Innovative Bridge Design Handbook: Construction, Rehabilitation and Maintenance

actions.

Section I

Fundamentals

Chapter 1

The history, aesthetics, and design of bridges

A. Pipinato    AP&P, Technical Director, Italy

Abstract

In this chapter, the origin of the conceptual design of a bridge is detailed based on different approach levels. The most relevant information on bridge history will be given in order to explain how bridges were conceived and developed. In the second part of the chapter, a step-level approach to bridge design is given, listing the conceptual phases. Finally, the bridge aesthetic concept is presented and commented upon.

Keywords

Bridge structures

conceptual design

bridge aesthetics

structure

architecture

1 History of bridge structures

Bridge structures represent a challenge in the built environment: they are the crystallization of forces finalized to keep someone in an unreachable place. Bridges provide the most appropriate connection of what nature has divided: a river, a valley, or something that is impossible to be reached. The first bridge was a natural gift to humanity: probably a tree that fell across a small river or the observation of rock bridges. This suggested to the first prehistoric builders that it is possible to overpass obstacles. And from this simple structures, a relevant part of the entire structural engineering worldwide has been produced over the centuries. In this chapter, a synthesis of the history of bridge construction is presented, to be followed by deeper information in subsequent chapters.

1.1 Pre-roman era

The first bridge was a simply supported beam made of wood. This was probably developed in the Paleolithic age. In the Mesolithic period, an increasing amount of bridge structures were built. For example, consider the Sweet Track, 1800 m long, which was recently discovered at Somerset Levels in Great Britain and harked to the early stage of the Neolithic period (3806 B.C.), according to dendrocronological analysis (Figure 1.1). In Egypt, such small examples have been found as the stone bridge at Gizah (2620 B.C.) (Figure 1.2). Meanwhile, in Greece, the Kasarmi Bridge, at Argolide (1400 B.C.), was one of the first type of Miceneus bridges (Figure 1.3). It is a common historical belief that Etruschi taught the Romans how to build arch bridges, even if they left no relevant bridges behind to document this. In fact, the Romans learned about this from defense and hydraulic buildings such as the Volterra arch (fourth century B.C.), which certainly was a masterpiece of the Etruschans that was later altered by the Romans (Figure 1.4). Finally, some wooden structures from the Celtic period have been found: for instance, Figure 1.5 shows the Rodano Bridge in Geneve (58 B.C.). The presence of these bridges were documented in the first century B.C. by Cesare (50 B.C.) in the book De Bello Gallico, which listed a large number of wooden bridges in the Gallia territory.

Figure 1.1 Graphic reconstruction of the 1800-meter-long Sweet Track (3806 B.C.).

Figure 1.2 Stone bridge, Gizah (2620 B.C.).

Figure 1.3 Kasarmi Bridge, Argolide (1400 B.C.).

Figure 1.4 Volterra Arch, Volterra (fourth century B.C.).

Figure 1.5 Rodano Bridge, Geneve (58 B.C.): (A) plan view, (B) plan of the first pile, (C) wooden platform for the first pile, (D) section of C, (E) built pile section.

1.2 Roman era

Although wooden bridges were common at first, stone bridges (especially arch bridges) increasingly dominated until the Middle Ages; as Palladio said: Stone bridges were built for their longer life, and to glorify their builder (Palladio, 1570). One of the most incredible period of bridge construction was started during the Roman Empire, in which stone arch bridge building techniques were developed. Two fundamental elements form the basis of this development: the first was geopolitical, as the military and political objective to grow faster and faster as an empire required a large amount of infrastructure; the second was technological, lying on the discovery and growing popularity of the pozzolana, as this fact made a strong turning in these construction types. Two notable structures pertaining to this period have been reported (Figures 1.6 and 1.7): the Sant’Angelo Bridge (in the year 136), and the Milvio Bridge (100), both in Rome. One construction improvement made by the Romans was the solution of the foundation in soft soils, by the innovative use of cofferdam, in which concrete could be poured. A relevant surviving monument of this period is the Pont du Gard aqueduct near Nîmes in southern France (first century B.C.), which measures 360 m at its longest point, was built as a three-level aqueduct standing more than 48 m high (Figure 1.8).

Figure 1.6 Sant’Angelo Bridge, Rome (136 B.C.).

Figure 1.7 Milvio Bridge, Rome (first century B.C.).

Figure 1.8 Pont Du Gard aqueduct, Nimes (first century B.C.).

1.3 Middle ages

The fall of the Roman Empire put a stop to the accelerated development of bridge construction for a long time. In the Middle ages, a particular type of bridge started to be built: the inhabited bridge. One of the most relevant and oldest of these was the Old London Bridge (Figure 1.9), finished in 1209 in the reign of King John and initially built under the direction of a priest named Peter of Colechurch; the bridge was replaced at the end of the 18th century, having stood for six hundred years with shops and houses on it. But the larger number of these bridge types are Italian inhabited bridges, such as the Ponte Vecchio in Florence.

Figure 1.9 Old London Bridge, London (1209).

1.4 The renaissance

A refined use of stone arch bridges came up during the Renaissance. The large variety and quantity of bridges that were constructed in this period make it impossible to keep a complete list of what was built. However, some masterpieces can be cited, which represent innovations of the time. The first of these was the inhabited Ponte Rialto in Venice (Figure 1.10), an ornate stone arch made of two segments with a span of 27 m and a rise of 6 m. The present bridge was designed by Antonio da Ponte, the winner of a design competition, who overcame the problem of soft and wet soil, by drilling thousands of timber piles straight down under each of the two abutments, upon which the masonry was placed in such a way that the bed joints of the stones were perpendicular to the line of thrust of the arch (Rondelet, 1841). Other notable structures of this period include the Pont de la Concorde in Paris, designed by J. R. Perronet at the end of the 18th century; London's Waterloo Bridge (Figure 1.11), by J. Rennie started in 1811; and finally, the New London Bridge (1831).

Figure 1.10 Ponte Rialto, Venice (1588).

Figure 1.11 Waterloo Bridge, London (1811).

1.5 The period of modernity from 1900 to present

The Industrial Revolution, which began in the late 18th century, completely changed the use of material not only in traditional buildings, but also in bridges. Wood and masonry constructions were replaced by iron. The famous bridge in Coaldbrookdale, an English mining village along the Severn River, was probably the first to be completely erected with iron (opened in 1779; Figure 1.12): it is a single-span bridge made of cast-iron pieces, a ribbed arch with a nearly semicircular 30-m span. The great reputation of this bridge, earned for its shape and robustness (for instance, it was the only one that successfully resisted against a disastrous flood in 1795), spurred the master engineer Thomas Telford to design a great number of arched metal bridges, including the surviving Craigellachie Bridge (1814) over the River Spey in Scotland, a 45-m flat arch made of two curved arches connected by X-bracing and featuring two masonry towers at each side (Figure 1.13). Another innovation fostered by the use of iron in construction was the opportunity to build lighter structures and such new structural components as cables. The first structural application in a bridge was probably the Menai Bridge (started in 1819, opened in 1826), another of Telford's constructions (Figure 1.14), spanning 305 m and with a central span of 177 m. This was the world's longest bridge at the time. In 1893, its timber deck was replaced with a steel one, and in 1940, steel chains replaced the corroded wrought-iron ones, in 1999 the road deck has been strengthen, and in 2005 the bridge was repainted fully for the first time since 1940; the bridge is still in service today.

Figure 1.12 Coaldbrookdale Bridge, Coaldbrookdale (1779).

Figure 1.13 Craigellachie Bridge, Scotland (1814).

Figure 1.14 Menai Bridge, Wales (1816).

Another innovation during the Industrial Revolution was the invention of the Portland cement, patented first in 1824, which, in conjunction with the recent iron industrialization, boosted the reinforced concrete (r.c.) era. François Hennébique saw Joseph Monier's (a French gardener) reinforced concrete tubs and tanks at the Paris Exposition of 1867 and began experimenting to apply this new material to building construction. Some years later, in 1892, Hennébique patented a complete building system using r.c. The first large-scale example of an r.c. bridge was the Châtellerault Bridge (1899), a three-arched structure with a 48-m central span. Subsequently, Emil Mörsch designed the Isar Bridge at Grünewald, Germany in 1904 (with a maximum span of 69 m); Eugène Freyssinet the Saint-Pierre-du-Vauvray Bridge over the Seine in northern France (built in 1922, with a maximum span of 131 m); the same Freyssinet also the Plougastel Bridge (Figure 1.15) over the Elorn Estuary near Brest, France (built in 1930 with a maximum span of 176 m); and finally, the Sandö Bridge in northern Sweden (built in 1943 with a maximum span of 260 m). Some of the first problems that arose with these medium-size structures with vehicle loadings included creep and fatigue.

Figure 1.15 Plougastel Bridge, Brest (1930).

A wide amount of innovations started in this period. For instance, in 1901, Robert Maillart, a Swiss engineer, started using concrete for bridges and other structures, adopting non-conventional shapes. Throughout his life, he built a wide variety of structures still known for their slenderness, and aesthetic expression. Some examples include the Tavanasa bridge over the Vorderrhein at Tavanasa, Switzerland (built in 1905), with a span of 51 m; and the Valtschielbach Bridge in 1926, a deck-stiffened arch with a 40-m span. However, undoubtedly the best-known structure is the Salginatobel Bridge, a 90-m, three-hinged hollow-box arched span in Graubünden, Switzerland. Maillart probably was the first engineer to merge engineering with the most functional form of architecture, reaching a very high quality in unconventional constructions.

Dealing with r.c. innovative solutions, industries who developed pre-stressing solutions lately, started paramount and experimental constructions: this is the case of the railway bridges near Kempten, Germany (1904), the longest span of which was 64.5 m. It was built by Dywidag Bau (now called Dyckerhoff & Widmann AG). It is also interesting to note that in 1927, the Alsleben Bridge in Saale was built with prestressed iron ties designed by Franz Dischinger, a predecessor of today's prestressing technique. And only one year later, in 1928, Freyssinet patented the first prestressing technology. Then, other bridges were completely realized in prestressed r.c.: e.g., the Luzancy Bridge (completed in 1946), with a span of 54 m (Figure 1.16). Other notable bridges were the bridge over the Rhine at Koblenz, Germany, completed in 1962 with thin piers and a central span of 202 m, designed by Ulrich Finsterwalder; and more recently, the Reichenau Bridge (1964) over the Rhine, a deck-stiffened arch with a span of 98 m designed by Christian Menn, a Swiss engineer who made great use of prestressing in bridge construction. More recently, Menn built the Ganter Bridge in 1980, a curved bridge crossing a deep valley in the canton of Valais, a cable-stayed structure with a prestressed girder, with the highest column rising 148 m and a central span of 171 m.

Figure 1.16 Luzancy Bridge, Luzancy (1946).

A wide variety of innovations arising in the late 20th century, together with the use of metal and reinforced concrete, consisted of pursuing increasing span length. This led to the first suspension bridges: the first such structure was the Brooklyn Bridge (Figure 1.17), by John Roebling and, in the final phase, by his son, Washington Roebling, which opened in 1883. This was the first suspension bridge with steel wires, with a total span of 1596 m, and a central span of 486 m. Subsequently, in New York, two other bridges were built to accommodate the increasing traffic, the Williamsburg and the Manhattan bridges. The first, spanning 2227 m, was the longest in the world in 1903, after its completion; the second, spanning 1762 m, was completed in 1910.

Figure 1.17 Brooklyn Bridge, New York (1883).

The Manhattan and Williamsburg bridges were the first two such structures in which the deflection theory were adopted while making the calculations, considering the relationship between deck and cable deflection and the required stiffness for increasing spans. Then, when Ralph Modjeski erected the Philadelphia-Camden Bridge in 1926 (today known as the Benjamin Franklin Bridge), reaching 2273 m that became the longest span in the world. And that was soon exceeded by the Ambassador Bridge (1929) in Detroit and the George Washington Bridge (1931) in New York.

It is an author's opinion that this latter bridge contained the most astonishing innovations, making it a masterpiece of engineering and architecture. Designed by Othmar Amman, the George Washington Bridge was long enough (1450 m) to shatter the previous record for bridge central span, reaching the 1067 m. At the same time, it was not built using the deflection theory; rather, it adopted the stabilization of the deck by its own weight. In addition, the girder depth ratio was innovative for that time, at nearly 1:350. Other similar structures followed, such as the Golden Gate (Figure 1.18), spanning 2737 (central span 1280 m) m and built in 1937; and the Bronx-Whitestone, spanning 1150 m (central span 701 m) and opened in 1939. The designers of these and other bridges learned a powerful lesson from the collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, which was destroyed by only a moderate wind in 1940, principally because its deck lacked torsional stiffness. As a result, most of the new bridges were reinforced to prevent another such disaster, adding new bracing systems or inclined suspenders to form a network of cables.

Figure 1.18 Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco (1937).

1.6 Recent masterpieces

In contemporary times, a large number of bridges have been built. It is not easy to choose the most innovative recent structures around the world, however the presence of these elements helps in the choice: new materials (lighter, more resistant, easier to be reused); new construction methods, finalized to increase the productivity; new structural shapes (probably the most fascinating and most difficult task of a bridge engineer), and finally, elegance, which is a kind of synthesis of the aforementioned characteristics. For each of these categories, a project has been cited as an example:

• For the new materials category, the Ulsan Grand Harbor Bridge (Figure 1.19) for its innovative use of materials, such as the super high-strength steel cables (1960 MPa)

Figure 1.19 Grand Harbor bridge, Ulsan (2015).

• For the construction methods category, the Providence River Bridge (Figure 1.20), built in a yard and then lifted on site

Figure 1.20 Providence River Bridge, Providence (2008).

• For the innovative structural shape category, the Sunnibergbrücke (Figure 1.21), combining the cable stayed scheme with a curved plan, and featuring astonishing bifurcated columns

Figure 1.21 Sunnibergbrücke, Klosters (1998).

• For the elegant category, the Erasmus Bridge (Figure 1.22), a masterpiece of construction reflecting with a very simple shape the industrial character of Rotterdam.

Figure 1.22 Erasmus Bridge, Rotterdam (2003).

2 Bridge design and aesthetic

2.1 Bridge design

The bridge design phase is probably the most fascinating and most difficult task for an experienced senior engineer, if this is an original design and not an industrial/repetitive work. The definition of the bridge design process, the various steps required, and the bureaucratic procedures involved are unnecessary to explain in this context. Instead, it should be stated that the bridge is a complex structure that introduces into the surrounding landscape relevant variations, dealing with a number of specialist fields: for example, hydraulic, geotechnical, landscaping, structural, architectural, economic, and socio-political. For this reason, before starting the design of a bridge, a concept should be developed, with the realization of a scaled model, as a simulation of the three-dimensional (3D) overview of the construction and of all the considered alternatives. From this initial concept, some parametric considerations need to be performed to estimate the costs. This preliminary analysis is the basis for an open discussion with the client, the managing agencies, and any relevant local government agency on the most suitable solution. Only when the costs and the concept will be shared can the design stage start: the successive steps of the preliminary plan, finally culminating in a construction project that deals with the actual erection of the bridge. For large-scale projects, the preliminary stage includes economic and financial studies as well. It should be known that the large number of variables included in the design stage are mostly not fixed, as they depend on the precise place and time of the realization: e.g., there is not the best finite element method (FEM); rather, the FEM software most suitable for the specific bridge design must be chosen, and the same applies to codes and standards, the amount of human resources, and the hardware instrumentation required. The best project is a perfect mix of these various components. Surely, a good project must include an architectural consciousness, the structural engineering knowledge, the professional experience, and a strong informatic infrastructure.

2.2 Bridge aesthetics

There is no one rule to conceive the most perfect or most aesthetically pleasing bridge. However, awful bridges can be found anywhere. A good and well-known definition of the term aesthetic could be pleasant architecture: consequently, it could be helpful to give the basic components of architecture. These, according to Vitruvio (27 B.C.), are:

• Firmitas: This is a key element for infrastructure, and is surely the most relevant for bridge structures; it is the ability of a bridge to preserve its physical integrity, surviving as an integral object, at least for its service life.

• Utilitas: The practical function of a structure is a common rule; however, it is often not applied; the simple requirement that set the spaces and the components of a bridge structure includes the usefulness for the specific purpose for which the bridge was intended for.

• Venustas: The sensibilities of those who see, or use the bridge structure may arise from one or more factors, including the symbolic meaning; the chosen shape and forms; the materials, textures, and colors; and the elegance to solve practical and programmatic problems. This is obviously a subjective factor that could cause delight in the observers, or not.

3 Research and innovation in bridge design

Research and development (R&D) are expected in the coming years in this particular and fascinating bridge engineering field. This activities are expected to be carried out by industries, universities, and specialized firms: the R&D field in this sector is expected to grow faster and faster, expanding into other fields of construction in the future.

The most prominent problems to be faced are the following:

• Sustainable bridges: As generally could be said about the construction sector, a reduction in the use of materials is expected in bridge construction, together with the possibility of conceiving new construction modes and new bridge types that can reduce the need for raw materials, and at the same time, the construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning energy and cost consumption.

• Intelligent bridges: Bridges will be more like machines in the future, rather than a fixed and completely crystallized construction, and eventually, intelligent systems able to control in real time the bridge status (such as material decay, unexpected stress/strain levels, and external dangers) will be developed at a reasonable commercial cost, and integrated during the construction process in all new bridges at both large and small scales.

• Intelligent bridge-net: Managing authorities are nowadays concerned about managing and limiting the maintenance costs of old infrastructure, where bridges are reaching 100 years of age. There is no single answer, as different solutions can apply depending on the situation: however, in the future, ideally all bridges will be monitored as a net of constructions, where every maintenance cost could be planned and where a maintenance program could be easily performed and updated.

• Life-long solutions: A wide amount of research should be done in the specific sector of materials, as they can easily contribute to build life-longer and more sustainable bridges.

References

Cesare, G., 50 B.C. De Bello Gallico. Original Latin Version. Mursia Editorial Group, Milan, Italy.

Palladio, A., 1570. I quattro libri dell’architettura. Translation of the original, 1945, 4 vols. Ulrico Hoepli Editore, Milan, Italy.

Rondelet, A., 1841. Saggio storico sul ponte di Rialto in Venezia. Negretti Edition, 1841, Mantova, Italy.

Vitruvio, P.M., 27 B.C. De Architectura. Translation of the original, 1997, 2 vols. Einaudi, Milan, Italy.

Section II

Loads on bridges

Chapter 2

Loads on bridges

A. Nowak¹; A. Pipinato²    ¹ Department of Civil Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, AL

² AP&P, Technical Director, Italy

Abstract

In this chapter, imposed loads to bridges are discussed. Primary loads are given in the first section, including permanent loads and traffic loads. In the second section, environmental actions are introduced, including those of wind, temperature, snow, and earthquakes. The third section explains the dynamic load effects in bridge structures. Finally, bridge redundancy as a safety feature allowing structural systems to carry loads after damage is presented.

Keywords

Bridge loads

primary loads

permanent loads

traffic loads

dynamic amplification

environmental actions

1 Introduction

In this chapter, information regarding loads is presented: this includes models and load values associated with road traffic, pedestrian activities, rail traffic, dynamic and centrifugal effects, braking and acceleration actions. Imposed loads defined in codes and standards are intended to be used for the design of new bridges, including piers, abutments, upstand walls, wing walls, flank walls, and their foundations. An open question remains on existing bridges, where reduced traffic loads could be used during the structural assessment and imposed in new traffic limitations, to avoid for the bridge retrofit or reconstruction. Infact, in this case, only some nations provide detailed guidelines or codes on the assessment of existing bridges. For instance, the United States (AASHTO, 2013), the United Kingdom (Highways Agency, 2006; Network Rail, 2006), Denmark (Danish Road Directorate, 1996), Switzerland (Societè Suisse des Ingenieurset des Architects, 2011), and Canada (Canadian Standards Association, 2006).

2 Primary loads

2.1 Permanent loads: self-weight of structural elements

The self-weight or dead load consists of weight of structural components and non-structural elements that are permanently attached to the structure, including for example, noise and safety barriers, signals, ducts, cables and overhead line equipment (except the forces due to the tension of the contact wire etc.). The self-weight is generally estimated in the first design phase, and then it is updated analytically in the detailed design phase. The actual value can also be estimated using empirical formulae, or it can be assumed based on the designer’s past experience. Special care is required in the analysis of self-weight during the construction period of the bridge, including consideration of the erection equipment (Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1 (a) small-span bridges, twin girder composite bridge, self weight of the steelwork ( Leben and Hirt, 2012 ); (b) medium-span bridges—prestressed concrete bridge self weight ( O’Connor, 1971 ).

2.2 Permanent loads: self-weight of non-structural elements

Road and railway equipment, sidewalks, parapets, barriers, channels or pipework, noise wall luminaires and sign supports are considered as non-structural elements. The magnitude of load are usually determined using mass/volume unit values specified in design codes and standards.

2.2.1 Traffic loads: Eurocode

EN 1991-2 (2003) is intended to be used in conjunction with EN 1990 (especially A2). Section 1 gives definitions and symbols. Section 2 defines loading principles for road bridges, footbridges (or bicycle-track bridges), and railway bridges. Section 3 covers design and provides guidance on multiple presence of traffic load and on load combinations with non-traffic actions. Section 4 defines: loads (models and representative values) due to traffic action on road bridges and load combinations including combinations with pedestrian and bicycle traffic as well as other actions specific for the design of road bridges. Section 5 defines loads (models and representative values) on footways, bicycle tracks, and footbridges and other actions specific for the design of footbridges. Sections 4 and 5 also define loads transmitted to the structure by vehicle restraint systems, pedestrian parapets. Section 6 defines actions due to rail traffic on bridges and other actions specific for the design of railway bridges and structures adjacent to railway. Characteristic loads are intended for the determination of road traffic effects associated with the ultimate limit state and with particular serviceability limit states.

Characteristic values are determined from the analysis of data collected in several countries. The design values were calculated as corresponding to a probability of being exceeded annually and are adjusted using the coefficients αQi and αqi. These coefficients for the traffic load model can be nationally adjusted (in the so-called National Annexes). The code EN 1991-2 (2003) specifies two principal load models for the normal highway bridge traffic. For instance, Load Model 1 (LM1) consists of a double axle, called tandem system (TS), together with a uniformly distributed load, and is intended to cover most of the effects of the traffic of lorries and cars. It is necessary, first, to define notional lanes. The normal basic lane width is 3 m, with the exception that roadway widths of 5.4–6 m is assumed to carry two lanes. Generally, a roadway is divided into an integral number of 3 m lanes, that may be positioned transversely so as to achieve the worst effect. Of these lanes, the one causing the most unfavorable effect is called Lane 1, the one causing the second most unfavorable effect is Lane 2, and so on. These lanes need not to correspond to the marked lanes on the bridge; indeed, a demountable central safety barrier is ignored in locating the traffic lanes. Space not occupied by the lanes is called remaining area. The total load models for vertical loads is represented by the following traffic effects:

• Load Model 1 (LM1): Concentrated and uniformly distributed loads that cover most of the effects of the traffic of trucks and cars. This model should be used for general and local verifications (Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.2 Load Model 1 ( EN 1991-2, 2003 ).

• Load Model 2 (LM2): A single-axle load applied on specific tire contact areas that covers the dynamic effects of the normal traffic on short structural members (Figure 2.3).

Figure 2.3 Load Model 2 ( EN 1991-2, 2003 ).

• Load Model 3 (LM3): A set of assemblies of axle loads representing special vehicles (e.g., for industrial transport), that can travel on routes permitted for abnormal loads. It is intended for general and local verifications.

• Load Model 4 (LM4): A crowd loading, intended only for general verification.

2.2.2 Traffic loads: AASHTO

Highway bridge design loads are established by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). For many decades, the primary bridge design code in the United States has been the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges (Specifications), as supplemented by agency criteria as applicable. During the 1990s, AASHTO developed and approved a new bridge design code, entitled AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2014). It is based upon the principles of load and resistance factor design (LRFD). Section 3 deals with Loads and Load Factors and includes information on permanent loads (dead load and earth loads), live loads (vehicular load and pedestrian load), and other loads (wind, temperature, earthquake, ice pressure and collision forces). The basic vehicular live loading for highway bridges is designated as HL-93 and it consists of a combination of