Você está na página 1de 10

2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 32

Use of Single Pot Bearings to Reduce Uplifting on


Curved Narrow Segmental Bridges

Bo Hu1, Ph.D., P.E. and Morad G. Ghali2, P.E.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ of Iowa Libraries on 08/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1
PBS&J, 4030 West Boy Scout Boulevard, Tampa, Florida 33607; PH (813)282-7275;
FAX (813)282-8155; email: bhu@pbsj.com
2
PBS&J, 4030 West Boy Scout Boulevard, Tampa, Florida 33607; PH (813)282-7275;
FAX (813)282-8155; email: mgghali@pbsj.com

ABSTRACT

Due to the severe curvature and narrow box girder width, along with small
ratios of the anchor span to the main span at many locations of the I-4 Connector, the
use of two bearings per box resulted in a significant uplift. PBS&J investigated
several alternatives including outriggers and modifications to the erection sequence to
eliminate the uplifting. Most of the options investigated were expensive, not practical
or aesthetically not pleasing. With the cooperation of the FDOT central office, a
single pot bearing support was introduced at the end of the anchor span for certain
units. This paper will discuss the approach of the design, several implemented details,
and the limitation of the proposed method.

INTRODUCTION

Bearing uplift is an undesirable behavior for bridges. It will potentially cause


unstable structure supports, early failure of bearing assemblies, and bridge walking
etc. Hence it is prohibited in the AASHTO LRFD design specifications unless
sufficient tie-downs are provided.
Torsional moment at the bearing locations is the major cause of bearing
uplifting for box girder bridges. In straight box girder bridges, torsional moment in
superstructure is caused mainly by eccentric live load. However, in curved bridges,
the bending moment and the torsional moment are coupled due to the structure
curvature, so torsional moment will be caused by dead load too. In post-tensioned
curved box girder bridges, post-tensioning also provides bending moment and

Structures Congress 2010


2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 33

therefore torsional moment in the superstructure, which introduces addtional uplifting


force at the bearing locations.
This paper is to discuss the bearing uplifting issues in post-tensioned curved
box girder bridges constructed using the balanced cantilever method. A case study
with a unit in I-4/Lee Roy Selmon Connector Interchange project is presented to
show an innovative solution to bearing uplifting problems for curved narrow
segmental box girder bridges. The limitation of the solution is also discussed.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ of Iowa Libraries on 08/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

BEARING REACTION OF CURVED BRIDGES CONSTRUCTED WITH


BALANCED CANTILEVER METHOD

Bearing reactions in post-tensioned curved concrete box girder bridges


constructed using the balanced cantilever method were investigated by Hu and Huang
(2009). The research prototype bridge models were three span single box girder
bridges with different curvatures. Figure 1 presents the bearing reaction results under
dead load, post-tensioning, and total load effects, including time-dependent effect.
The bearing reaction ratio is the ratio of bearing reactions between curved bridge
models and the straight bridge model.
It can be observed that under dead load, the curvature will yield less reaction
for the interior bearings at the end bents and exterior bearings at the intermediate
piers. Under post-tensioning, curvature has significant effects on the bearing reaction
ratios. These noteworthy ratios may not have important contributions to the final
bearing reactions, since the bearing reactions caused by post-tensioning in straight
bridges are only secondary effects compared to that caused by self-weight. After
combining the dead load and post-tensioning load effects, together with the time-
dependent effect, as shown in Figure 1 (c), curvature effects have very limited impact
on the interior pier bearing reactions. For radius as tight as 300 ft, the interior pier
bearing reactions are still within 10% different from that in straight bridges. However,
end bent bearing reaction show significant dependence on curvature. For 300 ft radius
bridges, the interior and exterior end bearing reactions are 40% and 160% of that in
straight bridges.
Hence the interior bearings at the end bent is most likely to have uplifting
problems in curved post-tensioning box girder bridges constructed with balanced
cantilever method.

Structures Congress 2010


2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 34
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ of Iowa Libraries on 08/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) Bearing Reaction Due to Dead Load (b) Bearing Reaction Due to Post-
Tensioning

(c) Final Bearing Reaction


Figure 1 Bearing Reaction for Post-Tensioned Concrete Box Girder Bridges

SOLUTIONS FOR BEARING UPLIFTING

Bearing uplifting caused by torsional moment can be expressed as:


ࡹࢀ
ࡾ࢛࢖࢒࢏ࢌ࢚࢏࢔ࢍ ൌ െࡾ (1)
ࡰ࢈ࢋࢇ࢘࢏࢔ࢍ

in which ‫ ்ܯ‬is the torsional moment, ‫ܦ‬௕௘௔௥௜௡௚ is the bearing distance, and R is the
compressive bearing reaction due to the shear force.

Bearing uplifting is acceptable if the bridge is designed with up-lifting resistant


bearing assemblies or structural integration of the superstructure and the substructure.
When resisting the bearing uplifting is not a desirable option, it needs to be reduced to
an acceptable level. From the Equation (1), it is straightforward that there are three
ways to achieve the goal. One is to increase the bearing compressive reaction, the

Structures Congress 2010


2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 35

other is to increase the bearing distance, and the third is to reduce the torsional
moment.
Increasing the bearing compressive reaction usually means to have unnecessary
dead load, such as balance weights. Using a heavier material in the end span than in
the intermediate spans would also provide this benefit. However, the complexity of
the connection often outweighs the benefits, and therefore this approach is feasible
only in certain types of long-span bridges.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ of Iowa Libraries on 08/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

When the bottom slab soffit is not wide enough to provide sufficient bearing
distances to reduce the uplifting force, using outriggers is a common technique for
increasing bearing distance. Although it is an effective method the disadvantages are
obvious. It will increase the construction cost, increase the complexity of the detailing,
and cause additional rebar and/or PT duct congestion in the diaphragm.
Torsional moment at the bearing locations can be adjusted by using different
bearing layouts. Figure 2 shows two typical bearing layouts for curved box girder
bridges. In Figure 2 (a), each bearing location has a torsion resistant bearing system,
therefore each bearing needs to be checked against uplifting. This layout is usually
adopted in bridges with large radius and relatively long span length, so all bearings
can contribute to resist the applied torsional moment. In Figure 2 (b), only two end
bearings are torsion resistant, and all the intermediate bearings provide only vertical
support. The Figure 2 (b) layout eliminates the torsional moment and therefore the
uplifting issues for the intermediate bearings, and is often used in bridges with tight
curvatures. It should be noted that in this layout the two end bearings sometimes
require outriggers to take the torsional moments.

(a) (b)

Figure 2 Typical Bearing Layouts for Concrete Box Girder Bridges

DESCRIPTION OF THE BRIDGE

The unit 9-1 of I-4/Lee Roy Selmon Express Connector, the first unit of Ramp
S (Bridge 9), is a five span continuous girder bridge with constant single box section.
The typical section is 30 feet, 1 inch in width, and 9 feet, one half inch in depth,

Structures Congress 2010


2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 36

which includes one half inch sacrificial thickness, as shown in Figure 3. The span
layout was determined by ground constraints and is 113ft+180ft+178ft+178+112 ft.
The radius of the unit alignment is 612.5 feet.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ of Iowa Libraries on 08/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 3 Typical Section

The unit is to be constructed


using the balanced cantilever method.
Typical construction sequence will be
followed, with precast segments
erected first in two cantilevers from
each intermediate pier. Cast-in-place
span closure will be carried out from
one end of the bridge to the other.
Cantilever erection tendons are
internal, while the continuity tendons
are external.
For design consistency and
construction simplicity, the typical
substructure and bearing systems at
each pier location are single column
piers with two bearings underneath
two webs of the box section, as shown
in Figure 4.
The 3-D beam finite element
Figure 4 Typical Substructure and
Bearing Support analysis (FEA) was carried out with

Structures Congress 2010


2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 37

LARSA 4D, which include 3-D post-tensioning effect, construction stage analysis,
and time dependent effects. Figure 5 shows the 3D FEM model of the bridge.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ of Iowa Libraries on 08/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 5 FEM model of the Unit

UPLIFTING PROBLEM AND THE SOLUTION

Preliminary analysis showed significant uplifting force in the interior bearings


at two ends. Under eccentric live load, the maximum uplifting at the interior bearing
of the two ends at AASHTO LRFD Service I limit state are 711 kips and 64 kips. The
cause for the significant uplifting in the interior bearing at the ends is a combined
action of severe curvature and the short end span length, which is supposed to provide
enough dead load reactions to resist uplifting in end bearings.
The solutions discussed in previous section were first considered to solve the
uplifting issue. Increasing the dead load reaction would require additional concrete
filling in the box or extending the end span length. It would make the solution not
economically feasible. Using outriggers for this bridge will result in a wider outrigger
than the deck width, which needs an oversized end bent, and this option was also
excluded due to economical concerns. Adjusting the torsional moment in the
superstructure is the only option left. If the typical layout of using single support
bearing at intermediate piers is adopted, it will cause inconsistent construction for the
whole unit, and cannot guarantee the elimination of outriggers. An innovative

Structures Congress 2010


2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 38

solution is needed to present an economical design and have least impact on design
and construction consistency.
Considering the deck width of the section, a single bearing solution at the ends
was adopted in the final design. The solution is to use a single multi-rotational
bearing instead of a typical two bearing system underneath the two webs. It provides
a torsion free support; therefore no torsional uplifting will develop in the bearing.
Figure 6 shows the three views of the end diaphragm and the end bent.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ of Iowa Libraries on 08/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)End Elevation (b) Side Elevation

(c) Plan View


Figure 6 Single Multirotational Bearing for the End Bent

To investigate if using the proposed single bearing support at the bridge ends,
instead of typical two bearing supports, will cause any significant change in the
structural behaviors of the superstructure, Figure 7 presents the comparison of
torsional moment, bending moment, and shear force distributions in both cases. It can
be observed that using one bearing at the ends greatly reduces the torsional moment
in the end spans. Even with torsional moment increase in certain locations, it tends to
balance the magnitude of torsional moment in different directions. Bending moment
is slightly increased mainly in intermediate spans, and will not significantly change

Structures Congress 2010


2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 39

the design. Shear force distribution among these two bearing layouts are almost
identical. Therefore, using single bearing at the bridge ends will not cause
unfavorable change in the superstructure design.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ of Iowa Libraries on 08/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) Torsional Moment (b) Bending Moment

(c) Shear Force


Figure 7 Structural Response Comparison

With the single bearing adopted at the bridge ends, the maximum service
bearing reaction is 848 kips. The maximum service rotation at the bearing location is
0.008 radian, much lower than the capacity of 0.03 radian. The maximum deflection
at the exterior design lane center due to section rotation is 0.34 inch.

DETAILING
The detailing of the end diaphragms with single bearing need to be modified to
accommodate the change in geometry and load transfer path. The Florida Department
of Transportation (FDOT) Structure Design Guidelines require a minimum access

Structures Congress 2010


2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 40

opening of 32 inches by 42 inches in box girder diaphragms. Typical access opening


in box girder diaphragms is flush with the bottom slab. In the design of this special
diaphragm, the access opening has to be raised by 2’-3” to enable the bottom slab
have enough concrete thickness to resist the bearing reaction effects. Hence, to
facilitate the maintenance equipment movement, a 20 feet long concrete ramp is
provided inside the box. Figure 8 presents the raise of the access opening and the
placement of the concrete ramp. To prevent surface cracking, a layer of welded-wire-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ of Iowa Libraries on 08/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

fabric is provided in the concrete ramp.

(a) Section at the Diaphragm (b) Longitudinal Section

Figure 8 Concrete Ramp for Single Bearing Diaphragms

As two bearings are reduced to one, the load transfer path at the end
diaphragm is also changed. Figure 9 shows the strut-and-tie models of the top
reinforcement design for typical diaphragms and diaphragms with single bearing. For
single bearing diaphragms, the shear force in the webs is transferred to the bearing in
an angle of 40º, much smaller than the 55º angle in typical two bearing diaphragms,
which results in 70% increase of the tensile force in the top tie. Two 12 strand and
one 4 strand 270ksi post-tensioning tendons are provided in the design to resist the
tensile force.

(a) Typical Diaphragms (b) Diaphragms with Single Bearing

Figure 9 Strut-and-Tie Model for Top Reinforcement Design

Structures Congress 2010


2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 41

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ of Iowa Libraries on 08/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Bearing uplifting is a common design issue in curved box girder bridges,


especially to the interior bearings at the end supports. This paper discussed the causes
of this type of bearing uplifting, and presented typical solutions accordingly.
With a design example in I-4/Lee Roy Selmon Interchange, an innovative
solution – using single bearings at the ends of bridges – is presented. To investigate
the impact of this solution on structural response, a comparison of torsional moment,
bending moment, and shear force distribution is provided to show that the proposed
solution will not adversely affect the behavior of the bridge. The detailing of the
corresponding diaphragm design is also provided. The results show that using single
bearing will increase the transverse reinforcement in the deck at the bridge ends.
The benefit of the proposed method include: minimal impact on design and
construction consistence, avoidance of outriggers, and balanced internal force
behavior.
The limit of this solution is obvious: it will release the rotation at the bridge
end. Therefore, it can only work for narrow bridges, i.e. one lane bridges; otherwise,
the deflection at the edge of the section or at the center of the traffic lane will become
excessive and affect the smoothness of traveling.

REFERENCES

AASHTO (2007). “LRFD Bridge Design Specifications - 4th Edition.” American


Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC

Hu, B. and Huang, D. (2009). “Impact of Construction Methods on Curved Post-


Tensioned Concrete Box Girder Bridges.,” International Bridge Conference,
Pittsburgh, PA, June 14-17, 2009

Structures Congress 2010

Você também pode gostar