You are on page 1of 10

SIMPLE- BIOGRAPHY SUMMARY

MADE-
Brad E. Stiffler is a Bridge Unbalanced spans for the
CONTINUOUS Design Engineer with Burgess proposed Mill Street bridge in
DESIGN BENEFITS & Niple, Inc. in Columbus, Akron, Ohio resulted in an
UNBALANCED Ohio. He joined Burgess & uplift condition at the rear
Niple, Inc. in 1997 and his abutment using conventional
TWO-SPAN STEEL experience includes analysis, continuous steel girders. The
BRIDGE design, and rating of various simple-made-continuous design,
steel and concrete bridge types wherein the girders are designed
and components as well as and erected as simple spans for
design of various retaining wall self-weight and the weight of
types. He holds a Bachelor of the concrete deck slab and
Science degree in Civil continuous for superimposed
Engineering from the University dead loads and live loads, was
of Toledo. used to eliminate the uplift
condition. Additional benefits
included reducing the negative
bending moment at the pier,
simplifying girder fabrication,
and eliminating bolted field
splices, which will allow faster
and cheaper girder erection,
resulting in shorter interruptions
of railroad traffic below.
BRAD E. STIFFLER, P.E. Several methods of detailing the
girders at the pier were
considered in the design to
achieve continuity for
superimposed dead loads and
live loads. Initially, the
designers chose to utilize a
concrete diaphragm at the pier
to carry the compression near
the bottom of the composite
section. However, a finite
element analysis of the girder-
diaphragm connection showed
that local compressive stresses
in the concrete diaphragm
significantly exceeded the
allowable stress; therefore,
crushing of the concrete was a
concern. In order to alleviate
the excessive compressive
stresses on the concrete
diaphragm, a direct steel-to-
steel bearing connection at the
bottom flange was used to carry
the compression. Longitudinal
reinforcing steel in the deck slab
was provided to carry the
tension.
SIMPLE-MADE-CONTINUOUS DESIGN BENEFITS
UNBALANCED TWO-SPAN STEEL BRIDGE
Brad E. Stiffler, P.E.
Introduction
The existing Mill Street bridge in Akron, Ohio is a two-span steel structure built in 1954. Surrounded by
historic brick and stone buildings, the bridge carries local traffic over CSXT Railroad near downtown Akron
and is adjacent to the University of Akron. Ongoing deterioration of the bridge has necessitated a complete
bridge replacement. The addition of combined curb and gutter on the approaches, as well as sidewalks on
both sides of the bridge, will widen the bridge from approximately 56 feet (existing) to 66 feet 8 inches
(proposed). See Figure 1 for existing and proposed bridge typical sections.

Figure 1 – Existing and Proposed Bridge Typical Sections

Proposed Span Arrangement – Reasons For Unbalanced Spans


The proposed forward abutment will be located approximately 25 feet east of the existing forward abutment
to accommodate a future railroad track and to allow future access under the bridge for the University of
Akron. See Figure 2 for proposed bridge profile. During preliminary design, the existing pier pile foundation
was found to be insufficient to accommodate the increased bridge width and to carry the load of the
lengthened forward span. Rather than removing the existing pier in whole to make room for a proposed pier
at the same location, the proposed pier will be located just west of the existing pier. This will eliminate the
need to remove the existing deep foundations and will avoid costly temporary shoring associated with
removals adjacent to active railroad tracks. The proposed rear abutment will be located at approximately the
same position as the existing rear abutment. Previous studies performed for this project established that stub
abutments behind mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls were the most cost-effective abutment type.
Due to the room required for the MSE soil reinforcing straps and the presence of an adjacent culvert structure
through the approach embankment behind the rear abutment, the rear abutment could not be shifted to the

Page 1 of 9
west. See Figure 3 for proposed bridge general plan. All of the above factors resulted in the unbalanced
spans of 69 feet and 123 feet.

Figure 2 – Proposed Bridge Profile

Superstructure Type
A steel superstructure is required at this site due to the limited depth available over the railroad tracks.
Prestressed concrete beams are too deep to provide the required 23 feet of vertical clearance over the railroad
tracks with the proposed roadway profile. The roadway profile could not be raised due to an already-steep
grade (9%) on the western bridge approach. Steel is also preferred from an architectural standpoint as it better
fits into the “old-world” character of the site. See Figure 4 for an architectural rendering of the proposed
bridge.

Page 2 of 9
Figure 3 – Proposed Bridge General Plan

Figure 4 – Architectural Rendering of Proposed Bridge

Girder Design
With the span lengths established and the superstructure type determined, girder design began. The girders
were designed per the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th edition, using MDX
software. It was soon discovered that a conventional continuous steel superstructure consisting of the
unbalanced spans noted above would result in uplift at the rear abutment. See Figure 5 for reactions at the
rear abutment for conventional continuous steel girders. Potential solutions to the uplift problem included
making the structure integral, providing tie-downs at the rear abutment, or using the “simple-made-
continuous” approach. In the simple-made-continuous approach, the girders are designed and erected as
simple spans for self-weight and the weight of the concrete deck slab and continuous for superimposed dead
loads and live loads. This approach has been used for decades in the design and construction of precast

Page 3 of 9
concrete bridges, but has only recently been considered for steel bridges. The increased dead load reaction
at the rear abutment due to the simple-span erection was enough to prevent uplift from occurring under
service (dead and live) loads. See Figure 5 for reactions at the rear abutment for simple-made-continuous
steel girders. To accommodate the curved roadway alignment over a portion of the bridge, straight girders
were used with a kink point at the pier. Integral or semi-integral abutments were not used since current Ohio
Department of Transportation (ODOT) policy prohibits their use on structures with curved main members or
main members that have bend points in any girder line. Tie-downs were considered undesirable due to the
potential for corrosion and the need to regularly inspect and maintain the tie-down devices.

Reactions at Rear Abutment (negative values indicate uplift)


Conventional Continuous Simple-Made-Continuous
Steel Girders Steel Girders
DL +18.1 k +41.8 k
SDL (1) +4.3 k +4.9 k
LL+I -19.3 k -16.5 k
Uplift Check (2) -16.2 k +13.7 k
(1) SDL excludes future wearing surface
(2) Uplift check per AASHTO 3.17.1(a) = DL + SDL + (2)*(LL+I)
Figure 5 – Comparison of Reactions (Unfactored) at Rear Abutment for Conventional Continuous Steel
Girders and Simple-Made-Continuous Steel Girders

The simple-made-continuous design has the added benefit of reducing the negative bending moment at the
pier. See Figure 6 for a comparison of bending moments for conventional continuous steel girders and
simple-made-continuous steel girders. Along with the reduction in negative bending moment at the pier
comes an increase in positive bending moment at the mid-spans. However, due to the other benefits of the
simple-made-continuous design, this disadvantage was considered acceptable.

Page 4 of 9
Figure 6 - Comparison of Bending Moments (Unfactored) for Conventional Continuous Steel Girders
and Simple-Made-Continuous Steel Girders

Page 5 of 9
Superstructure Detailing – Methods of Achieving Continuity
Several methods of detailing the girders at the pier were considered in the design to achieve continuity for
superimposed dead loads and live loads. A literature search was conducted to survey the types of detailing
used to date. At the top of the composite section, bolted splice plates at the top flange or longitudinal
reinforcing steel in the deck slab, or a combination of the two, may be used as the tension-carrying
component(s) of the negative bending moment at the pier (1, 2, 3, 5, 6). At the bottom of the composite
section, the compression-carrying component of the negative bending moment may consist of bolted splice
plates at the bottom flange, an integral concrete diaphragm, or a direct bearing connection of the bottom
flanges of each span, either using “wedge” plates or by extending the bottom flanges to meet (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).
For the Mill Street bridge, bolted splice plates were not desirable because they increase the fabrication cost
and erection time and they do not provide a clean-looking appearance. Initially, the designers chose to
provide a concrete diaphragm at the pier and to utilize the concrete diaphragm to carry the compression near
the bottom of the composite section. Longitudinal reinforcing steel in the deck slab would be provided to
carry the tension near the top of the composite section. Figure 7 shows the initial girder/diaphragm detailing
at the pier. Dowel bars were provided for fixity at the pier. Supplemental steel plates were added on the back
side of each bearing stiffener to aid in transferring the compressive bending stresses through the pier
connection from one span to the other. A finite element analysis of the girder-diaphragm connection was
performed to assess the stresses in the concrete diaphragm. The results of the finite element analysis showed
that local compressive stresses in the concrete significantly exceeded the allowable stress; therefore, crushing
of the concrete was a concern. Although this detailing method has been successfully used on bridges in
service today, it was not suitable for the Mill Street bridge due to the magnitude of force effects resulting
from the relatively shallow girders and long forward span.

Figure 7 – Initial Girder/Diaphragm Detailing at Pier


In order to alleviate the excessive compressive stresses on the concrete diaphragm, the bottom flanges of each
girder were extended to meet each other. Figure 8 shows the final girder/diaphragm detailing at the pier. In
lieu of extending the bottom flanges, “wedge” plates were considered but ruled out because they could not
easily accommodate the varying deflection angles between the girders at the pier. The finite element analysis
of the modified detailing, with the bottom flanges extended, showed that while most of the compression was
transferred directly through the steel-to-steel bearing connection, some of the compression was still carried
through the concrete diaphragm. However, the stresses on the concrete were significantly reduced and were
well below the allowable stress. The supplemental stiffening plates on the back side of the bearing stiffeners

Page 6 of 9
were retained to aid in transferring the compression through the pier connection. A mill fit, defined in the
ODOT Construction and Material Specifications as having at least 75 percent of the area in contact, and a
partial joint penetration (PJP) groove weld were specified at the connection of the bottom flanges to ensure
direct steel-to-steel bearing contact. Figure 9 shows the mill fit and PJP groove weld.

Figure 8 – Final Girder/Diaphragm Detailing at Pier

Figure 9 – Girder Details at Pier

A complete joint penetration (CJP) groove weld was considered but ruled out for the following reasons. CJP
groove welds made from one side only without any backing are prohibited by the AWS Bridge Welding Code,
section 2.14(2). The field weld connecting the bottom flanges is accessible only from the top side; therefore,
if a CJP groove weld was used, backing would be required. Steel backing on transversely loaded welds is

Page 7 of 9
required to be removed by the Bridge Welding Code, section 3.13.3, in order to remove stress concentrations
created by the steel backing which may subject the weld to fatigue cracking. According to the Bridge
Welding Code commentary, section C3.13.2, “Fatigue cracks can grow in compression members when
localized plastic deformations at stress concentrations produce tensile stresses as the member rebounds
elastically between cycles of increased compression stress.” Removal of the backing would be very difficult,
if even possible, in this situation due to the small distance between the bottom flange and the top of the pier.
While the Bridge Welding Code, section 2.6 prohibits transversely loaded PJP groove welds subject to
tension, the code allows transversely loaded PJP groove welds subject to compression only. Per section
2.17.3, the PJP groove weld was sized to carry 50 percent of the force in the bottom flange.

Construction Sequence
The construction sequence is shown in Figure 10. First, each span is erected as a simple-span girder (Figure
10-a). One of the major advantages of the simple-made-continuous design is the elimination of bolted field
splices, which will allow faster and cheaper girder erection, resulting in shorter interruptions of railroad traffic
below. During erection of the girders, cross-frames and temporary tie rods are installed. The purpose of the
temporary tie rods is to prevent separation of the bottom flanges prior to welding. Next, the deck slab is
poured on each span, with a gap left at the pier (Figure 10-b). The gap ensures that the deck slab load is
carried by the simple-span girders. After both spans have been poured, welding of the bottom flanges is
performed. The temporary tie rods can then be removed. Finally, the concrete diaphragm at the pier and the
deck closure pour are constructed (Figure 10-c), establishing continuity for subsequently applied loads (i.e.
superimposed dead loads and live loads) once this final pour has cured.

Figure 10 – Construction Sequence

Steel Fabricator’s Viewpoint on Superstructure Detailing


For a conventional continuous steel structure, the camber diagram shape typically contains reverse-curvature.
For the simple-made-continuous design, since the girders are designed and erected as simple spans for self-
weight and the weight of the concrete deck slab, the camber diagram shape for each span consists of single-
curvature. This simplifies the girder fabrication.

Page 8 of 9
Structural Steel Cost
The average bid price per pound for Level 4 structural steel members in Ohio in 2008 was $1.74 (7). Level 4
refers to straight or kinked welded plate girders, and therefore reflects construction similar in complexity to
the Mill Street bridge, with the exception of the simple-made-continuous design. The average bid price per
pound for the Level 4 structural steel members on the Mill Street bridge was $1.21 (8). The bid opening took
place in May 2009. While the lower price on the Mill Street bridge may be somewhat attributed to the recent
ailing economy, changing world demand for steel, and a highly competitive bid environment, it is also a
reflection on the simplified fabrication and erection associated with the simple-made-continuous design.
Lower prices for structural steel can create significant savings for bridge owners since the cost of structural
steel often is a large portion of the overall bridge cost.

Conclusion
Unbalanced spans for the proposed Mill Street bridge resulted in an uplift condition at the rear abutment using
conventional continuous steel girders. The simple-made-continuous design, wherein the girders are designed
and erected as simple spans for self-weight and the weight of the concrete deck slab and continuous for
superimposed dead loads and live loads, was used to eliminate the uplift condition. This approach had the
additional benefits of reducing the negative bending moment at the pier, simplifying girder fabrication, and
eliminating bolted field splices, which will allow faster and cheaper girder erection, resulting in shorter
interruptions of railroad traffic below.
Several methods of detailing the girders at the pier were researched and considered in the design to achieve
continuity for superimposed dead loads and live loads. Initially, the designers chose to provide a concrete
diaphragm at the pier and to utilize the concrete diaphragm as the compression-carrying component of the
negative bending moment near the bottom of the composite section. However, a finite element analysis of the
girder-diaphragm connection showed that local compressive stresses in the concrete diaphragm significantly
exceeded the allowable stress; therefore, crushing of the concrete was a concern. In order to alleviate the
excessive compressive stresses on the concrete diaphragm, a direct steel-to-steel bearing connection at the
bottom flange was used to carry the compression. Longitudinal reinforcing steel in the deck slab was
provided to carry the tension.
Bid prices for the structural steel for the Mill Street bridge came in significantly lower than historical bid
prices for structural steel construction of similar complexity to the Mill Street bridge, with the exception of
the simple-made-continuous design. This is, in part, a reflection of the simplified fabrication and erection
associated with the simple-made-continuous design.

References
(1) Henkle, David (2001), “Competitive Edge”, Civil Engineering Magazine, July, pp. 64-67.
(2) Talbot, Jim (2005), “Simple Made Continuous”, NSBA Steel Bridge News, October, pp. 1, 4, 5.
(3) Azizinamini, Atorod and Vander Veen, Lynden (2004), “Simple-Made-Continuous”, NSBA Steel
Bridge News, October, pp. 6-7.
(4) Swanson, James A. and Windau, Joe (2004), “Rapid Rehabilitation”, Modern Steel Construction,
June, pp. 53-54.
(5) Iaquinta, Lynn N. (2002), “Steel Girders: Continuous for Live Load Only”, NSBA Steel Bridge
News, October, pp. 2-3.
(6) Lampe, Nick and Azizinamini, Atorod, “Steel Bridge System, Simple for Dead Load and Continuous
for Live Load”.
(7) Summary of Contracts Awarded, 2008, Ohio Department of Transportation
(8) Bid Tabulations for Mill Street Bridge Project, City of Akron, Ohio

Page 9 of 9

You might also like