Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Robert W. Barnes
Graduate Research Assistant
The U niversity of Texas at Austin
Austin , Texas
W
56
PCI JOURNAL
Fig. 2.
Precast substructure
for U.S. Highway
183 in Austin ,
Texas.
BACKGROUND
The current common overall concept in many states for bridge substructure design and construction3 has
changed little in the last 40 years.
Driven by considerations of economy
and wide reuse of form systems, castin-place circular columns with cast-in-
evolving, as this bridge type has resulted in bridges that are both elegant
and durable.
The application of precast segmental technology to substructure design
has been more limited. In particular,
the use of segmental construction
techniques for shorter-span bridge
substructures [spans less than 105 ft
(45 m)] has been explored very little
yet the potential benefits of a system
incorporating this technology are very
Fig. 3. Precast substructure for U.S. Highway 249 over Louetta Road in
Houston, Texas.
58
Pretr~sing
tendons
Fig . 5. Schematic drawing (A) 6 and as-built view (B) of precast concrete
piers for Vail Pass in Colorado.
CRITERIA FOR
PROPOSED PRECAST
SUBSTRUCTURE SYSTEM
The criteria for the proposed precast
substructure system were that the system must be:
1. Compatible with precast concrete
beam superstructures.
Fig. 6 (left and right). Erection of precast pile caps for Redfish Bay, Texas, low water crossing.
July-August 1999
59
ELEMENTS OF
PROPOSED SYSTEM
A precast single-column bent is depicted in Fig. 7. The substructure is
made up of three basic segment types:
column segments, a "template" segment and inverted-T cap segments. Inverted-T caps were chosen over rectangular bent caps for this system for
reasons of improved visibility through
the substructure as well as increased
clearance underneath the substructure.
Inverted T -caps also allow for a lower
overall structure height.
Precast
template
Adjustable supports
(geometry control
joint)
Match-cast "perfect fit" joints
Adjustable supports
(geometry control
joint)
Fig. 7 . Elements of precast pier.
60
P18
P12
E
E
j,.
1200mm
.. 1
Shear key
Post-tensioning
strand or bars on ends
P24
1..
2400mm
-I
5BkN
BOkN
102kN
124kN
(13k)
(1Bk)
(23k)
(2Bk)
Post-tensioning bars
on long face
P30
--.t.;;..;....-14-
1..
-I
1BOOmm
P12
P1B
P24
P30
1..
3000mm
-I
25.4 mm=1 in
Template Segments
2000mm
T12
T18
,--~~
~gg;;
\;,: I/1,
3000mm
~r~
~
'1
1200mm
1800mm
E l evati on
Elevati on
-= / .. ''.g;;;s.
r [:>
II .r:::l.'r. . o
.. . ...
Shear keys
: c=J r
~'-... . . 0 .
Template Weights:
T12
T18
T24
TJO
56kN
175kN
395kN
748kN
(1 3k)
(39k)
(89k)
(168k)
5000mm
T30
T24
#/"''Q
Plan
Pl an
4000mm
varies"
--~~
J~
2400mm
1?
E
E
250mm
i!:::D--.,...-........ .
1:c
p ........ ~........, . .
\1 I?
~
3000mm
"Template 'plate'
height varies as per
desired cross slope .
Elevation
Elevation
ii
t?
900mm
150mm
. ..
. . . ) :!
.. ......--G
/""-a:;~
~I
~~e
~~ .. .. ):
. . . .. ..
Plan
P lan
-----C;!
25.4 mm= 1 in
anchorage zone and shear reinforcement with sufficient room for concrete
placement and consolidation. Fig. 11 b
shows details of a fully pretensioned
precast cap.
For the fully pretensioned option,
each wall can accommodate four
columns of 0.5 in. (12.7 mm) diameter
pretensioning strands on 2 in. (50 mm)
centers, a 2 in. (50 mm) duct for vertical column post-tensioning bars with
proper coupling sheaths, and interior
cover. An alternative design for the
preten s ioned cap would be to use
0.6 in . ( 15 .2 mm) diameter strands .
The number of strand s could be reduced with a probable reduction in
plant labor costs and a slight increase
in the eccentricity of the pres tre ss
force.
The cap wall s can also accommodate 4 in . (1 00 mm) ducts for 19K6
multi strand longitudinal tendons instead of pretensioning strand with the
column post-tens ioning bars located
up to 2 in. (50 mm) closer to the outside cover of the stem. A combination
of cap longitudinal pretensioning and
PCI JOURNAL
rt
_ Pretensioning option
-.:'7'-
Post-tensioning
opti~
lenath varies
! fS]j_
[~~ -:
==-~
-,
Pretensioning strands
Plan
--
-.
Post-tensioning duct
.J~ecess for PT operations
_.,,.-"'
A-A
PT strand
duct
PT bar duct with
room for coupler at
base of template
A2<j.--J
Precast Template
Elevation
B-B
25.4 mm = 1 in
<t
Column PT Bar
Anchorage
Shear Stirrups
& Hanger
Reinforcement
Bursting
Reinforcement
Pretensioning
375mm
350mm
PT Bar Coupler
I
PT Anchorage
for Erection
Ledge
Reinforcement
BENT CONFIGURATIONS
The four pier sizes, fo ur corresponding templates and the single depth but
variab le length cap section can be
combined in numerous ways to make
up a wide range of substructure units
extending from single-column bents to
straddle bents and frame bents (see
July-August 1999
Column PT Bar
in Duct
A1 - A1
A2 - A2
25.4 mm = 1 in
Fig . 11 b. Cross sections of cap and template for fu ll y preten sioned cap.
63
350mm
~,
375mm
~,
20mm
20mm
30mm
50mm
94mm
...,~ ~
"' .....
0
E
E
;:::
~
8
E
E
E
E
E E
~~~
E E
o........,
<D 0 0
MN"'
E
E
E
E
u:;
E
~~ ,_...,E
"'"'
A combination of pretensioning and post-tensioning will be a good alternative to fully post-tensioned caps for frame bents
19K6 tendons, shown here require the largest ducts permissible in these web walls. Should more interior cover be desired, the
Hollow portion of the cap could simply be reduced.
25.4 mm = 1 in
Fig. 12 . Spac ing and cover details for cap w ith pretensioned and post-tens ioned longitudinal reinforcement.
5.8m - 13m
:::>
13m -27m
27m-30.5m
1 m= 3.28 ft
64
PC I JOURNAL
FABRICATION SEQUENCE
The fabrication sequence for the
precast column segments is outlined in
Fig. 14. The column segments are
July-August 1999
r--
~
6
....--6
Cage Steel
.,
1'
........--1
I! ~1 11 i ii li
L~ge ~
~~~------~nr--------~==~'4~
~ -~
- ~
--~~~~~
---~
- t~
=s~------~nr--------Tr~
.lh-~
: I i I!
I \
PT Strand
Duct
_.---- .
PT Bar
Duct
jlj_ jj
, ; ~A
7
'1-ll
H; 1 : '1'+-tt
;-
J l K M a t c h cast
Jj
II ! !
g
-\} .
71
,H ,
'++~n
I \
I
JOint
Precast Template J
l
{
'
Stage 2. Place ledges in pretensioning bed, form stems, pretension and cast
Shown in Figure 15b
Cage steel
~Matchcast joint
.L.J
:K Fo~wOO<
v--
r-'f
fo< """'
Precast template
Section A-A*
From Figure 15a
Fig. lSb.
Cross section
through cap and
temp late during
Stage I from
Fig. lSa.
ERECTION SEQUENCE
After the drilled shaft, spread footings or pile cap foundations at the
bridge site are completed, precast substructure elements can be hauled to the
site for erection . The erection sequence for a single column bent is
shown in Fig. 16.
The first segment is placed and
aligned on adjustable supports on top
of the footing. Where desirable for geometric flexibility with standard
height segments, the footing could be
designed to have a recess in which to
place the first segment. With a recess,
however, the overall footing (or pile
cap) depth may be increased. A common adjustable support system would
be a steel frame that can be adjusted
with screw threads or shims.
Once aligned, ducts are connected
and the post-tensioning bars are
threaded into anchors previously cast
into the foundation. The bottom segment is then "locked" in position with
a cast-in-place joint. This first joint
should be a concrete of similar quality
to the pier segments. This joint may
vary in height from 12 to 24 in. (300
to 600 mrn) depending on the required
height of the pier.
A number of first segments may be
placed and aligned for a project before
they are "locked" into position with
these cast-in-place joints. Due to the
relatively small amount of concrete
needed to set each segment [less than
3 cu yd (2.3 m3) for the largest segment], placing concrete for more than
Post-tensioning of
cap to column all
from
Match-cast
Precast Template
Adj ustable
Supports
(Cap lifted by I or
2 cranes as per
weight)
"Looped"
PT Strand
Coupled Post
Tensioning Bars
Fig. 16. Erection sequence for single-co lumn bent with single cap element.
July-Au gust 1999
67
(a)
(b)
68
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Segmental pier design will generally
be controlled by service load conditions . The column section and prestressed reinforcement are selected
based on satisfying the zero tensile
stress limit and the maximum service
compression load stress specified in
the AASHTO codes. It shou ld not be
assumed that the ultimate strength of
the prestressing steel wi ll be developed at ultimate load conditions. Construction stress limits may be critical
in pier design due to the unbalanced
moments imposed while girders are
being placed.
Slenderness effects must be considered in the pier analysis. A seco nd
order analysis that accounts for the effects of prestressing will be the most
desirable solution. Approximate methods s uch as the moment magnifier
method and the P-11 method as outlined in the AASHTO Standard'' and
the LRFD Specifications' can be used
as well.
The above methods were not specifically developed for use with prestressed columns and, therefore, some
modifications should be made when
using them. 2 Slenderness effects will
usually be more critical in the bridge
longitudinal direction (weak axis
bending of the column) than in the
transverse direction (strong axis bending of the column) for the proposed
precast substructure system if the superstructure is simply supported.
Two specific design detail s of note
are the minimum mild reinforcement
provisions for the precast hollow piers
and the anchor zone design in the precast cap. Detailing of the hollow
columns should be in accordance with
recommendations developed by Taylor, Rowell and Breen at the University
of Texas at Austin. 20 One of these detail s includes a minimum provision of
1 percent longitudinal non-prestressed
reinforcement. This recommendation is
primarily aimed at reducing the effects
of creep and shrinkage in these vertical
compression members.
A recent study at the University of
Texas in Austin has shown thi s minimum requirement to be appropriate for
July-August 1999
ECONOMIC IMPACT
The use of precast substructure systems with field post-tensioning repre-
Tabl e 1. Cost estimate for the standardized precast conc rete substructure system.
Segment fabrication (includ ing hauling)* .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . $260-330/m 3 ($200-250 per cu yd)
Post-tensioning hardware* ...
Total cost: $430-545/m 3 ($330-415 cu yd) or a pproximately $525/m 3 ($400 per cu yd)
Note: Total cost based on precast frame bent shown in Fig. 19. Precast single-column bents with similar material
quantity may show reducti on due to faster erection time.
69
Cast-in-place
Circular Columns
Rectangular cap
$420/m3
($320/yd 3 )*
Cast-in-place
Circular columns
Inverted T cap
$485/m 3
($370/yd 3 )*
Precast
Hollow columns
Inverted T cap, pre- and
post-tensioned
$525/m3
70
($400/yd 3 )**
now used to justify use of the inverted-T cap system. The precast system could also be justified where
bridge costs are a small portion of a
large highway project, and the increases in sub structure cost have a
minimal effect on overall project cost.
Recall that for the Edison Bridge
mentioned previously, the substructure
bid made up roughly 7.5 percent of the
total bridge cost. In Texas, the substructure typically accounts for
roughly 30 percent of a total bridge
cost. Therefore, a 30 percent increase
in substructure cost would be a 9 percent increase in total bridge cost. Increases in total highway project cost
would be an even smaller percentage.
For the proposed substructure system, efficiency in substructure design
was considered to be the minimization
of wasted material, non-productive
labor, and construction time in meeting the user's needs within the project
constraints. Comparing the precast
system with the inverted-T cap system, the material and labor savings as
reflected in volume of concrete are in
the 10 percent range. This is offset by
an 8 percent increase in estimated unit
cost of concrete, reflecting the extra
operations involved in handling and
connecting the precast units.
Thus, significant efficiencies would
only be seen from minimization of
construction time. This time reduction
wou ld present savi ngs on projects
where such shorter construction times
would result in reduction of user delays, improved safety , and lowered
traffic rerouting costs. Aesthetic improvements would have to be justified
on a project-to-project basis.
The value of a day of construction
time saved for a recent urban highway
project in Texas was estimated at
$53,000. 22 Clearly, the value of construction speed in certain locations
will far outweigh the construction cost
differences of different sub structure
systems.
For example, as shown in Fig. 19,
while each precast substructure unit
may cost $20,000 more than a cast-inplace multi-column bent with a rectangular bent cap, a project construction
time savings of two weeks in the congested urban site mentioned previously would equate to a savings of
PCI JOURNAL
Cast-in-place
circular columns
Rectangular cap
Cast-in-place
circular columns
Inverted-T cap
Precast
Hollow square columns
Inverted T cap, pre- and
post-tensioned
<I>1050mm columns
(42")
<I>900mm columns
(36")
m3
(48 yd 3 )
76
m3
(99 yd 3 )
I0 I
1200mm
(48")
.
1200mm
(48")
68m 3
(89 yd 3 )
Volume of concrete
37
Unit cost*
$420/m 3 ($320/yd 3 )
$485/m 3 ($370/yd 3 )
$525/m 3 ($400/yd 3 )
$15,300
$36,600
$35,500
Estimated construction
time
- 4 weeks
-4weeks
-1-2 weeks
* See Figure 18
25.4 mm = 1 in
Fig. 19. Cost comparison of three des igns for a 66ft (20m) wide bent.
$742,000. The costs would vary depending on the size and location of the
project. However, the recent experience and valuati on of construction
speed should give precast substructure
systems in the future a highly competitive economic advantage.
Another potential area of savings is
in life-cycle costs. Enhanced durability may be achieved through the
higher performance materials and improved typical quality control of precasti ng. In addition, the compression
of the co ncrete under service loads
due to prestressing should assist in
prevention of cracking and in control
of crack widths if or when cracki ng
occurs. These effects should impede
the ingress of corrosive agents such as
chlorides. Enhanced durability will reduce maintenance and potential replacement costs, particularly in aggressive environments.
STANDARDIZATION
While it is recognized that the initial
cost of a precast system may be
higher, the system must be developed
with forms and details that can easily
be standardized. With wide reuse of
July-August 1999
use of formliners that can be accommodated in standard forms (cast-inplace or precast) adds to this range of
choices.
The authors appreciate that many traditional substructure standards will
continue to be used. Any new system
such as that proposed in this paper will
broaden the designer's range of choices
for application to a particular project. In
this way, creativity is enhanced. Naturally, the need for economy in the reuse
of forms will always provide boundaries to unfettered creativity.
FURTHER RESEARCH
Investigations into the use of precast
substructure design can be extended to
include non-prestressed connection alternatives. One alternative that has had
some limited use in the past is joining
column segments with non-prestressed
reinforcement spliced through grouted
sleeve couplers. Other alternatives include joining precast caps with castin-place columns or casting caps on
site, and then topping precast columns.
Each of these systems introduces partial fabrication off site that may be
more economical in certain situations.
71
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Substructure design provides an opportunity for creative design with
short- and moderate-span bridge systems. New technologies and new materials can be applied with attractive
and economical results. Substructures
can be constructed using methods of
precasting, casting in place or a combination of the two. This paper has
presented a precast substructure system for standardization. A geometrically similar system may be cast-in-
72
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The ideas expressed in this paper
are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the sponsors. Development of this precast substructure system included extensive contributions
from the research team, designers, precasters, form manufacturers and contractors.
The significant contributions of the
TxDOT project directors Norman
Friedman and Dean Van Landuyt are
gratefully acknowledged. Special
recognition is also given to Thomas J.
D ' Arcy as a representative of the
Texas Precast Manufacturers Association and to William F. Daily of Hamilton Form Company, Inc.
The authors also acknowledge the
insightful contributions of Professors
Andrew Vernooy and Daniel Leary of
the School of Architecture at the University of Texas at Austin as well as
graduate research assistants Carl Holliday and Steven Ratchye.
Finally, the authors wish to thank
the PCI JOURNAL reviewers of this
paper for their constructive comments
and helpful suggestions.
PCI JOURNAL
REFERENCES
1. West, J. S., "Durability Design of Post-Tensioned Bridge Substructures," Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin,
Austin, TX, 1999.
2. Billington, S. L., Barnes, R. W., and Breen, J. E., "A Precast
Substructure Design for Standard Bridge Systems," Research
Report 1410-2F, Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 1999.
3. Poston, R. W., Diaz, M., and Breen, J. E., "Design Trends for
Concrete Bridge Piers," ACI Journal, V. 83, No. 1, JanuaryFebruary 1986, pp. 14-20.
4. Freyermuth, C. L., "Building Better Bridges: Concrete vs.
Steel: Sizing up Segmentals," Civil Engineering, V. 62, No.7,
July 1992, pp. 66-69. (See also Ref. 2 under Serviceability of
Concrete Bridges in Appendix A.)
5. Muller, J. M., and Barker, J. M., "Design and Construction of
Linn Cove Viaduct," PCI JOURNAL, V. 30, No. 5, September-October 1985, pp. 38-53.
6. Podolny, W., Jr., and Muller, J. M., Construction and Design
of Prestressed Concrete Segmental Bridges, John Wiley &
Sons, New York, NY, 1982, pp. 543-545.
7. Wolf, L. M., and Friedman, N. K., "Redfish Bay and Morris &
Cummings Cut: Innovations on Bridge Construction and Durability," Technical Quarterly, V. 9, No.2, Texas Department of
Transportation, Austin, TX, October 1994, pp. 1-3.
8. Muon, W. D., "Precast Cofferdams Speed Pier Construction,"
Highway & Heavy Construction, V. 130, No. 10, October
1987' pp. 58-60.
9. "Torridge Bridge Combines Aesthetic Excellence with Construction Economy," Concrete Construction, V. 34, No. 5,
May 1989, pp. 447-452.
10. "Engineering Initiative Helps Solve Beach Problem in Port
Elizabeth," Die Siviele Ingenieur in Suid-Afrika, V. 33, No. 6,
June 1991, pp. 197-199.
11. Ingerslev, L. C. F., "Precast Concrete for Bahrain Causeway,"
Concrete International, V. 11, No. 12, December 1989,
pp. 15-20.
12. "Development of Precast Bridge Substructures," Prepared for
the Florida Department of Transportation by LoBuono, Armstrong & Associates, HDR Engineering, Inc., and Morales and
Shumer Engineers, Inc., May 1996.
July-August 1999
73