Modular Precast Concrete Bridges

Licensed copy from CIS: URS, URS Infrastructure, 20/07/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.
A single copy of this document is licensed to
URS
On
20/07/2014
This is an uncontrolled copy. Ensure use of the

most current version of the document by searching
the Construction Information Service.
Acknowledgements
The Concrete Bridge Development Croup is particularly pleased to acknowledge the work of Simon Bourne
of Benaim in preparing this report and to Benaim for providing photographs and diagrams for inclusion in
this publication:
CBDC acknowledges financial support from The Concrete Centre in the production of this publication.
www.concretecentre.com
Published for and on behalf of t h e Concrete Bridge D e v e l o p m e n t Croup by
The Concrete Society

Riverside House, 4 Meadows Business Park, Station Approach, Blackwater, Camberley, Surrey CU17 9AB
Tel: +44 (0)1276 607140 Fax: +44 (0)1276 607141
www.concrete.org.uk
CCIP-028
Published December 2008
ISBN 978-1-904482-52-9
Concrete Bridge Development Croup
Order reference: CBDC/TG11
CCIP publications are produced by The Concrete Society on behalf of the Cement and Concrete Industry
Publications Forum - an industry initiative to publish technical guidance in support of concrete design and
construction.
CCIP publications are available from the Concrete Bookshop at www.concretebookshop.com

TeU+44 (0)7004 607777
All rights reserved. Except as permitted under current legislation no part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval
system, published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast, transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission of the copyright owner. Enquiries should be addressed to the Concrete Bridge Development Group.
Although the Concrete Bridge Development Group (limited by guarantee) does its best to ensure that any advice, recommendations
or information it may give either in this publication or elsewhere is accurate, no liability or responsibility of any kind (including
liability for negligence) howsoever and from whatsoever cause arising, is accepted in this respect by the Group, its servants or
agents.
Printed by Holbrooks Printers Ltd, Portsmouth, UK

Modular precast concrete bridges
Contents
List of figures 2
List of tables 2
Executive summary 3
1. Introduction 5
2. M a r k e t assessment 6
3. M o d u l a r precast c o n c r e t e bridge 8
3.1 Highway bridge 8
3.2 Railway bridge 10
4. S t r u c t u r a l details 12
4.1 Span variations 12
4.2 Width variations 13
4.3 Curvature 14
4.4 Skew 14
5. C o n s t r u c t i o n options 15
5.1 Span lift construction 15
5.2 Incremental launching 17
5.3 Self-propelled modular transporters 18
5.4 Gantry 19
6. C o n s t r u c t i o n p r o g r a m m e and costs 21
6.1 Capital investment requirements 21
6.2 Case study 1: Three-span highway overbridge 22
6.3 Case study 2: Single-span highway overbridge 25
7. Conclusions 28
References 30
Appendix A. Scheme drawings 31
Appendix B. Construction programmes 37
List of figures
,ure 1 Completed modular precast bridge.
Fij,ure 2 Typical mid-span section through modular highway bridge.
F'f jure 3 Typical longitudinal section through modular highway bridge.
Figjure 4 Typical mid-span section through 27 m-span modular railway bridge
Fijjure 5 Typical sections for varying span requirements.
Fijjure 6 Typical span-to-depth ratios for proposed system.
Fi*jure 7 Typical sections for varying width requirements.

Fifjure 8 A51 Grenoble overbridge.
Fi{jure 9 Installation of A51 Grenoble overbridge.
F'{ jure 10 Span lift construction sequence.

(a) Installation of first span; (b) installation of final span.
Fijjure 11 Incremental launching construction sequence.

(a) Launching of first rib; (b) completed launch of second rib.
Fijjure 12 Installation of Badhoevedorp Bridge.

Fijjure 13 Lavender Road Bridge, Kent.
Fi{jure 14 Gantry system in use on Stanstead Abbotts Bypass.
Fi{jure 15 Three-span highway overbridge layout adopted for Case Study 1.
F'i ^ure 16 Section through modular precast bridge.
Fii>ure 17 Section through steel-composite bridge.
Fii'ure 18 Single-span highway overbridge layout adopted for Case Study 2.
Fi!;jure 19 Section through modular precast bridge.
Fii;>ure 20 Section through steel-composite bridge.
Figure A1 Three-span option (20-25-20 m) - general arrangement.

Figure A2 Three-span option (20-25-20 m) - typical details.
Figure A3 Three-span option (35-45-35 m) - general arrangement.
Figure A4 Typical details of bridge system 1.
Figure A5 Typical details of bridge system 2.
Figure A6 Three-span option (20-25-20 m) - Span lift construction.
Figure B1 Case Study 1 - three-span layout (20-25-20 m).
Figure B2 Case Study 2 - single-span layout (45 m).
List of tables
Table 1 Typical features of steel-composite overbridge structures.
Table 2 Typical features of precast concrete beam overbridge structures.
Table 3 Details of modular precast bridge system.
Table 4 Capital investment costs for modular bridge system.
Table 5 Cost summary for three-span overbridge.
Table 6 Cost summary for single-span overbridge.
Executive summary
The bridge market in the UK is set to grow steadily over the next five to ten years due in
part to the major improvements to the highways network. This publication outlines the
development of a new modular precast concrete bridge system, which offers a real alter-
native to steel-composite construction for medium-span bridges. It is considered that
this modular precast concrete bridge system has the potential to place concrete as the
preferred option for medium-span (15-50 m) bridges in the UK. The system combines the
best features of steel-composite, precast concrete, and in-situ concrete into a solution that
can deliver the highest value at the majority of bridge locations. The system makes use of
concrete shell units that are precast off site and builds upon the recent, successful and
innovative use of segmental and incremental launching technology used on two projects
in Ireland, namely the Taney Road Bridge for Graham Construction and the River Shannon
Bridge for Irishenco Construction.
The system benefits from relatively light, 2.5 m long, precast concrete shell units that can
be easily transported to site for assembly. Permanent prestressing cables are then placed
and are covered by in-situ concrete to provide additional composite action as well as the
required protection. The focus on precast concrete elements and off-site construction also
ensures that a high-quality product is constructed within a safe environment. A further
benefit is that the construction methodology can be varied to suit specific bridge sites and
demands of the project programme. The flexibility of the system is such that it can enable
the use of incremental launching, lifting using mobile cranes, lifting using transporters and
erection using a temporary gantry. This allows the contractor scope to select the construction
option that most suits the location and complexities of the project.
The modular system is shown to be suitable for a wide range of typical highway bridge
layouts. Varying span lengths, carriageway widths, horizontal and vertical curvatures, and
skew can be readily accommodated by the match-cast shell units. The system provides an
elegant solution with the benefit of being relatively maintenance-free. Two typical highway
overbridge layouts are shown, which allow the construction costs and programmes of the
modular precast to be compared with steel-composite alternatives. The case studies used
are a three-span structure with spans of 20-25-20 m and a single 45 m span. In both cases
the modular precast concrete system has been shown to offer significant cost and/or
programme savings over a steel-composite alternative.
The modular precast concrete system only requires an initial capital investment of less
than 250k. Initial studies indicate that this can be financed over five to ten bridges which,
given the 80 bridges built per annum in the UK, suggests a viable return in only two to
three years.
The system places concrete as the future for medium-span bridges by offering notable
benefits over alternative solutions, namely safer, faster, higher quality, less traffic disruption,
less maintenance, more sustainable, more affordable, more buildable, more elegant and
higher value.
1. Introduction
A review of the highway market in the UK indicates that growth will be strong over the next
ten years. Currently in the UK there is greater use of steel-composite construction but this
approach is not generally reflected elsewhere in the world. This technical guide describes
the development of a modular precast bridge system that has the potential to re-establish
concrete as the preferred option for medium-span bridges, in the range 15-50 m spans.
The system combines the best features of steel-composite, precast beam, in-situ and
segmental schemes into a solution that can deliver the highest value at the majority of
bridge locations.
This guide gives an overview of the new system, which has been developed by Benaim
following the recent, successful and innovative use of segmental technology on two
alternative design projects in the Republic of Ireland, namely the Taney Road Bridge for
Graham Construction and the River Shannon Bridge for Irishenco Construction. Both
projects exhibited the ease of construction while also reducing cost and programme time.
Experience suggests that the innovations developed from these bespoke schemes have
the possibility to reduce the current steel-composite dominance on highway bridges in
the UK.
s
2. Market assessment
In the years immediately following the publication of the Department for Transport's Ten-
year plan in 2000 \ investment in the highway sector was sluggish. More recently, however,
n
funding has returned to the highway sector, illustrated by an increase in spending by the
Highways Agency in Major improvements in the strategic road network and confirmed by
the publication of The future of transport: A network forZ030 [3]
by the Department for
Transport in 2004. Bridge structures form an important element in the majority of highway
schemes, and hence it is expected that the bridge market will increase in line with this
overall investment.
The responsibility for the construction of highway bridges in the UK lies with the Highways
Agency (HA), local and regional authorities and private developers. Determining the total
number of typical bridges constructed in any given year is a difficult task due to the lack
of a central database of information. Two different approaches were adopted to allow a
best estimate. First, the HA website and the Glenigan construction information database
(the latter compiled for local/regional authorities and private developers) were used to
estimate the number of bridges constructed, based on data from recent years. The other
method used the HA's business plan for expenditure on major improvements to the network
for 2006/07 assuming that one bridge is built for every 10 million spent.
The results from these studies indicated that, on average, around 80 typical bridges per year
are built in the UK. A typical bridge, for the purposes of this Guide, carries about 1000 rn z
of deck area.
Concrete is the material of choice for the majority of short-span bridges. However, the
use of precast concrete beams in medium-span structures has declined in recent years
with steel-composite construction controlling this portion of the market. The often-
perceived advantages and disadvantages associated with steel-composite and precast
concrete bridge types are presented in Tables 1 and 2 respectively.
Table 1
Advantages Disadvantages
Typical features of steel-composite overbridge
structures. Low risk Work at height
Fast Aesthetics
Good quality Maintenance
Buildability Material economy
Good traffic management
Labour economy
Low technology
6
Table 2
Advantages Disadvantages
Typical features of precast concrete beam
overbridge structures. Low risk Work at height
Good quality Aesthetics
Buildability Less efficient
Good traffic management
Durability
Sustainability
Labour economy
Low technology
A comparison of the two construction types would suggest that they are similar, but with
precast beams offering a better overall solution than steel-composite due to environmental
sustainability and whole-life durability.
It is believed that this new modular precast concrete bridge system with its well-engineered
solutions, enhanced value, lower maintenance and improved aesthetics will offer a real
alternative to steel-composite construction. The cost and programme time of the system
are very competitive when compared with steel-composite solutions (see Chapter 6). The
system also offers the potential to form a pleasing, sustainable solution that will benefit
clients and customers, both over the life of the bridges and through their delivery in a safe
and efficient manner.
7
3. Modular precast concrete bridge
The modular precast system outlined in this publication consists of relatively light, 2.5 m
long, precast shell units that are precast off site and can be easily transported. On site, the
units are assembled, stressed together and in-situ concrete placed. The combined units
are positioned using launching or lifting technology, dependent on the site characteristics.
Figure 1 shows a completed three-span modular precast bridge.
Figure 1
Completed modular precast bridge.
3.1 Highway bridge Figures 2 and 3 show typical sections through the modular bridge. Where the bridge is
constructed using the Span lift method (see Chapter 5), the wall thickness of the precast
unit is reduced in order to minimise the weight to be lifted.
Figure 2
Typical mid-span section through
2100 footway _ 3650 carriageway 3650 carriageway 2100 footway _
modular highway bridge.
Precast edge unit
In-situ infill concrete
1500
2 No. 19/15 mm
launch cables
Temporary prestressing bars
2 No. 32 Dia.
6 No. 19/15
.. mm \
1000 1500 1000
profile cables concrete shell
P r e c a s t
approx. 2500 long 250 250
8
Figure 3
Typical longitudinal section 2500 typical uit 2000 to 3000 range
through modular highway bridge. Launch cable
' ducts
400
Precast unit In-situ infill Profiled cable
Diaphragm
ducts
Glued, match-cast or
25-50 thick grouted/
concrete joint
The system is broken down into its constituent components and explained in detail in
Table 3. Reference should also be made to the illustrative drawings given in Figures A1-A6
of Appendix A.
Table 3
System component Advantage
Details of modular precast bridge system.
Precast, segmental shell units formed as a single rib Reduces the required mould technology normally
and top slab associated with box forms
High-quality components constructed off site
Units that are around 5 m wide and 2.5 m long Easily transported to site (12-15 t each)
Units that can be varied in width (4-6 m) Variety of road widths catered for (4-40 m)
Units that can be varied in depth (1-3 m) Variety of spans catered for (12-50 m)
Units that can be varied in length (2-3 m) Variety of bridge lengths catered for (up to 150 m)
Units that can be match-cast and glued with epoxy Easily assembled on site
resin Vertical and horizontal curvature easily accommodated
High-quality joint between adjacent shells
Units that can be positioned using a number of Construction methods that can be adopted to suit
methods, i.e. incremental launching, Span lift, site characteristics and programme requirements
transporter or gantry
Shell units that are then infilled with in-situ concrete, Provides continuous ducts and protection to the
which houses all the internal prestressing cables cables (in accordance with Concrete Society TR47,
Durable post-tensioned concrete bridges^)
A deck that is then prestressed internally from end to Efficient use of structural materials
end with profiled cables that carry all the load effects
A deck that can be made fully integral with bankseat Reduces future maintenance costs by eliminating all
abutments and fully monolithic with intermediate piers bearings and expansion joints
The use of the precast segmental process allows high-quality, accurate and factory-
produced units to be created in a safe and efficient manner. The use of precast shell units
also allows the in-situ infill concrete to be poured in small bays, thus eliminating most
issues associated with early-age thermal and restraint effects. In addition the use of the
shell units eliminates the complex technology needed for box moulds.
9
The use of the launching or lifting processes allows safe and easy construction, minimising
disruption to traffic and considerably reducing the amount of work at height over the road,
which can generally be kept open throughout; when closures are required, they are short and
compact. The deck can be fully aligned and formed before the launch or the lift, enhancing
the speed and quality of construction.
The modular system can cater for a variety of deck configurations as detailed in Chapter 4.
In addition, the construction methodology can be varied to suit the site characteristics and
project requirements. This is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5.
Chapter 6 looks at the cost and programme implications for two typical bridge layouts. On
both counts the proposed modular system is shown to be very competitive compared with
a steel-composite solution.
3.2 Railway bridge Figure 4 shows how the modular bridge system can be adopted to suit the UK railway
environment. The main longitudinal ribs are located to the side, thus permitting a shallow
construction depth.
Figure 4
Typical mid-span section through 27 m-span
Structure gauge
modular railway bridge.
at zero cant
In-situ stitch Approx. 2500 long

precast unit
The characteristics and benefits of the system are similar to those of the highway bridge
option, i.e. a buildable and economic structure with a clean aesthetic and simple details,
which is robust to impact, and has low maintenance and enhanced safety through its off-
site and off-line construction. The construction methodology can also be varied to suit
specific bridge sites and demands of the project programme.
3.2.1 Medium-Span bridges There are a number of construction options available, which are discussed further in
Chapter 5. Those of particular merit for medium-span (15-40 m) modular railway bridge
structures are as follows:
10
oduiar precast concrete bridge
Launched method The deck is built, as a kit of parts, off-line from the railway, and from
the road over which it will cross. From this off-line platform, it is assembled, stitched
and prestressed, and then launched in its complete form over the roadway to a position
alongside the existing bridge, where it becomes supported on slide tracks. From here,
the new concrete bridge would then be slid sideways during a possession period. This
whole process significantly reduces the work at height over the roadway.
Sliding method The deck is assembled adjacent to its final position, either at road
level during a medium-term road closure, or on a gantry at high level. The deck is then
stitched and prestressed, and during the possession period jacked onto slide tracks and
slid sideways.
Self-propelled modular transporter (SPMT) method The deck is fully assembled and
prestressed off line. The entire deck is then transported and lifted into position during
the possession period.
3.2.2 Short-Span bridges Shorter-span bridges in the range 10-15 m comprise the majority of railway underbridges
in the UK. The construction options for such bridges are similar to those for medium-span
bridges. However, the lower deck weights (of around 1501 for a double-track structure) also
permit the use of a large mobile crane that would be capable of lifting the entire structure
into position during limited possession time.
11
4. Structural details
This chapter examines the ability of the modular system to cope with a variety of bridge
layouts and configurations. Reference should also be made to the illustrative drawings
given in Figures A1-A6 in Appendix A.
4.1 Span variations The modular precast system is adaptable to varying span requirements. Figure 5 shows how
the depth of the shells can be varied to allow different spans to be achieved. Preliminary
calculations have been undertaken for typical single-span, two-span and three-span highway
overbridge layouts as part of this design study.
Figure 5
Typical sections for varying span
requirements.
1000
1500
Minimum section: Spans 15-25 m
feyr J,
1 i
1 . i i 1
\ Precast
~\
j 1500 -
; A*- units
Launch 2
cables '
/ In-situ stitch >
Profiled In-situ infill '
span cables
Typical section: Spans 25-35 m
i _ i j i _ i i i _ i i i _ i
Maximum section: Spans 35-50 m
For typical spans between 25 m and 35 m, the section depth would vary between 1.5 and
2.0 m.The minimum depth for shorter spans is 1.0 m, increasing to a maximum of 3.0 m
for longer spans of between 35 and 50 m. Figure 6 shows the range of span-to-depth
ratios for typical schemes.
Figure 6
Typical span-to-depth ratios for proposed
system. 3.5
| Max depth |
3.0
2.5
I 2
-
-C
a.
S 1.5
Min depth
1.0 Maximum (1:15)

Typical (1:17)
Minimum(1:20)
0.5
10 20 30 40 50
Span (m)
4.2 Width variations The modular precast system is also adaptable to varying width requirements. Figure 7
shows how the width of the bridge deck can be changed through a variation in unit width
and/or varying the width of the central in-situ stitch.
Figure 7
Typical sections for varying width
requirements. 4000 1000 4000
Narrow deck: 9 m
i ij
1 1
i i
c _ j
/
Typical deck width: 11.5m
* I ; 1
\i j
1
i r i 1 1 1 1 1 1
/
Wide deck: 14 m
13
4.3 Curvature The modular precast units can also be match-cast, thereby allowing any curvature to be
achieved. Match-casting ensures that units are easily assembled on site and provides a
high-quality joint between adjacent precast units.
4.4 Skew Figure A5 in Appendix A shows a typical three-span highway overbridge with skews of
7.5, 15 and 30. The modular system can cater for skew by:
forming a skew end with the precast end units, which can be readily achieved by using
an additional stop end in the mould;

spanning square between the abutments - a slight increase in span is required but the
cost of additional material is minimal;
spanning skew between abutments with cast-in-situ end sections, which are poured
with the integral abutments.
14
5. Construction options
A number of easily constructible options have been developed with the purpose of
identifying the most suitable option for the UK highway market.
5.1 Span lift Construction Span lift construction is an attractive method of construction that has been developed as
part of this study. This method provides a more efficient structural form while utilising
traditional UK bridge construction skills, i.e. heavy lifting technology.
As noted in Chapter 3, where a bridge is constructed via the Span lift method, the wall
thickness of the precast unit is reduced in order to minimise the weight to be lifted. Figure A6
of Appendix A details the typical construction sequence and shell units.
The construction sequence for a typical single-span bridge is as follows:
Shell units are transported to site and aligned at road level close to the bridge site.
Permanent external prestress is applied to the shell units alone.
The complete 5 m-wide rib is lifted into position using a large mobile crane.
Infill concrete is poured into ribs.
* Further permanent prestress is applied to the composite section.
Adjacent ribs are stitched together.
Parapet edge beams and finishes are applied.
This method is suited to both single- and multi-span bridges. In the case of a multi-span
bridge, cast-in-situ segments are required at the pier locations, prior to the installation of
full-length continuity prestressing cables.
The method is more attractive to the UK industry as it employs well-known technology in

the form of large mobile cranes. Mobile cranes of up to 10001 capacity are now available,
which allow a 35 m rib of around 125 t weight to be lifted at a radius of over 30 m. More
widely available, and more easily rigged, mobile cranes of 800 t capacity would allow the
same 35 m rib to be lifted at a radius of about 25 m.
As the initial prestress is applied to the shell section alone, its structural efficiency is signi-
ficantly enhanced, thus reducing the total amount of prestress required. The method also
avoids the need for investing in launching/gantry equipment, thus reducing the initial
capital investment cost, and the cost required in constructing temporary props.
A similar method has recently been used during the construction of a bridleway overbridge
on the A51 in Grenoble by Vinci (Figure 8). Although it differs significantly in terms of its
section, this scheme is very similar with regard to the construction method.
15
Figure 8
Cross-section of A51 Grenoble overbridge.
Figure 9
Installation of A51 Grenoble
overbridge.
The 1901 bridge was constructed at road level parallel to the road, and then lifted and
turned through 90 during a road closure (Figure 9), in a similar vein to that proposed for
the modular precast bridge solution.
16
a) Installation of first span b) Installation of final span
Figure 10
Span lift construction beginning and end Figures 10(a) and 10(b) show a graphic representation of part of the sequence of construction
stages.
for the Span lift scheme. It is believed that this method offers great potential, and the
associated cost and programme implications are investigated further in Chapter 6.
5.2 Incremental launching The concept of the modular bridge system began with incremental launching as the
envisaged construction methodology, and it is thought that this method should generally
be the preferred option at most multi-span locations. Figure A2 of Appendix A details the
typical construction sequence.
The major advantages associated with launched construction include safety, due to minimal
work at height over the carriageway; minimal traffic disruption, due to the smaller number
of short closures that are required; and a higher quality because of the off-line construction.
This system can be developed with or without the need for temporary propping. However,
the use of temporary propping reduces the length of the launching nose and the amount
of central prestressing steel required.
The construction sequence for a typical multi-span bridge is as follows:
Shell units are transported to site and aligned behind the abutment.
Units are stressed together longitudinally with prestressing bars.
Infill concrete is poured into ribs.
Adjacent ribs are stitched together transversely.
Permanent launching prestress is applied to the composite section.
The complete bridge deck is pushed into position using launching jacks and a nose,
possibly using temporary props.
Further permanent prestress is applied to the launched section.
Parapet edge beams and finishes are applied.
17
a) Launching of first rib b) Completed launch of second rib
Figure 11
incremental launching construction sequence. Figures 11(a) and 11(b) give a graphic representation of part of the sequence of construction
for the launched scheme.
This method is very suitable for many bridge types/locations, especially multi-span structures,
and the associated cost and programme implications are investigated in parallel with that
of the Span lift method in Chapter 6.
5.3 Self-propelled modular Self-propelled modular transporters (SPMT) are beginning to be used in the UK on bridge
projects. SPMT allow very large loads to be lifted and moved in a controlled manner. The
transporters
four- and six-axle line units can be assembled into any combination to allow the required
load to be moved. The units offer 360 steering, hydraulic suspension and electronic control
of individual wheel units.
For the modular precast bridge system, the SPMT are believed to be most suitable for
moving large or unusual single-span structures. They offer improved safety conditions as
the bridge is constructed off-line and then transported to site and lifted in place during a
single road closure. Their use would also be very suitable for the railway sector.
Recent examples of SPMT in use on bridge projects include the Badhoevedorp Bridge in the
Netherlands and the Lavender Road Bridge in Kent, UK In the case of the Badhoevedorp
Bridge (see Figure 12), a 120 m-long deck weighing 33001 was lifted and moved into
position in a two-hour period.
18
Construction options 5
Right: Figure 12
Installation of
Figure 13 shows the movement of the 12001 Lavender Road Bridge deck in Kent during
the widening of a road. The bridge was moved from its original piers, stored off-line and
then repositioned on new piers 9 m to the east of the original location.
Although the SPMT have a number of significant advantages, they can be expensive for
use on typical highway bridge projects. For example, the cost of installing a 45 m single-
span modular bridge (weight of the entire deck approximately 12001) would be in the
region of 100 000. With a total superstructure cost of only around 250 000, the SPMT
method is costly when compared with other methods (see Chapter 6) but there will be
situations where project requirements could favour this option.
5.4 Gantry The modular precast bridge system is also suited to construction using temporary gantries.
In this method, the gantry is used to support the shell units as they are aligned in their final
position. The shells are then stressed to support the infill concrete, which is cast in-situ.
Further permanent prestress is then applied.
This option is suited to both single- and multi-span structures, and requires lighter cranage
for the single shell units, which weigh only 12-15 t each. The technology is well known and
in certain circumstances may offer the most economical method of construction even
though an investment in a gantry system is required. However, the method requires most
of the operations to be undertaken at height, unlike some of the other construction options.
Figure 14 shows an example of an under-slung gantry system in use on the Stanstead

Abbotts Bypass in the UK.
19
Figure 14
Gantry system in use on Stanstead Abbotts
Bypass.
Photo: Benaim
In the early 1990s, a precast segmental 'channel bridge system' was developed by Jean
Muller in France as a new concrete cross-sectional shape for freeway overpasses. This was
further developed in the USA in the mid-1990s. The system is of relevance to this report
as it employed an under-slung gantry to position the precast units, although the units
were solid and internally prestressed.
20
Construction programme and costs 6
6. Construction programme and costs

Two typical highway overbridge layouts have been chosen to allow the modular precast
concrete construction costs and programmes to be compared with a steel-composite
alternative. The rates used in the study have been determined through experience on
similar projects and are therefore believed to offer robust estimates. For the purposes of
this Guide, costs have not been attributed to 'lane closures'. Such costs can vary widely
dependent on the road location and can only be considered on a bridge-specific basis.
The construction programmes have also been developed through recent experience on
similar projects. However, they serve mainly as a comparative tool and exact details will
differ from contractor to contractor, at different locations.
6.1 Capital investment Standardisation of the construction process requires investment in a 'kit of parts' that would
allow the modular system to be used at a variety of locations. The essential components
requirements
of the kit required to cast and align the shell units on site are:
two moulds within a casting shed

unit transporter/low-loader
cranes to lift approximately 12-15 t units
temporary packs and jacks to align the units
prestressing bars to hold the units together.
As noted in Chapter 5, the system can be constructed using a number of techniques. For
the Span lift and SPMT options, the remaining construction cost is covered by a specialist
subcontractor. In the case of the incrementally launched option, investment in further
items is required, namely:
launching nose
possible temporary props and foundations
jacking equipment
launch bearings, jacks and lateral guides.
The capital investment costs for the modular bridge system are outlined in Table 4.
Table 4 Item Cost

Capital investment costs for modular bridge
system. Moulds (2No.) 80k
Low loader 25k
Prestressing bars 5k
Launching nose 25k
Intermediate props 10k
Pulling beams 5k
Strand & jacks 5k
Launch bearings 5k
Total 160k
21
Typical precast segmental schemes using box sections have been shown to be economic
for bridge deck areas of more than 10 000 m . However, a study of the capital investment 2
costs for this modular bridge system indicates that 5000 m of bridge deck would be 2
required for it to be cost-effective, i.e. about five to ten typical highway bridges. Therefore
in the following cost comparisons, 10% of these capital investment costs has been added
to the cost of the modular bridge options, as a capital repayment.
With approximately 80 bridges under construction in the UK each year, it is believed that
the market is large enough to make the recovery of this investment figure attainable in the
short to medium term. This is based on the premise that of these 80 bridges, approximately
half would be suitable for the proposed system, of which a single team could expect to
bid for 20 and win a minimum of 2 5 % , i.e. five bridges per year. A return on investment
cost could therefore be expected within a rather short period of two to three years.
6.2 Case study 1: Three- Figure 15 shows the three-span highway overbridge chosen for the study. The bridge has
spans of 20-25-20 m, typical of overbridges crossing both carriageways of a two-lane
span highway overbridge
dual carriageway.
( V I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ^ 1
: ca rU
1 1 U 1 1L
Figure 15
Three-span highway overbridge layout Figure 16 shows the cross-section of the proposed modular precast bridge. The shell sections
adopted for Case Study 1. g r e 1 5 m d _ _
e e p f approximately 17.
g i v | p g g s p a n t 0 d e p t h r a t i o 0
Two construction options were investigated for this bridge type. The first considered the
Span lift option, which offers the advantage of using more traditional UK construction
skills. Construction via two stages of incremental launching was also investigated, as
shown in Figure A2 of Appendix A.
Figure 17 shows the cross-section of the steel-composite bridge adopted for this study. A
ladder deck layout was chosen as it has been shown to be the most economic form in
recent projects. The main girders are 1.25 m deep with a 250 mm deck slab, also giving a
span-to-depth ratio of 17. It is proposed that the bridge is constructed by traditional means,
i.e. the main beams lifted in position, followed by the cross-girders, with the in-situ slab
cast on permanent, participating formwork.
22
Figure 16
Section through modular precast 2100 3650 3650 2100
bridge. Footway Carriageway Carriageway Footway
~D
Figure 17
Section through steel-composite
2100 3650 3650 2100
bridge. Footway Carriageway Carriageway Footway
=LL
S I .
1250
23
6.2.1 Cost Comparison A summary of the costs is given in Table 5.
Table 5
Item Modular precast Steel-composite
Cost summary for three-span overbridge.
S p a n lift Launched
Substructure 80k 80k 70k
Superstructure
Deck (excluding formwork) 140k 140k
Equivalent formwork costs
job specific 45k 29k
Capital repayment 10k 195k 16k 185k 235k

Finishes (including abutments) 175k 175k 175k
Preliminaries 225k 220k 23Sk
Discounted whole-life maintenance 35k 35k 50k
Total 71 Ok 695k 765k
Percentage saving 8% 10%
Monetary saving 60k 75k
The modular precast system shows itself to be more economic by offering a saving of
between 8 and 10% when compared to the steel-composite option. As expected, the
major cost savings are attributable to the reduced material costs for the superstructure.
Substructure costs are only marginally higher for the concrete option.
The launched option in this comparison is shown to be cheaper than the Span lift option,
due mainly to the relatively high crane hire costs required. However, a reduced initial
investment is required for the Span lift option, thereby reducing the potential exposure of
the contractor. This comparison indicates that both the Span lift and launched methods
are viable construction options.
6.2.2 Programme comparison The construction programmes for each of the construction options are shown in Figure B1 of
Appendix B. The total construction times for the modular bridge with launched construction
and the composite steel option were found to be very similar, at around 33 weeks each,
with the modular Span lift construction offering a three-week benefit in construction time.
6.2.3 Summary For the case of a typical three-span highway overbridge, the modular precast bridge has
been shown to offer a well-engineered solution at a lower cost and some benefits in
construction time compared with a steel-composite bridge.
24
6.3 Case study 2: Single- Figure 18 shows the single-span highway overbridge chosen for the study. The bridge has
Span highway Overbridge 3 s
P a n
f 4 5 m
' w n i c
h i s
typical for bridges over widened motorways where piers in the
central reservation are avoided due to construction difficulties close to passing traffic.
Hardshoulder Central resevation Hardshoulder

Carriageway
l , Carriageway _ | |
Above: Figure 18
Single-span highway overbridge layout
adopted for Case Study 2.
2100 3650 3650 2100
Right: Figure 19
Footway Carriageway Carriageway Footway
Section through modular precast bridge.
Precast edge unit
In-situ stitch concrete
Figure 19 shows the cross-section of the proposed modular precast bridge. The shell
sections are 3 m deep giving a span-to-depth ratio of 15.
Two construction options were also investigated for this bridge type. The first considered
the Span lift option. An alternative option of constructing the entire bridge off-line and
lifting it in place with an SPMT was also investigated.
Figure 20 shows the cross-section of the steel-composite bridge adopted for this study. A
ladder deck layout was chosen as it has been shown to be the most economic form in
recent projects. The main girders are 2.25 m deep with a 250 mm deck slab, giving a span-
to-depth ratio of 18. It is proposed that the bridge is constructed by traditional means,
i.e. the main beams lifted in position, followed by the cross-girders, with the in-situ slab
cast on permanent, participating formwork.
25
Figure 20
Section through steel-composite bridge.
2100 3650 3650 2100
Footway Carriageway Carriageway Footway
5J
6.3.1 Cost Comparison A summary of the costs is given in Table 6.
Table 6 Item Modular precast Steel-composite

Cost summary for single-span overbridge.
Span lift SPMT
Substructure 80k 80k 70k
Superstructure
Deck (excluding formwork) 150k 150k
Equivalent formwork costs
Job specific 45k 115k
Capital repayment 10k 205k 10k 275k 250k
Finishes 80k 80k 80k
Preliminaries 185k 215k 200k
Discounted whole life maintenance 15k 1Sk 2Sk
Total 565k 665k 625k
Percentage saving 10% (6%)
Monetary saving 60k (40k)
The modular precast bridge constructed by the Span lift method is the most economic
option, giving a saving of 10% of the total cost when compared to the steel-composite
alternative. Constructing the modular precast bridge using the transporter is the more
expensive option due to the high cost of the SPMT. However, the small premium in cost
of 6 % can be offset by the improvement it offers in construction time (see next section).
6.3.2 Programme comparison The construct ion programmes for each of the construction options are shown in Figure B2
of Appendix B. The total construction times for the modular bridge construction options
were found to be somewhat shorter than composite steel, within the accuracy achievable
at this stage.
26
In particular, constructing the modular precast bridge using a transporter has the potential to
save approximately three weeks programme time when compared with the steel-composite
alternative. In addition, this option has many safety advantages, as the majority of con-
struction work takes place away from the roadway Constructing the modular precast bridge
using the Span lift method was also shown to be faster by around two weeks compared
with the steel-composite option.
6.3.3 Summary For the case of a typical long, single-span highway overbridge, the modular precast bridge
has been shown to offer a well-engineered solution at a lower cost than a comparable
steel-composite bridge when constructed using the Span lift method. The construction
time has been shown to be very competitive for this method, being marginally shorter
when compared with the steel-composite solution.
Constructing the modular bridge using an SPMT has been shown to be slightly more
expensive than the traditional steel-composite solution while offering a saving on programme
time of approximately three weeks.
27
7. Conclusions
The bridge market in the UK is set to grow steadily over the next five to ten years. The use
of steel-composite construction is almost unique to the UK, and it is believed that a well-
engineered and competitive concrete option has the potential to gain considerable market
share. The modular precast bridge system which this publication addresses aims to re-
establish concrete as the preferred option for medium-span bridges.
The modular system has been shown to be suitable for a wide range of typical bridge
layouts. Varying span lengths, carriageway widths, horizontal and vertical curvatures, and
skew can be readily accommodated by the match-cast shell units. The focus on precast
elements and off-site construction ensures a high-quality product is constructed within a
safe environment.
Importantly for both the developer and contractor the construction methodology can be
varied to suit specific bridge sites and the demands of the project programme. The con-
struction options available include the following:
Span lift method

High-quality, low-maintenance precast components.
Suited to single- and multi-span structures.
Two-phase stressing technique reduces quantity of prestress steel required.
Utilises existing skills within UK construction sector.
Cheaper than steel-composite alternative for both typical single- and three-span bridges
(Case Studies 1 and 2), see section 6.2 and 6.3.
Faster than steel-composite alternative for both typical single- and three-span bridges
(Case Studies 1 and 2), see section 6.2 and 6.3.
Safer - less work to be carried out at height than with steel-composite alternative.
Traffic - some disruption but similar to steel-composite.
Incrementally launched method

Suited to multi-span structures.
Utilises newer technology within UK construction sector.
Cheaper than steel-composite and Span lift alternatives for a typical three-span bridge
(Case Study 2), see section 6.3.
Similar speed to steel-composite alternative.
Safer - minimum work to be carried out at height, especially if temporary props are
avoided.
Traffic - minimal as possessions required during launching only.
28
Conclusions
Self-propelled modular transporter (SPMT) method

Suited to single-span structures.
Utilises emerging skills within UK construction sector.
More expensive than steel-composite alternative.
Faster than steel-composite alternative for a typical single-span bridge (Case Study 1),
see section 6.2.
Safer - minimum work to be carried out at height.
Traffic - single possession required for all bridge works.
Gantry method
Suited to single- and multi-span structures.
Utilises newer technology within UK construction sector.
Requires additional work to be carried out at height.
Costs, programme times and traffic management remain to be investigated.
For the two typical case studies presented in this guide, the modular system has been shown
to offer significant cost and/or programme savings over a steel-composite alternative, as
well as being more more elegant, efficient and robust and requiring less maintenance.
The modular system requires an initial capital investment of less than 250k. It has been
shown that this can be financed over five to ten bridges which, given the 80 bridges built
per annum in the UK, would seem to generate a return in only two to three years.
The system offers a large number of benefits over alternative solutions, namely:
safer - typically much less work at height and more factory-based work
faster - simple, repetitive cycles and easy detailing
a more buildable - known low-technology solutions
minimal traffic disruption - less disturbance to the road users
higher quality - factory-based and off-site construction
lower maintenance - no exposed steel, joints or bearings
more efficient sections - optimisation of quantities
aesthetically pleasing - clean, simple proportions, forms and details
more sustainable - for the future of us all
higher value - achieved on all aspects.
29
References
1. DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT. Transport Ten year plan 2000, DFT, London, 2000.
2. HIGHWAYS AGENCY. Major improvements in the strategic road network, The Highways Agency,
London.
3. DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT. The future of transport: A network for 2030. DFT, London, 2004.
4. THE CONCRETE SOCIETY. Durablepost-tensionedconcrete bridges. Technical Report 47 (second

edition) The Concrete Society, Camberley, 2002.
Figure A1
Three-span option (20-25-20 m) - general arrangement.
Benaim drawing ref 11725/10-C
Licensed copy from CIS: URS, URS Infrastructure, 20/07/2014, Uncontrolled Cop
Profited cables
2nd stage
in-situ infill
"O
Pack units and align
form joints pier head CD
Temporary stress
launch _
F m f 1250 x
- j
bearing 1250 pack
Initial 1000 x
4 No 100 - 500 pack CONCRETE JOINT BETWEEN UNITS
Approx 8 No 32(|> jacks Final concrete
prestressing pack refer to x "
bars cast in PIER HEAD DETAIL
detail
Pour infill concrete ducts to pier 1:20
Stress launch cables head >
Attach nose
CROSS SECTION LONGITUDINAL SECTION
BUILT IN PIER HEAD DETAILS FOR 1500 DEEP SECTION
Launch over props

3 ) Pack units and align
form joints
Temporary stress
In-situ end
diaphragm wall
Pour infill concrete
1
Couple launch cables
Stress launch cables
Profiled
infill cable ducts
Glued, match-cast Glued, match-cast
or 20-50 thick grouted or 20-50 thick grouted
concrete joint concrete joint
LONGITUDINAL SECTION
I

Glued, match-cast
PROPOSED INTEGRAL ABUTMENT
or 25-60 thick
grouted / concrete
Remove nose 2 No 324 temporary 800 thick end
Cast monolithic pier tops diaphragm wall Expansion
Stress profiled cables joint
Remove props
Launch cables
n continuous
Cast integral abutments

Complete finishes
0 Drain channel
and pipe
TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE FOR 3 SPAN BRIDGE

1:500
Typical precast unit 1 OPTIONAL JOINTED ABUTMENT
(range = 81 - 201) 1:50
PLAN
TYPICAL JOINT / UNIT DETAILS FOR 1500 DEEP SECTION
Figure A 2
Three-span option (20-25-20 m) - typical details.
Banaim drawing ref.: 11725/11 -B
ELEVATION
1:200
TYPICAL MID-SPAN SECTION B - B

1:50
Figure A 3
Three-span option (35-45-35 m) - general arrangement.
Benaim drawing ref.: 11725/12-B
24 36
10 20 30 40
Overall deck width (m)
MINIMUM SECTIC N: SPANS 1575m NARROW DECK: 9m OPTIONS FOR INCREASING DECK WIDTH
USING A NUMBER OF ADJACENT BEAMS
5000 1500 5000
_ 1 <L
Launch **x^V///L V Precast "

cables V-Vyy^
, , J "'111
.*/ stitch ,nf,ll """Y^^T
If
Profiled
* span cables TYPICAL DECK WIDTH: 11.5m
TYPICAL SECTION: SPANS 25 35m
^ r n ^ n T ^
Til) 160 crs T
TYPICAL DETAILS OF CENTRE STITCH
WIDE DECK: 14m Maximum (1:15 Typical depth (1:18)
Minimum (1:201
MAXIMUM SECTION: SPANS 35-50m
TYPICAL SECTIONS FOR VARYING WIDTH REQUIREMENTS

TYPICAL SECTIONS FOR VARYING SPAN REQUIREMENTS
10 20 30 40 50
Span |m)
TYPICAL SPAN TO DEPTH RATIOS
Figure A 4
Typical details of bridge system 1.
Benaim drawing ref.: 11725/13-B
Precast shell units
s / \
Abutments 1
\
si
End shetl units cast skew
\II
LAYOUT 1
BRIDGE WITH 7.5 DEGREE SKEW
END SHELL UNITS CAST SKEW
LAYOUT 2
SCALE 1:500
BRIDGE WITH 15 DEGREE SKEW
SHELL UNITS SPAN SQUARE BETWEEN ABUTMENTS
SCALE 1:500
23094 24860 23094
LAYOUT 3
BRIDGE WITH 30 DEGREE SKEW
END SHELL UNITS CAST SKEW WITH IN-SITU SECTION
SCALE 1:500
Figure A 5
Typical details of bridge system 2.
Benaim drawing ref: 11725/14-A
~o
! TD
CD
Z3
9-
x '
>
TYPICAL DETAILS OF 'SPAN LIFT' BRIDGE

TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE FOR 'SPAN LIFT' BRIDGE AS SHOWN
Figure A 6
Three-span option (20-25-20 m) - Span lift construction.
Benaim drawing ref.: 11725/15-A
F I G U R E 16: MODULAR PRECAST BRIDGES - CASE 1
C o m p a r i s o n of Construction P r o g r a m m e s for 3 S p a n Layout (20-25-20m)
ITEM TASK
MODULAR BRIDGE - SPAN LIFT CONSTRUCTION

1 Prepare assembly area(s) for deck(s)
Construct piled foundations and 2 N o permenant piers
Construct 2 N o bank seat abutments
Lead in time for precasting of shells

Cast 5 2 N o shell units and transport to site
Align shells, apply temp stress

Install ducts/rebar in ribs
Stress concrete shells and lift 6 N o ribs onto temp bearings
Cast intergral section over piers and make integral

Cast infill concrete and stress full section
Cast centre infill section and parapet beams
Cast abutments and stress profiled cables
Apply waterproofing layer; Apply road surfacing and finishes
MODULAR BRIDGE - LAUNCHED CONSTRUCTION

1 Prepare assembly / launch area for deck
2 Construct piled foundations and 2 N o permenant piers
3 Construct 2 N o bank seat abutments
4 Construct piled foundations and 3 N o temporary piers
Lead in time for precasting of shells

Cast 5 2 N o shell units and transport to site
~
Align shell units, grout joints and apply temporary stress
Place reinforcing, Install ducts and pour concrete
X
9 Cast centre infill section a n d parapet b e a m s
10 Install launch bearings and guides
09
11 Attach launching nose and stress launch tendons
Launch ribs in during 2 N o 12hour road closures

n
Cast monolithic pier tops and stress profiled cables
o
14 R e m o v e props and cast integral abutments
Z5
15 Apply waterproofing layer; Apply road surfacing and finishes
Ln
r-1-
STEEL COMPOSITE OPTION
1 Prepare area for storing / bracing girders
E:
Construct piled foundations and 2 N o permenant piers
n
Construct 2 N o bank seat abutments r-t-
o '
L e a d in time for steelwork fabrication
Fabricate steelwork and transport to site
3
Align girders and form braced pairs for lifting

Install main steelwork during 3 N o lifts in full 12hour road closure
o
Place permenant formwork
9 Fix deck reinforcing
10 Cast concrete deck CD
Cast parapet b e a m s and integral abutments
Apply waterproofing layer; Apply road surfacing and finishes
>
3 TD
CD
CD
Figure B1
Z5
on Q_
Case Study 1 - three-span layout (20-25-20 m).
x '
00
Figure B2
Case Study 2 - single-span layout (45 m).
CONCRETE BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT G R O U P
The Concrete Bridge Development Croup aims to promote excellence in the design, construction and
management of concrete bridges.
With a membership that includes all sectors involved in the concrete bridge industry -bridge owners
and managers, contractors, designers and suppliers- the Group acts as a forum for debate and the
CONCRETE BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT GROUP
exchange of new ideas. A major programme of bridge assessment, strengthening and widening is
already underway to accommodate European standards and the increasing pressures on the UK road For further details please contact:
network. The Group provides an excellent vehicle for the industry to co-ordinate an effective approach The Concrete Bridge Development Group
and to enhance the use of concrete. Riverside House
4 Meadows Business Park
Station Approach
Through an active programme of events and seminars, task groups, newsletters, study visits and
Blackwater
publications, the Concrete Bridge Development Group aims to:
Camberley
Surrey GU17 9AB
Address the challenge of the national bridge programme UK
Provide a focus for all those involved in concrete bridge design, construction and management
Promote an integrated approach and encourage development of innovative ideas and concepts Tel: +44 (0)1276 33777, Fax: +44 (0)1276 38899
Promote best practice in design and construction through education, training and information e-mail: enquiries@cbdg.org.uk
dissemination website www.cbdg.org.uk.
Make representations on national and international codes and standards
Identify future research and development needs
Maximise opportunities to develop the wider and better use of concrete.
Membership of the Concrete Bridge Development Group is open to those who have an interest in
promoting and enhancing the concrete bridge industry. Five main types of membership are available:
Group membership for industry organisations and associations

Corporate membership for contractors, consultants, suppliers and specialist service companies
Associate membership for academic organisations
Bridge owners for all organisations that commission, own, maintain and manage concrete bridges
Individual consultants
By being representative of the whole industry, the Concrete Bridge Development Group acts as a
catalyst for the best in concrete bridge design, construction, maintenance and management.
PUBLICATIONS FROM THE CONCRETE BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT CROUP
Integral bridges Technical Guide 1

A report of a study visit in August 1997 by a CBDG delegation to North America, sponsored by DTI (1997)
Guide to testing and monitoring of durability of concrete structures Technical Cuide 2

A practical guide for bridge owners and designers (2002)
The use of fibre composites in concrete bridges Technical Cuide 3

A state-of-the-art review of the use of fibre composites (2000)
The aesthetics of concrete bridges Technical Cuide 4

A technical guide dealing with the appearance and aesthetics of concrete bridges (2001)
Fast construction of concrete bridges Technical Cuide 5

The report of a Concrete Bridge Development Group Working Party (2005)
High strength concrete in bridge construction Technical Cuide 6

A state-of-the-art report (2005) CCIP-002
Self-compacting concrete in bridge construction Technical Guide 7

Written by PeterJM Bartos (2005) CCIP-003
An Introduction to Concrete Bridges

A publication dedicated to undergraduates and young engineers (2006)
Guide to the Use of Lightweight Aggregate Concrete in bridges Technical Guide 8

A state-of-the-art report, written by Philip Bamforth (2006) CCIP-015
Guidance on the Assessment of Concrete Bridges Technical Guide 9

A Task Group report (2007) CCIP-024
Enhancing the Capacity of Concrete Bridges Technical Guide W

A Task Group report (2008) CCIP-036
Modular Precast Concrete Bridges Technical Guide 11

A state-of-the-art report (2008) CCIP-028
You can buy the above publications from the Concrete Bookshop at www.concrete.org.uk and please visit
www.cbdg.org.uk for further publications, including free download.
This publication outlines t h e development of a modular

precast concrete bridge s y s t e m . This n e w s y s t e m provides
designers w i t h a concrete solution for medium span bridges
t h a t can be used for t h e majority of bridge locations. The
modular s y s t e m incorporates easily transportable precast
concrete shell units t h a t support and combine compositely
w i t h t h e post-tensioned, in-situ concrete core.
Guidance includes an introduction to the system followed by

structural details, construction options and example costs. Scheme
drawings and construction programmes for case study examples are
also provided.

Modular Precast Concrete Bridges

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modular Precast Concrete Bridges

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Licensed copy from CIS: URS, URS Infrastructure, 20/07/2014, Uncontrolled Copy.

A single copy of this document is licensed to

This is an uncontrolled copy. Ensure use of the

Published for and on behalf of t h e Concrete Bridge D e v e l o p m e n t Croup by

The Concrete Society

CCIP publications are available from the Concrete Bookshop at www.concretebookshop.com

Printed by Holbrooks Printers Ltd, Portsmouth, UK

Fij,ure 2 Typical mid-span section through modular highway bridge.

F'f jure 3 Typical longitudinal section through modular highway bridge.

Figjure 4 Typical mid-span section through 27 m-span modular railway bridge

Fijjure 5 Typical sections for varying span requirements.

Fijjure 6 Typical span-to-depth ratios for proposed system.

Fi*jure 7 Typical sections for varying width requirements.

Fifjure 8 A51 Grenoble overbridge.

Fi{jure 9 Installation of A51 Grenoble overbridge.

F'{ jure 10 Span lift construction sequence.

Fijjure 11 Incremental launching construction sequence.

Fijjure 12 Installation of Badhoevedorp Bridge.

Figure A1 Three-span option (20-25-20 m) - general arrangement.

Completed modular precast bridge.

Precast edge unit

In-situ infill concrete

approx. 2500 long 250 250

In-situ stitch Approx. 2500 long

Minimum section: Spans 15-25 m

Maximum section: Spans 35-50 m

1.0 Maximum (1:15)

an additional stop end in the mould;

traditional UK bridge construction skills, i.e. heavy lifting technology.

The construction sequence for a typical single-span bridge is as follows:

The method is more attractive to the UK industry as it employs well-known technology in

a) Installation of first span b) Installation of final span

The construction sequence for a typical multi-span bridge is as follows:

a) Launching of first rib b) Completed launch of second rib

Figure 14 shows an example of an under-slung gantry system in use on the Stanstead

6. Construction programme and costs

differ from contractor to contractor, at different locations.

two moulds within a casting shed

Table 4 Item Cost

Substructure 80k 80k 70k

Deck (excluding formwork) 140k 140k

Equivalent formwork costs

job specific 45k 29k

Capital repayment 10k 195k 16k 185k 235k

Finishes (including abutments) 175k 175k 175k

Preliminaries 225k 220k 23Sk

Discounted whole-life maintenance 35k 35k 50k

Total 71 Ok 695k 765k

Percentage saving 8% 10%

Monetary saving 60k 75k

Hardshoulder Central resevation Hardshoulder

6.3.1 Cost Comparison A summary of the costs is given in Table 6.

Table 6 Item Modular precast Steel-composite

Deck (excluding formwork) 150k 150k

Equivalent formwork costs

Job specific 45k 115k

Capital repayment 10k 205k 10k 275k 250k

Finishes 80k 80k 80k

Preliminaries 185k 215k 200k

Discounted whole life maintenance 15k 1Sk 2Sk

Total 565k 665k 625k

Percentage saving 10% (6%)

Monetary saving 60k (40k)

Span lift method