th

9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

DESIGN OF AN INNOVATIVE SUPPORT SCHEME TO

STRENGTHEN TARBAN CREEK BRIDGE AT HUNTERS
HILL IN SYDNEY
Salah Assi, Roads and Maritime Services (RMS), Australia
Lindsay Brown, Roads and Maritime Services (RMS), Australia
Mark Bennett, Roads and Maritime Services (RMS), Australia
ABSTRACT
The bridge on Burns Bay Road over Tarban Creek in the inner western Sydney suburb of
Hunters Hill is an iconic structure in Sydney Harbour. The main span of this bridge is 90m long
and comprises five prestressed concrete ribs. Each rib consists of two inclined portal legs
supporting a cantilever beam. The beam and the portal legs form an elegant arch shaped
structure. Cantilever beam extensions support the adjacent approach spans at half joints.
Severe corrosion was identified in the tendons of each portal leg and a retrofit was carried out in
1970. This retrofit was investigated in 2004 because of maintenance concerns and increasing
traffic loading on the bridge.
Due to the high risks it was decided that further strengthening of the portal leg structure was
justified. Bridge inspections have also revealed that the bearings and cross girders at the half
joints located at the end of the cantilever beams are severely damaged and require
replacement. RMS Bridge and Structural Engineering initiated and developed an innovative
support scheme design. In this design, the cantilevered beams of the main span will be
supported and jacked from new permanent Pier frames to precompress the portal legs. This will
balance unacceptable tensile stresses under serviceability loadings and thereby strengthen the
arched shaped structure. This design is currently under construction and has substantially lower
cost and provides easier constructability than other proposals considered in the past. The new
Pier frames provide a permanent working platform for rehabilitating the half joints and for their
inspection in the future.
This paper outlines the lessons learnt from the various retrofit design options investigated and
describes the adopted innovative support scheme design to strengthen the structure.

Figure 1: Existing Tarban Creek Bridge

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

Figure 2: Cantilevered main span beams

and half joint with existing cross girder

th

9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

EXISTING BRIDGE DESCRIPTION

The bridge was completed and opened to traffic in 1965. The overall bridge length of 230m
includes a main central span of 90m and eight approach spans of approximately 17m each. The
deck width of 28m provides for six traffic lanes, a median and one footway.

Figure 3: Existing bridge general arrangement

The prestressed concrete structure forming the main 90m span comprises five parallel ribs, 3m
wide and spaced at 5.8m centres. Each rib consists of two inclined portal legs supporting a
cantilever beam. The beam and portal legs form an elegant arch shaped structure. At the end
of each cantilever, there is a corbel that supports the dapped end of the adjacent spans. The
finger plate deck joint above each half joint has no drainage trough beneath it. Dirt build-up and
water leaking through the joint has clogged up the half joint and lead to significant deterioration
of the concrete cross girders.
The beam and portal legs were constructed from tapered precast concrete box segments. A
system of post tensioned tendons joins all the segments of each rib together. The ribs are
connected transversely by reinforced concrete diaphragms between the beams above the portal
legs, and at the cantilevered ends.
The four approach spans either side of the main span are 17m in length and consist of precast
prestressed concrete girders with a reinforced concrete deck slab. The girders of the approach
span nearest the main span have dapped ends that rest on elastomeric bearings located at the
half joint. The dapped ends of the girders were connected with reinforced concrete cross girders
and were not designed for jacking to replace the bearings even under dead loads only.
The piers that provide the remaining supports for the approach spans consist of slender
reinforced concrete rectangular columns, and the bridge abutments are also constructed from
reinforced concrete.
The main bridge span was constructed as follows:
The precast portal leg units were erected on temporary supports with flat jacks installed in
two rows at the tops of the portal legs.
The main beam precast segments were erected on falsework and post tensioned.
The main beams were hoisted and traversed into position over the portal legs.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

th

9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

The flat jacks were extended to lift the main beam, induce axial thrust, and stress the portal
leg tendons.
The flat jacks and post tensioning ducts were grouted.
The adjacent approach span beams were erected, supported on the half joint, and precast
deck slab panels were installed.
The post tensioning of the main beam was completed and the cross girders and in-situ deck
slab were cast.
Although the structure appears to be an arch it is actually a portal frame with inclined legs and
cantilever extensions.
For a construction sequence drawing, refer to Figure 14 attached to the end of this paper.

CORROSION OF TENDONS AND INITIAL REPAIR IN 1970

When the ducts in the portal legs were grouted with cementitious material, the tendons at the
joints between precast portal leg units were incorrectly packed with a high sulphate cement
grout compound (Plaster of Paris), which was highly corrosive to the tendons. Inspection four
years after construction revealed damaged tendons with section loss of 80% to 100% in all
portal legs of the arch span.
While a solution was developed, temporary props were installed under the half joints. A retrofit
system was designed in 1970 and installed at two joints in each portal leg. This system
consisted of external prestressing strands across each joint. The anchorage plates were bonded
to the inside of the existing concrete box section with epoxy adhesive. The wall thickness of the
precast box segments is only 6 Inches (152 mm) and did not allow the mechanical attachment
of the anchorage plates to the box segments. These plates and strands were encased in
concrete, and the temporary props were removed

Figure 4: 1970 retrofit repair inside portal

leg

Figure 5: View of main span ribs

NEED FOR REHABILITATION

With time there was increasing concern as to the long term performance of the epoxy bonding
of the pretressing anchorage plates. Even though the risk of failure was considered to be low,
the potential consequences are extreme. Further inspection in 2008 identified severe
deterioration of the cross girders and bearings at the half joints.
The decision was made to proceed with a major rehabilitation of the bridge.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

th

9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Portal Leg Retrofit System

In 2004, due to maintenance concerns and the increasing traffic load on the bridge, RMS
undertook an investigation and assessment of the 1970 retrofit system. This investigation
identified the following:
The durability and long term behaviour of the epoxy adhesive could be an issue as there is
no long term information available on this material.
The possibility of debonding of the epoxied anchorage plates, although unlikely, would result
in the potential instability of the structure.
The above findings warranted further rehabilitation of the structure to eliminate uncertainties
in the performance of the bridge, and the possibility of the development of a high risk
situation due to potential structural instability.
A structural assessment was carried out and several options for strengthening the portal leg of
the arch were investigated in detail by experts from both Consultants and RMS Bridge and
Structural Engineering, in consultation with RMS Sydney Asset Section and RMS Sydney
Project Services.

Cross Girders and Bearings at Half Joint

An inspection carried out in 2008 identified that some of the bearings and most cross girders at
the half joints located at the end of the cantilever beams of the arch shaped structure are
severely damaged and require replacement. There is also an ongoing need to flush out the gap
behind these cross girders below the deck joint.

Figure 6: Damaged cross girder at half joint

Figure 7: Elastomeric bearing at half joint

INVESTIGATED OPTIONS
RMS engaged a consultant to assess the capacity of the existing structure, and to investigate
options for the rehabilitation of the portal legs. Their preferred option was the installation of new
external prestressing. RMS Bridge and Structural Engineering reviewed this design, and it was
not considered suitable due to the infeasibility of attaching anchorages to the thin walls of the
ribs. Moreover, the identified adverse effect of additional prestress forces on the existing
structure could not be solved with a feasible engineering solution. Alternative options were also
investigated by RMS, some of which were:
Strengthening with Fibre Reinforced Polymer. This was discussed with specialists from the
University of NSW and it was agreed that it was unsuitable.
Splicing of the original tendons. This was discussed with VSL Australia. This was also
considered unsuitable.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

th

9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Construction of a reinforced concrete infill at each joint. The weight of the infill will impose
unacceptable stresses on the existing structure and it was considered unsuitable.

RMS INITIAL DESIGN SOLUTION

RMSs initial design solution to strengthen the portal legs involved installing a grouted steel
plate jacket across the segment joints where the tendons were corroded. A 30 mm thickness of
cement mortar grout was to be pumped between the steel jacket and the existing structure. The
steel jackets would be made composite with the existing section in the locations away from the
joints where the original tendons have retained their full strength. This would be achieved using
high strength steel bolts to develop clamping forces between the steel box, cement mortar, and
existing portal legs.
While feasible, the construction of this option, with initially estimated construction cost of $10M,
will require additional work such as, upgrade the access inside the ribs, control of traffic and the
final estimated construction cost was very high ($40M).
The damage to the cross girder and bearing was identified, after the preparation of the initial
design to strengthen the portal legs, and subsequently a design to replace the damaged cross
girders was also prepared, and required the building of a safe temporary access, estimated to
cost $3.5M. There is also an ongoing cost associated with future maintenance, jacking and
replacement of bearings located at the half joint.

Figure 8: Photomontage of initial solution

RMS FINAL DESIGN SOLUTION

In response to these challenges, RMS Bridge and Structural Engineering initiated and
developed an innovative and cost effective design solution that involves the construction of new
permanent Pier frames under the half joint at the ends of the main span cantilever beams.
Jacking up and supporting the ends of the cantilever from the new Pier frame beams
precompresses the portal legs and eliminates the tensile stresses in the portal legs at the
serviceability limit state for all load combinations.
This solution alters the flow of forces in the structure, eliminating the need to rehabilitate the
portal legs at the joints. It also eliminates the need to build a temporary access to replace the
cross girder and bearings. It provides substantial savings in construction cost and improved
constructability compared with other designs and provides a safe work platform for future
maintenance work at the half joint.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

th

9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

This design has the following advantages over other options:

The cost saving compared to the previously prepared strengthening option is dramatic, as
the estimated construction cost is only $11M, compared to the estimated cost of
strengthening the arch of $40M.
The construction of the cross girder can be carried out concurrently with the construction of
the support scheme, with an estimated cost saving of $3M.
Substantial improvement is provided in the structural behaviour of the portal legs that
eliminates the potential high risk situation that could arise in the event of failure of the epoxy
adhesive used in the 1970 joint repair.
Safe access is provided to repair damaged cross girders and bearings, and permanent
support is provided for ongoing maintenance including flushing and cleaning the gap behind
the cross girder under the deck joint to eliminate further damage of these girders.
The solution is easy to construct, eliminates traffic delays and ensures safety of road users.
The necessity to work in a confined space is eliminated, which is safer for workers.
For sketch drawings of the new support scheme including general arrangement and elevation of
portal frames, refer to Figures 15 17 at the end of this paper.

Figure 9: Pile cap and piles during

construction

Figure 10: Construction under traffic from

a barge

COLLABORATION WITH URBAN DESIGNERS

The highly scenic nature of this part of Sydney Harbour, the character and aesthetic qualities of
the bridge, and the many residential properties around it, necessitated investigation of options to
improve the aesthetics of the support scheme.
The configuration of this support scheme was developed by RMS Urban Design Section, and
their consultant Hassell Studio in collaboration with RMS Sydney Asset Section, RMS Sydney
Project Services and RMS Bridge and Structural Engineering.
A set of options were presented to the public whose feedback was sought. The vast majority
agreed with the preferred option presented to them. It comprises a simple portal frame pier that
straddles the existing portal legs, with columns that are tapered to help match the form of the
other bridge components. This option best respects the significant architectural qualities of the
bridge and minimises the visual impact on the elegant form of the arch. Additionally, situating
the new piers outside and away from the existing arch also minimised visual complexity and
interference with the existing bridge.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

th

9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Figure 11: Photomontage of early option

Figure 12: Photomontage of adopted scheme

after collaboration with urban designers

CHALLENGES IN STRUCTURAL DETAILING

The preferred shape after urban design input presented some challenges that needed to be
overcome:
The portal frame with columns outside the existing portal legs required a longer clear span
for the pier headstock, so more post tensioning and a deeper section were required to
control deflection.
The tapered pier columns meant that the width available for post tensioning anchorage was
limited.
These challenges were overcome by using two vertical columns of six rows of draped post
tensioning tendons. The anchorage type incorporated anchor plates on a recessed surface,
which were later cast in. This required less width than embedded anchorages, without
compromising durability. The tendons were draped such that the end segments of each one was
level and parallel, enabling the anchorage plates to be placed in the same plane, making the
most efficient use of the limited room. In addition, a self-compacting concrete mix was specified
for this design for part of the headstocks above the columns to overcome the limited space in
the anchorage zone and to eliminate the need for manual compaction in this area.

Figure 13: Half height end of beam constructed for testing of self-compacted concrete
mix

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

th

9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

CROSS GIRDER REPLACEMENT DESIGN

The design of the replacement cross girder has to overcome the following constraints:
The functions for which the existing cross girder was designed needed to be performed,
including stiffening of the edge of the deck slab, and distribution of lateral forces to the
bearings.
A wider gap at the half joint is required to permit inspection, flushing and maintenance
beneath the expansion joint.
The girder spacing is approximately equal to lane width, which necessitates the replacement
of one cross girder at a time to eliminate closure of more than one traffic lane.
Prolonged closure of traffic is not permissible.
The construction is to be carried out concurrently with the construction of the support
scheme.
To overcome the restriction on traffic closures, it was determined that the cross girder should be
fabricated from steel, allowing fast installation using bolted connections. The need to connect to
the existing precast girders presented the following challenges:
The drawings of the original bridge do not give sufficient detail of the post tensioning
anchorages in the dapped ends of the existing precast girders.
Non destructive testing of the dapped ends that are accessible without demolishing the
existing cross girders did not result in locating these anchorages with sufficient confidence to
permit drilling into these dapped ends.
Lack of adequate room around this anchorage to drill holes for replacement steel
embedment for new cross girder.

PREPARED CROSS GIRDER REHABILITATION DESIGN

RMS developed a design to replace the damaged cross girder during the construction of the
support scheme.
This design consists of a replacement steel edge stiffening beam under the edge of the deck
slab, which will be supported at each end by steel girders placed alongside the prestressed
girders, which in turn will be supported by brackets clamped to the side of the prestressed girder
away from the end anchorage.
This design overcomes the constraints while minimising interruptions to traffic. It also requires
no drilling into the dapped ends of the girders. For sketches and perspective drawing of the new
cross girder arrangement, refer to Figures 18 and 19 at the end of this paper.

CONCLUSIONS
An innovative support scheme design to strengthen the Tarban Creek Bridge at Hunters Hill has
been developed to provide a cost effective and constructible solution. This design is currently
under construction and resulted in a potential saving of approximately $30 million, compared
with other suitable strengthening options. The design is easy to construct, eliminates traffic
delays, eliminates work in confined spaces, and ensures the safety of the road users.
This support scheme could be used to strengthen other bridges with half joints located away
from the supports.
The new permanent Pier frames will serve as a work platform for rehabilitating the half joints
and bearings and provides a safe access for future inspection and any required maintenance of
the half joint.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

th

9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Figure 14: Construction sequence drawing

APPENDIX

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

th

Figure 15: General arrangement of new support scheme

9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

10

th

Figure 16: Elevation of new support scheme portal frames

9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

11

Figure 17: Plan and elevation of new portal frames, showing the tapered cross section of the columns

9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

th

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

12

th

9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Figure 18: Concept sketch showing new cross girder configuration

Figure 19: 3D perspective of new cross girder arrangement between existing beams

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

13

th

9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We acknowledge the contribution to the project team members and Wije Ariyartane, Martin
Gormley, Neil Forrest and Gareth Collins from RMS.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Salah Assi, Bridge Engineer (New Design), Bridge Engineering, RMS. Salah is a
Civil/Structural Engineer with more than 27 years experience in bridge and structure design and
construction supervision, of which more than 24 years were in Bridge Engineering of the RMS.
He has extensive experience in the design of complex bridge projects, including prestressed
concrete and steel bridges and bridge widening and rehabilitation. His wide experience also
covers review of consultants complex designs and provision of training and technical advice
during design and construction of numerous bridge projects. He has been working as a design
team leader in Bridge Engineering for the last sixteen years.
Lindsay Brown, Project Engineer, Bridge New Design. Lindsay Brown graduated from the
University of Sydney in Civil Project Engineering and Management in 2002. Joining the RTA as
a graduate engineer, he was involved in the construction of the Pacific Hwy Karuah Bypass, and
worked for a short time as a site engineer on small road construction projects. He then worked
for four years as a project engineer for Bridge Assessment & Evaluation Section, specialising in
bridge assessment of heavy loads and higher productivity vehicles, and also conducting
structural inspections, detailed analyses, and bridge performance testing. Since 2008, he has
worked in New Bridge Design Section doing concept and detailed design of steel and concrete
bridges, along with some complex rehabilitation design.
Mark Bennett is the Senior Bridge Engineer (New Design), Bridge and Structural Engineering,
Roads & Maritime Services, NSW. He has been chairman of the sub-committee responsible for
the bearing and deck joint Part of the Australian bridge codes since 1990. He has over 35 years
experience in the design, construction and maintenance of bridges. He was the Resident
Engineer on the construction of the Bridge over the Murray River at Mildura and has worked in
the design teams of many major bridges in NSW including the Anzac Bridge and Alfords Point
Bridge.
Copyright Licence Agreement
The Author allows ARRB Group Ltd to publish the work/s submitted for the 9th Austroads Bridge
Conference, granting ARRB the non-exclusive right to:
publish the work in printed format
publish the work in electronic format
publish the work online.
The Author retains the right to use their work, illustrations (line art, photographs, figures, plates) and
research data in their own future works
The Author warrants that they are entitled to deal with the Intellectual Property Rights in the works
submitted, including clearing all third party intellectual property rights and obtaining formal permission from
their respective institutions or employers before submission, where necessary.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014

14