed on top of those girders. T h is type of constructions needs temporary or permanent formwork, which is not incompatible with

PAGE 30

18 ABC. McMullen emphasized that few states have complete sets of bridge standard plans, that fully designed and detailed and ready for construction with design, la yout, or modification (2015, p.5) Texas state is one of these few states which has a complete standard for precast prestressed concrete I girder bridges with a broad range of lengths. The l one s tar s tate has a standard for decked box sections too, which c an be assembled into bridge plan sets. However, that standard plan is for spans shorter than 110 feet and it requires the bridge layout, foundation plan, and framing plan to be completed by a designer ( Mc Mullen and Li, 2015) In general, the most used sections in bridges construction are I beam section and box beam section additional to Bulb tee beam section, which has wider flange than I beam This section has become more popular nowadays. Figure 2 12 I 25 box girder overpass reconstruction in Denver downtown. Adapted from Modjeski and Masters, 2016 Figure 2 11 I girder Rothwood road bridge in Spring Houston, TX. Adapted from Houston chronicle newspaper, July 2014.

PAGE 31

19 2.6.4 Disadvantages of current used sections. The biggest disadvantage this thesis focuses on is the construction system for all girder types that have been discussed in the last section, where all these types need a cast in place deck slab to be placed on top of the beams with all associated minor details. From the point of time consideration, this system requires a long time to get the job done comp a ring with the perceptions of ABC. Using this system leads to prolo ngi ng onsite construction time period and therefore the traffic flow and the transportation network will be influenced by that. Having work zone for another day means putting all worker, drivers, passengers, and pedestrians at risk for additional time. On top of that, the construction itself is accompanied by many issues. For instance, the main issue of box decks construction is that they are difficult to cast on the site because of the difficulty of reaching the bottom surfa ce of the slab, which makes the frameworks more challenging and time consuming One of other disadvantages of using these girders is that in most cases p redicted girder camber does not match the actual girder camber which makes deck construction more compl icate d One other example of popular sections is the side by side box beam bridge system which has been used widely since the 1950s representing the preferred precast prestressed bridge system. This section is favored because of its low depth, unneeded slab formwork on site, and relative high torsional capacity. However, in the recent years, problems started to appear with using this type of section; most remarkably problem is developing longitudinal deck cracks betwee n the box girders which produce seeps of water and deicing chemicals through these cracks. According to a survey has been conducted by New York state department of transportation, which involved 187 bridges built between the years 1985 and 1990 in the

PAGE 32

20 sta te of New York 101 bridges of the 187 bridges inspected have developed longitudinal cracks along the joints between their side by side box girders. T he survey showed that six of fourteen bridges that built in 1990, the same year the survey established, ha ve developed the same type of cracks after few months of their construction ( Grace and Bebawy, 2015) 2.7 P roposed S ection To work around disadvantages of current sections a proposed section will be considered in this paper. The Suggested beam is a precast prestressed decked bulb tee beam which does not need to a separate deck on top of it. Instead, the flanges of the bulb tee girders are connected longitudinally to procedure a smooth slab for riding. Decked Figure 2 13 Cracks have developed along the joints in side by side box girder bridge. Adapted from Grace and Bebawy, 2015 Figure 2 14 Icicles have seeped from deck's surface through the joints between box girders. Adapted from Grace and Bebawy, 2015.

PAGE 33

21 bulb tee girders can be a promising system for ABC if the matters regarding the longitudinal connection along the girders are fully inspected and resolved. More than a few DOTs have designed imp lemented bulb T beams in their design guidelines with some differences in geometry and assembly methods. For instance, Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) puts bulb tee beam bridges in three categories according to construction system. First class is Bulb t ee beams with concrete deck; second class is decked bulb tee beams without concrete deck; and third class is post tensioned bulb t ee beams with a concrete deck and post tensioning strands (Grace and Bebawy, 2015). Similarly, Washington State Departme nt of Transportation (WSDOT) offers both sections: bulb tee beams with deck and decked bulb tee beams without decks (WSDOT 2008). For the considered model in this thesis, WF53DG decked BT section with top flange of 78 inches wide has been used to assembl e the modeled bridge. This section is one of WSDOT sections, where it has been used in completed project in Washington state. Figure 2 15 Chehalis River Bridge 1 over the Chehalis R iver near Pe Ell, Washington. It is a 140 foot long and 20 foot wide precast prestressed deck bulb tee girder bridge. Adapted from McGee Engineering, Inc.,2014.

PAGE 34

22 2.7.1 Joints 2.7.1.1 Longitudinal joints In conventional construction, decked bulb tee girders are connected lo ngitudinally by using a system of welded plates and grouted longitudinal keyways. Mechanical connect ors are embedded in the flanges and spaced four to eight feet apart along the entire length of the beams. The plates are welded in the site to make the conn ections before grouting the longitudinal joints T ransverse tensile capacity is provided by those mechanical connections to guarantee that the joint stays together, on the other hand, the grouted shear keys provide the primary vertical load carrying capacity for the joint. Structurally, this joint longitudinal system is designed as a hinge. Thus, it transfers shear between units, but not a moment For the system that this paper considered, a rigid longitudinal connection has been assumed along the BT girders. This type of connection can be produced by using transverse post tension tendons or other techniques to make joints able to transfer both shear and moment. 2.7.1.2 Transverse joints. Transverse joints are the links at the end of the girders. In decked b ul b tee beams they are similar to transverse joints that used in conventional I girder bridges. R. G. Oesterle from Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc. in Chicago, said that A variety of conventional expansion joints have been used successfully, such as strip seals and compression seals. Alternatively, a transverse joint can be sealed with grout or by using a closure pour (2009, p.16)

PAGE 38

26 A slab of 8 inches thickness has been designed to be cast in sit on top of the four BT72 girders. Epoxy coated grade 60 reinforcement steel is assigned to the deck reinforcement design. The d etails of the cross section of the bridge are displayed in below figure 3.2. Figure 3 1 LEAP Conspan general model of the 8 inch deck bridge. Figure 3 2 First model cross section.

PAGE 39

27 Figure 3 3 BT72 girder cross section. Table 3 1 : Beams data of 8 inch deck bridge model. Beam # ID Loc prev Area MI(Ixx) Height Yb B topg B Trib ft in2 in4 in in in ft 1 BT 72 4.250 892.0 620573.0 72.00 36.73 43.00 9.333 2 BT 72 10.167 892.0 620573.0 72.00 36.73 43.00 10.167 3 BT 72 10.167 892.0 620573.0 72.00 36.73 43.00 10.167 4 BT 72 10.167 892.0 620573.0 72.00 36.73 43.00 9.333

PAGE 40

28 Figure 3 4 Input data of the model in LEAP Conspan. Low relaxation strands of 0.6 inches diameter, which are meeting the requirements of ASTM A 41 6, has been assigned to use for all girders. The minimum clear distance between groups or in dividual strands shall be 2.3 but not less than 1.25" and The minimum co ver for prestressing steel is 1.5 ". Two harping points has been used in the design per girder at 0.4L from each ends. The total of 4 2 strands that have been required for each girder is 9.114 square inches draped at 0.40L (52.20 ft from member end). The strand end pattern is 12.48 inches and the midspan pattern is 4.76 inches. The required jacking force for each girder has been specifie d to be 1,846 kips which is 75% of the tensile strength of the tendons (270 ksi ). This model consists of three main materials: concrete, steel rebar, and prestressing tendons. The properties of each material have been inputted manually to the program as f igure 3.5 below shows.

PAGE 41

29 Figure 3 5 Material properties input window of LEAP CONSPAN of the first model.

PAGE 42

30 3.3.1.1 Model analysis The load combinations for this model design were based on AASHTO LFRD Bridge Design Specifications 7 th edition, where u ltimate loading capacity w as based on Service I Service III Strength I and Fatigue I limit states. According to tables 3.4. 1 1 and 3.4.1 2 in AASHTO LFRD, the load combinations and load factors were defined for each limit state as following: Service I: U = 1.00 DC + 1.00 DW + 1.00 LL Service III: U = 1.00 DC + 1.00 DW + 0.80 LL Strength I: U = 1.25/0.90 DC + 1.50/0.65 DW + 1.75 LL # $ Fatigue I: U = 1.50 LL Figure 3.6 next page shows how all these parameters inputted into the LEAP CONSPAN program. # $ For strength limit state two load combinations have been used. According to AASHTO LFRD Bridge Design Specifications 7 th edition, one maximum combination with 1.25 DC & 1.50 DW and one minimum combination with 0.90 DC & 0.65 DW

PAGE 43

31 Figure 3 6 Load factors for load combinations that were inputted into LEAP CONSPAN of the first model. Other parameters have been considered to establish completed design. Some of these par ameters are showed in figure 3.7 where the unlimited concrete strain was assumed to be 0.003 in/in and the horizontal shear in beams and slab were included in the design.

PAGE 44

32 Figure 3 7 Moment and shear parameters that were specified in LEAP CONSPAN of the first model. The following four tables were borrowed from LEAP CONCPAN to show the envelopes of the four limit states at all diff erent load components. One of the interior beams has been elected to show an example of analysis data.

PAGE 45

33 Table 3 2 : S hear and moment envelope of an interior beam for service limit state. shears : kips moments: kft Table 3 3 : S hear and moment envelope of an interior beam for service limit state. shears : kips moments: kft

PAGE 46

34 Table 3 4 : S hear and moment envelope of an interior beam for strength limit state. shears : kips moments: kft Table 3 5 : Shear and moment envelope of an interior beam for fatigue limit state. shears : kips moments: kft The flowing graphs have selected to exhibit part of the analysis result. Detailed information will clarify the data under each figure.

PAGE 47

35 Figure 3 8 Moment of an exterior beam as a composit e section due to the dead load of service limit state. Figure 3 9 Moment of an exterior beam as a composite section due to the dead load of service limit state.

PAGE 48

36 Figure 3 10 Moment of an exterior beam as a composite section due to the dead load of strength limit state. Figure 3 11 Moment of an exterior beam as a composite section due to the dead load of fatigue limit state.

PAGE 49

37 Figure 3 12 Moment of an exterior beam as a composite section due to the live load of service limit state. Figure 3 13 Moment of an exterior beam as a composite section due to the dead live of service limit state.

PAGE 50

38 Figure 3 14 Moment of an exterior beam as a composite section due to the live load of strength limit state. Figure 3 15 Moment of an exterior beam as a composite section due to the live load of fatigue limit state.

PAGE 51

39 Figure 3 16 Moment of an exterior beam on the precast section before the deck has hardened due to all loads of service limit state. Figure 3 17 Mome nt of an exterior beam on the precast section before the deck has hardened due to all loads of service limit state

PAGE 52

40 Figure 3 18 Moment of an exterior beam on the precast section before the deck has hardened due to all loads of strength limit state. Figure 3 19 Moment of an exterior beam on the precast section before the deck has hardened due to all loads of fatigue limit state.

PAGE 53

41 3.3.1.2 Design results The stresses at ten points along the girder have been checked with the stress limitations at release and final stresses as well. The following figure shows the stresses for one beam as an example of stress checking. Figure 3 20 Stress limits and computed stresses for beam number 2 of LEAP CONSPAN first model.

PAGE 54

42 The model has been checked for the ultimate strength according to LRFD specifications. Figure 3.21 shows the provided ultimate moment capacity versus the required for left external girder. Figure 3 21 Provided ultimate moment versus required ultimate moment Also, shear reinforcement has been designed for all girders where two legs stirrups of 60 grade steel rebar were provided along the beam and exte nded into the deck as T able 3.6 below l ists the details. One of the LEAP CONSPAN features has been used to design the shear reinforcement, a feature that makes designing bridge s traightforward and clear. The tool is to assign the bar size, stirrups spacing, and legs number then let the program design it automatically with showing a nice graph demonstrates required shear capacity versus the provided. Figure 3.22 below is a sample of that graph s for one of the four beams.

PAGE 55

43 Table 3 6 : S hear s tirrups that used along each girder as an outcome of the shear design of LEAP CONSPAN first model. # of legs Size fy ( ksi ) Area (in2) Spacing (in) Start (ft) End (ft) Extends into Deck 2 US#4[M13] 60 0.4 3 0 0.25 Yes 2 US#5[M16] 60 0.62 3 0.25 1.75 Yes 2 US#5[M16] 60 0.62 4 1.75 5.4167 Yes 2 US#5[M16] 60 0.62 6 5.4167 10.9167 Yes 2 US#5[M16] 60 0.62 9 10.9167 19.1667 Yes 2 US#5[M16] 60 0.62 12 19.1667 30.1667 Yes 2 US#5[M16] 60 0.62 18 30.1667 100.3333 Yes 2 US#5[M16] 60 0.62 12 100.3333 111.3333 Yes 2 US#5[M16] 60 0.62 9 111.3333 119.5833 Yes 2 US#5[M16] 60 0.62 6 119.5833 125.0833 Yes 2 US#5[M16] 60 0.62 4 125.0833 128.75 Yes 2 US#5[M16] 60 0.62 3 128.75 130.25 Yes 2 US#4[M13] 60 0.4 3 130.25 130.5 Yes Figure 3 22 Shear reinforcement design graph.

PAGE 56

44 For deck design the empirical m ethod according to article 9.7.2 of LFRD has been used The interior region of the d eck 20.33 feet and the effective l ength of the composite section is 8.08 feet. The tables further down list t he provided reinforcement in longitudinal and transverse directions and compariso n between required and provided steel. Table 3 7 : Provided deck reinforcement. Longitudinal Steel provided Size fy ( ksi ) Spacing (in) Dist. From Top (in) End Cover (in) US#5[M16] 60 8 3.06 2 US#5[M16] 60 8 6.44 2 Transverse Steel provided Size fy ( ksi ) Spacing (in) Dist. From Top (in) End Cover (in) US#6[M19] 60 6.5 2.38 2 US#6[M19] 60 6.5 7.13 2 Table 3 8 : Required steel vs. provided steel. Reinforcement Units Required Provided State Longitudinal Steel top layer in2/ft 0.18 0.47 OK Longitudinal Steel bottom layer in2/ft 0.27 0.47 OK Longitudinal Steel Max. Spacing in 18 8 OK Longitudinal Steel Min Grade Steel ksi 60 60 OK Transverse Steel top layer in2/ft 0.18 0.81 OK Transverse Steel bottom layer in2/ft 0.27 0.81 OK Transverse Steel Max. Spacing in 18 6.5 OK Transverse Steel Min Grade Steel ksi 60 60 OK

PAGE 57

45 3.3.2 Decked bulb tee beam bridge This bridge is a six concrete girder bridge and has been designed to be built in line with Accelerated Bridge Construction, where the girders that have been chosen to be decked girders so the bridge does not need cast in site deck. This model was designed entirely including the abutments and the H pile foundations. However, only t he superstructure design will be considered to com pare the two models. Figure 3.23 displays the bridge as a three dimensional model. Figure 3 23 LEAP Cons pan general model of the decked bulb tee bridge. The girder that was used for this model is a WF53DG girder, which is a certified girder by Washington State Department of Transportation. WSDOT has been used this girder in many projects in the state with flange width range from 5 to 8 feet depending on br idge span length, where 5 feet flange wide is for 145 feet long span and 8 feet flange for 124 feet long span as described in A ppendix B According to that and the total bridge

PAGE 58

46 width, the model needed to be six girders of 6 .5 feet wide bridge. Figure 3.24 shows the detailed dimension s of the girder and T able 3.9 listed the information of each beam the model consists of The details of the cross section of the bridge are displayed in below fig ure 3.25 Figure 3 24 Decked Blub Tee girder cross section. Figure 3 25 Second model cross section.

PAGE 59

47 Table 3 9 : Beams data of decked b ul b tee bridge model. Beam # ID Loc prev Area MI(Ixx) Height Yb B top B bot ft in2 in4 in in in in 1 WF53DG 3.25 785 294350 53.00 31.71 78 38.38 2 WF53DG 6.5 785 294350 53.00 31.71 78 38.38 3 WF53DG 6.5 785 294350 53.00 31.71 78 38.38 4 WF53DG 6.5 785 294350 53.00 31.71 78 38.38 5 WF53DG 6.5 785 294350 53.00 31.71 78 38.38 6 WF53DG 6.5 785 294350 53.00 31.71 78 38.38 Low relaxation strands of 0.6 inches diameter also were used in this model and for all girders, which are meeting the requirements of ASTM A 416. The minimum clear distance between groups or individual strands shall be 2.3 but not less than 1.25" and The minimum cover for prestressing steel is 1.5". Two harping points has been used in the design per girder at 0.4L from each ends. The top flange should have 8 inches thickness at less to provide durable to traffic wear riding surface which able to absorb traffic collisions. 40 strands have been required for both external girders and 36 strands for all four interior girders. For exterior girders, the total prestressing area was 8.68 square inches

PAGE 60

48 draped at 0.40L (52.20 ft from member end) with strand end pattern of 16.6 inches and midspan pattern of 6.6 inches. The required jacking force for these two girders has been specified to be 1757.7 kips which is 75% of the tensile strength of the tendons (270 ksi ). On the other hand, ea ch interior girder has a total prestressing area of 7.812 square inches draped at 0.40L (52.20 ft from member end) with strand end pattern of 13.78 inches and midspan pattern of 5.44 inches. The required jacking force for these two girders has been specifi ed to be 1581.93 kips The six girders have been assumed to be rigidly longitudinally connected with connection transfers both moment and shear. This model consists of three main materials: concrete, steel rebar, and prestressing tendons. The properties of each material have been inputted manual ly to the program as figure 3.26 below shows. Figure 3 26 Material properties input window of LEAP CONSPAN of the second model.

PAGE 61

49 3.3.2.1 Model analysis Same as the first model, the load combinations for this model design were based on AASHTO LFRD Bridge Design Specifications 7 th edition, where ultimate loading capacity w as also based on all Service I, Service III, Strength I, and Fatigue I limit states. According to table s 3.4.1 1 and 3.4.1 2 in AASHTO LFRD, the load combinations and load factors were defined for each limit state as following: Service I: U = 1.00 DC + 1.00 DW + 1.00 LL Service III: U = 1.00 DC + 1.00 DW + 0.80 LL Strength I: U = 1.25/0.90 DC + 1.50/0.65 DW + 1.75 LL # $ Fatigue I: U = 1.50 LL Figure 3.27 next page shows how all these parameters inputted into the LEAP CONSPAN program. # $ For strength limit state two load combinations have been used. According to AASHTO LFRD Bridge Design Specifications 7 th edition, one maximum combination with 1.25 DC & 1.50 DW and one minimum combination with 0.90 DC & 0.65 DW

PAGE 62

50 Figure 3 27 Load factors for load combinations that were inputted into LEAP CONSPAN of the second model. Other parameters have been considered to establish completed design. Some of these para meters are showed in figure 3.28 where the unlimited concrete strain was assumed to be 0.003 in/in and the horizontal shear in beams and slab were included in the design.

PAGE 63

51 Figure 3 28 Moment and shear parameters that were specified in LEAP CONSPAN of the second model. The following four tables were borrowed from LEAP CONCPAN to show the envelopes of the four limit states at all different load components. One of the interior beams has been elected to show an example of analysis data.

PAGE 64

52 Table 3 10 : Shear and moment envelope of an interior beam for service limit state. shears : kips moments: kft Table 3 11 : Shear and moment envelope of an interior beam for service limit state. shears : kips moments: kft

PAGE 65

53 Table 3 12 : Shear and moment envelope of an interior beam for strength limit state. shears : kips moments: kft Table 3 13 : Shear and moment envelope of an interior beam for fatigue limit state. shears : kips moments: kft

PAGE 66

54 The flowing graphs have selected to exhibit part of the analysis result. Detailed information will clarify the data under each figure. Figure 3 29 Moment of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to the dead load of service limit state. Figure 3 30 Moment of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to the dead load of service limit state.

PAGE 67

55 Figure 3 31 Moment of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to the dead load of strength limit state Figure 3 32 Moment of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to the dead load of fatigue limit state.

PAGE 68

56 Figure 3 33 Moment of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to the live load of service limit state. Figure 3 34 Moment of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to the dead live of service limit state.

PAGE 69

57 Figure 3 35 Moment of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to the live load of strength limit state Figure 3 36 Moment of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to the live load of fatigue limit state.

PAGE 70

58 Figure 3 37 Shear of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to dead loads of service limit state. Figure 3 38 Shear of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to dead loads of strength limit state.

PAGE 71

59 Figure 3 39 Shear of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to live load of service limit state. Figure 3 40 Shear of an exterior beam after establishing rigid longitudinal joints due to live load of strength limit state.

PAGE 72

60 3.3.2.2 Design results The stresses at ten points along the girder have been checked with the stress limitations at release and final stresses as well. The following figure shows the stresses for one beam as an example of stress checking. Figure 3 41 Stress limits and com puted stresses for beam number 1 of LEAP CONSPAN second model.

PAGE 73

61 Figure 3 42 Stresses of an exterior beam at release according to service limit state. Figure 3 43 Stresses of an exterior beam at release according to service limit state.

PAGE 74

62 Figure 3 44 Final stresses of an exterior beam according to service limit state. Figure 3 45 Final stresses of an exterior beam according to service limit state.

PAGE 75

63 Also, shear reinforcement has been designed for all girders where two legs stirrups of 60 grade steel rebar were provided along the beam as following table lists the details: Table 3 14 : Shear stirrups that used along each girder as an outcome of the shear design of LEAP CONSPAN second model # of legs Size fy ( ksi ) Area (in2) Spacing (in) Start (ft) End (ft) Extends into Deck 2 US#4[M13] 60 0.4 3 0 2.25 No Deck 2 US#4[M13] 60 0.4 6 2.25 3.25 No Deck 2 US#4[M13] 60 0.4 9 3.25 4.75 No Deck 2 US#4[M13] 60 0.4 18 4.75 16.75 No Deck 2 US#4[M13] 60 0.4 15 16.75 24.25 No Deck 2 US#4[M13] 60 0.4 12 24.25 28.25 No Deck 2 US#4[M13] 60 0.4 15 28.25 37.00 No Deck 2 US#4[M13] 60 0.4 18 37.00 94.00 No Deck 2 US#4[M13] 60 0.4 15 94.00 102.75 No Deck 2 US#4[M13] 60 0.4 12 102.75 106.75 No Deck 2 US#4[M13] 60 0.4 15 106.75 114.25 No Deck 2 US#4[M13] 60 0.4 18 114.25 126.25 No Deck 2 US#4[M13] 60 0.4 9 126.25 127.75 No Deck 2 US#4[M13] 60 0.4 6 127.75 128.75 No Deck 2 US#4[M13] 60 0.4 3 128.75 131.00 No Deck Figure 3.46 below shows required shear capacity versus the provided for one of the s i x beams.

PAGE 76

64 Figure 3 46 Shear reinforcement design graph. LEAP CONSPAN creates a chart for each beam shows how the provided ultimate strength covers th e required capacity. Figure 3.47 is one of the six graphs of bulb tee girder model. Figure 3 47 Ultimate provided and required moments a lo ng an exterior beam according to strength limit state.

PAGE 77

65 3.4 Design Verification To prove that the analysis and design of the software that was used in this thesis, several parameters' hand calculations will be presented in this section and compare them with their counterparts in LEAP CONSPAN. Girder number two of the first model has been randomly selected to do the hand calculation for 3.4.1 Beam properties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ross section properties. Non Composite Section < ( FC) # .8 > # M ( :)+3*I # .8 > # N O ( I: 2 *I # .8 # N P ( I3 2 )* # .8 # Q.6!=6 # -=B% # R=.Q S 5 ( + 2 03 K FC) 0@@ ( + 2 C)C # ,.E %5

PAGE 78

66 Composite Section T U ( A S = # -V7BB=6 # ?% # W # X JLL @ ( 0)C 2 3 @ ( I) 2 I*3 # %5 ( IFF 2 3 # .8 # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # W # 0) 5 Y T L ) ( 0) K F Y @I ) ( 00* 2 3 # .8 # W # 4 ( 0+ 2 0* K 0) ( 0)) # .8 # Z # T U ( 0)) # .8 [ / ( II+++ # R / $ 2 \ % / # [ / ]^_` ( II+++ # + 2 03 $ 2 \ @ 2 3 ( @+:* # ,-. # [ / `a_b ( II+++ # + 2 03 $ 2 \ 0+ ( :+:) 2 3 # ,-. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # 8 ( [ / ]^_` [ / `a_b ( @+:* :+:) 2 3 ( + 2 :*: # Composite Section Properties are: < ( FC) # .8 > # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # 5 ( F # .8 # M ( :)+3*I # .8 c # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # N O ( I: 2 *I # 3.4.3 Stresses at supports @ release d ( E G ( 0FI 2 C K C 2 00@ ( 0:*: 2 +: # # ,.E# % OePPef ( d < # g # d # = 4 # < ( FC) # .8 > # # ; # # # # M ( :)+3*I # .8 > # # # ; # # # # N O ( I: 2 *I # .8 # = ( N O h # # iQ# j # -kEE ?65 # ( # # I: 2 *I h 0) 2 @F # ( # )@ 2 )3 # # .8 # 4 O ( # # M N O # ( # # :)+ # 3*I I: 2 *I # ( # # 0: # FC3 2 3 # # .8 l # % OePPef ( h # 0:*: 2 +: FC) h 0:*: 2 +: K )@ 2 )3 0: # FC3 2 3 #

PAGE 79

67 # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ( # h 0 2 F*C # h # # ) 2 @+: # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ( # h @ 2 )F3 # # # ,-. #
PAGE 80

68 3.4.5 Moment distribution f actor s r u ( 8 # # M Y < # = u > # 8 ( [ OJvf [ "wvO ( 0+ @ 2 3 ( 0 2 @C # # # ; # # # # # = u ( N P Y 5 ) ( I3 2 )* Y @ ( IC 2 )* # # .8 # r u ( # 0 2 @C # :)+ # 3*I Y FC) K IC 2 )* > ( ) # C*3 # :CI # # # .8 c # I 2 3 p # # # # # # # 4 ( 0+ 2 0* # # %5 # # # # # # # x 0: # @ 2 3 p # # # # # # # # # # 5 ( F # # .8 # # # # # # # # # # # # p 0) # )+ # p # # # # # # # X ( 0)C 2 3 # # %5 # # # # # # # p )@+ ykVT=6 # ?% # z=7V( @ # 0+ # +++ p # u ( ) # C*3 # :CI # p # +++ # +++ # {|}~{€ # ~‚ƒ h €|~ # „‚|~ # …† ( + 2 +: Y # 4 0@ # ‡ 2 c K # 4 X # ‡ 2 l K r u 0) # X # 5 l ‡ 2 $ # # # # # # # # ( + 2 +: Y # 0+ 2 0* 0@ # ‡ 2 c K # 0+ 2 0* 0)C 2 3 # ‡ 2 l K ) # C*3 # :CI 0) K 0)C 2 3 K F l ‡ 2 $ # # # # # # # # ( + 2 3)F # # K r u 0) # X # 5 l ‡ 2 $ # # # # # # # # ( + 2 +*3 Y # 0+ 2 0* C 2 3 # ‡ 2 Š K # 0+ 2 0* 0)C 2 3 # ‡ 2 > K ) # C*3 # :CI 0) K 0)C 2 3 K F l ‡ 2 $ # # # # # # # ( + 2 *FC #

PAGE 81

69 y B l )@ # [M Y s # X > F # [M # # # # # ( + 2 @ # I h @ + 2 @ > # K )+ 2 :3: # 0)C 2 3 K 0) l )@ # 3 # )3+ 2 ): K :)+ # 3*I Y @+ # :@@ 2 @33 # K # 0)C 2 3 K 0) > F # 3 # )3+ 2 ): K :)+ # 3*I # # # # # ( + 2 CI: # Y # # I 2 *:3 # # # # # ( @ 2 *+) # # # # .8 # # # # # # # # kER76! #
PAGE 82

70 CHAPTER DISCUSSION 4.1 Cost E stimation Project cost estimating is an important part of project planning and execution where it is the biggest issue to consider for any project. Only the cost of the superstructure for each model will be inspected assuming that both projects are constructed on the same substructure. The most expensive elements in superstructure construction are the girders and the bridge d e ck including transportation and installation costs. In order to get accurate and verified estimated cost for both models, help from a leading supplier of prestressed and precast products in the United States has been requested The gi rder cost is given for each foot length and the deck cost is provided for each one square foot. According to the dimensions of each girder, their compressive strength, and their prestressing, the cost of each element has been calculated as subsequent: The c onventional BT72 girder of the first model cost is $300 per foot long including the transportation and insulation. The decked b u l b tee girder of the second model cost is $425 per foot long including the transportation and insulation. The cost of the cast in place deck is $34 per square. The total expense s of each model are:

PAGE 83

71 4.1.1 8 inch deck model cost. This model consists of 4 girders with 130.5 feet precast length and 39 feet wide deck. Thus, the total cost of this superstructure is about: #$% & ( ( )* ( $%% ( ( + )* $( ( )* ( #$% & ( ( )* $! ( ( + )* / + $0( 1!$ ( 4.1.2 Decked Bulb Tee model cost. This model consists of only six decked girders with 130.5 feet precast length 1 #$% & ( ( )* ( !0' ( ( + )* / + $$0 ( 22' ( 4.2 Conclusion The two models that have been de signed in this paper are designed for same load capacity and they have same span length and overall width. The primary objective of this work was to stimulate and encourage departments of transportation to use Accelerated Bridge Concertation ABC more often in their future projects; and therefore, they are considering a bridge construction method that is expected to reduce the total construction time, improve public acceptance, reduce accident risk, and yield economic and environmental benefits. That has bee n done by developing a long span decked precast, pre stressed concrete girder bridge as a model of Accelerated Bridge Construction projects along with developing another model of conventional construction bridge for the same project. In order to show the benefits of using ABC, a brief co mparison between the two models has been established as following:

PAGE 84

72 The cost s of construction for the two models are very close to each other. That cost is only the cost of supplies and inst a llation the superstructure. When we consider the time of the constructions, labor cost for each project, lifetime cost, and the cost of implementing each project, ABC construction would be favored method to build that project. Concrete curing is a time consuming task that can take up to 2 8 days to gain full strength Thus, the superstructure of the first model requires 28 days only for its deck to cure. On the other hand, the superstructure of the second model can be installed and opened to traffic in few hours. According to (McMullen, 20 15), an average of 64 bridges are constructed and replaced yearly in Colorado. If all 1081 bridges that have been built in Colorado between 1993 and 2013 have been built by using ABC, most of the over two million crashes in Colorado's construction zones du ring that 21 years that caused 221 deaths would not have accrued and many lives would have been saved In addition to that significant amount of losses in public and private properties would have been minimized, where ABC improves w ork zone safety for the traveling public C onstructing a bridge with ABC technologies is cost effective way, where i n many cases, the direct and indirect costs of traffic detours that result from the loss of a bridge during construction can exceed the actu al cost of the structure itself with all significant economic impact s on commercial and industrial activities in the area With the short construction time that ABC offers, the need for many of that detours can be eliminated

PAGE 85

73 Since construction is considered as one of the main s ources of environmental pollution in the world. ABC with the life cycle cost benefits enhance s the preservation of a healthy environment. 4.3 Recommendations The main benefit of using Prefabricated Bridge Elements System is to accelerate the construction and reduce traffic impact time, so contractors need to ensure that the individual members of the bridge prefabricated off site and they are ready when needed at the site. Camber should be within (L/800 +1/2 inches) at all times in service, considering the va riability of dead loads, prestressing force and eccentricity, shrinkage, differential shrinkage, creep, initial and final concrete strengths, girder properties, and any other factors 4.4 Suggested F urther R esearch With using decked precast concrete girders connections between adjacent units and longitudinal joints are the most design concerns and construction issues. I n addition, longitudinal camber and cross slope, live load distribution, continuity for live load, lateral load resistance, skew effects, ma intenance, replaceability, and other factors can influence constructibility and performance of decked girder bridges. Thus, Research is needed to address the issues that significantly affect the performance of long span decked precast, prestressed concrete girder bridges and to develop guidelines for their design and construction.

PAGE 86

74 REFERENCES Culmo, M. P. (November 2011). Accelerated bridge construction experience in design, fabrication and erection of prefabricated bridge elements and systems. Federal Highway Administration. Grace, N. F., Bebawy, M. (March 2015). Evaluation and analysis of decked bulb t beam bridges Mary, L. R., Benjamin, M. T. (December 2003). Laying the groundwork for fast bridge construction Public Roads, 67 (3). McMullen, M. L., Li, C. (September 2015). Feasibility study of developing and creating a standardized subset of bridge plans. Colorado Department of Transportation. Oesterle, R.G., Elremaily, A. F. (July 2009). Guidelines for design and construction of decked precast pre stressed concrete girder bridges. PBES Cost study : Accelerated Bridge Construction success s tories (2006). Federal Highway Administration 5 8. T he A merican s ociety of c ivil e ngineers (2013). Report c ard for America' s i nfrastructure United S tates D epa rtment of T ransportation, Federal Highway Administration (December 2015). Deficient bridges by h ighway s ystem

PAGE 87

75 APPENDIX A CDOT PLAN SET OF THE BRIDGE THAT HAS BEEN DESIGNED

PAGE 88

76

PAGE 89

77

PAGE 90

78

PAGE 91

79

PAGE 92

80

PAGE 93

81

PAGE 94

82

PAGE 95

83

PAGE 96

84

PAGE 97

85

PAGE 98

86

PAGE 99

87

PAGE 100

88

PAGE 101

89

PAGE 102

90

PAGE 103

91

PAGE 104

92

PAGE 105

93 APPENDIX B DECKED GIRDER S ECTIONS A DOPTED BY WS DOT