a 3-d precast segmental space frame · 2018-11-01 · a 3-d precast segmental space frame walter...

Kuwait's Bubiyan Bridge a 3-D Precast Segmental

Space Frame

Walter Podolny, Jr.Bridge DivisionOffice of EngineeringFederal Highway AdministrationU.S. Department of TransportationWashington, D.C.

Antonio A. MirelesHighway Construction Engineer (FHWA)

MPW Project Engineer-BubiyanMinistry of Public Works

State of Kuwait

K uwait State is located at the north-west corner of the Arabian Gulf

(Fig. 1). It is bounded on the north andwest by Iraq, on the south by SaudiArabia, and on the east by the ArabianGulf. The State of Kuwait also includesseveral offshore islands, of which Bu-biyan is the largest.

The concept of constructing a high-way crossing over the Subiya Channelto connect the mainland of Kuwait tothe Island of Bubiyan had been underconsideration for a number of years toenhance the potential for developmenton the island. In September 1979 theMinistry of Public Works (MPW), as afurther development of the concept of abridge to Bubiyan Island, issued a con-tract to carry out a more definitiveplanning study.

The resulting "Final Report, BubiyanBridge Project, Phase I — Plan-ning — December 1979," included

68

Bubiyan Bridge during construction.

Fig. 1. Bubiyan Bridge location map.

PCI JOURNAUJanuary-February 1983 69

pertinent data, analysis and recommen-dations for consideration by MPW, re-garding project parameters, designcontrols and criteria, candidate bridgelocation alternatives, structural types,and budget estimates.

PROJECT DEVELOPMENTA review of prequalified firms in the

MPW files resulted in the selection ofsix international firms specializing inthe design and construction of majorbridges over water. On May 11, 1980,the MPW requested approval from theCentral Tenders Committee (CTC) forthe concept to negotiate a turnkey proj-ect and recommended the six prese-lected firms. On May 17, 1980, MPWwas notified of approval by CTC.

Of the preselected firms, one optednot to participate in the submission ofoffers. Two other firms chose to partici-pate as a joint venture, resulting in fourparticipating firms. The MPW sub-mitted a "Draft Request for Offers —Bubiyan Bridge Project" to each par-ticipating firm for review and comment.All review comments were discussedwith the firms at meetings held duringthe first week of June 1980.

The MPW approved a concept ofpayment of a stipend to each par-ticipating firm, upon submission of anacceptable, responsive offer, to covercost incurred during the performance ofpreliminary studies required by theRequest for Offers. An official, requestfor offers was issued on June 25, 1980,requiring that offers be submitted toMPW not later than 12 noon, November25, 1980.

REVIEW AND EVALUATIONOF OFFERS

Of the four participating firms, twosubmitted alternative designs and oneprovided options to its basic design. Atabulation of basic parameters for eachsubmittal is presented in Table 1, along

with a brief description of each con-cept.

The review of all offers submittedwas performed by a panel of engineersof the U.S. Federal Highway Adminis-tration (FHWA) who worked in closecooperation with officials of the Minis-try of Public Works, Roads and Drain-age Department of the State of Kuwait.The FHWA review panel consisted ofJoseph DeMarco, Chief, Foreign Proj-ects Division, Washington, D.C., andthe authors.

The obvious objective of the reviewwas to determine the best offer as re-lated to responsiveness to the criteriaestablished in the official Request forOffers, relative to other offers sub-mitted. The review panel consideredthe following five criteria in the rankingand selecting procedure: structuraladequacy, future maintenance, aes-thetics, time to complete, and cost. Allmaterial submitted for each proposal,such as plans, preliminary calculations,specifications, artist's renderings, andmodels, were carefully reviewed by thepanel. In addition, oral interviews wereconducted with each firm to answerquestions that arose during the reviewprocess and to establish that the reviewpanel thoroughly understood the con-cept of each proposal.

As a result of all reviews and evalua-tions of the offers submitted, the panelrecommended Concept 5 (see Table 1),an externally post-tensioned concretesegmental three-dimensional spaceframe truss submitted by the Frenchfirm of Bouygues. A full report docu-menting the detailed evaluations andrecommendations of the MPW/FHWAreview team was submitted in a hand-printed form for expediency and ver-bally presented at a MPW Major Proj-ects Committee meeting held on De-cember 16, 1980. Subsequently, a for-mal typed report was submitted bymemo to the Chief Engineer, RDD onDecember 29, 1980, for considerationand concurrence.

70

Table 1. Tabulation of offers for Bubiyan Bridge project.

Firm 1 2 3 4

Concept* 1 2 3 4a 4bt 4c 5 6

Total length, m(ft) 2175(7136)

2175(7136)

2783(9131)

2080(6824)

1925(6316)

2300(7546)

2098(6883)

2098(6883)

Time to complete, days 1290 1250 1095 517 496 § 700 700

Fixed ceiling costl 27.9(2.54)

28.2(2.56)

19.0(1.73)

12.3(1.11)

' 11.8(1.07)

13.2(1.20)

11.0.(1.00)

12.9(1.17)

* All concepts included a two lane paved approach road to existing Jahra-Subiya road.t Required additional causeway embankment of 155 m (509 ft).I Cost given in million Kuwait Dinars (KD), figures in parentheses are relative to successful concept.§ No time given.

Description of Concepts1. Precast prestressed concrete segmental box girder main span. Double-T girder

approach spans (cast-in-place). Precast concrete piers on cast-in-place concrete piles.2. Structural steel — six steel girders with composite concrete deck simple and

continuous spans. Precast piers on cast-in-place concrete piles.3. Precast prestressed concrete segmental box girder spans. Each pier consisted of

laterally braced extensions of four concrete cast-in-place piles.4. All three offers include a superstructure of prestressed precast monolith I-girders and

deck spans. Piers consisted of precast prestressed concrete cylinder piles with precastcaps.

5. Precast concrete segmental 3-D truss space frame, externally post-tensioned. Each pierconsists of two hollow cone shapes projecting upward from two solid cylindrical pilescast-in-place below high water elevation.

6. Conventional prestressed precast segmental box girder spans. Pier and foundation arethe same as Concept 5 above.

CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONSResulting, from, technical consid-

erations that arose during the proposalreviews, including the various bridgelengths (see Table 1), the MPW re-quested Bouygues to submit the fol-lowing additional items of informationfor consideration during negotiationsfor a contract:

1. Increase in overall bridge lengthto achieve:

(a) Provide at least one spanlength between abutment and.highest water level on bothends of the bridge to allowenough area under the bridgefor passage of a maintenancetype vehicle behind eachabutment.

(b) Navigation span to be locatedover the deepest point at theexisting natural channel.

(c) On the Island side, an increaseof several span lengths was de-sirable due to evidence of thetidal area extending over theIsland near the shore.

2. A stronger fender system for thenavigation channel to allow passage of aCorvette vessel instead of fishing ves-sels, as in the criteria used for Request,for Offers.

3. Items related to an additional re-quirement of providing for an asphaltwearing course on the bridge.

4. Items related to providing an im-proved generating plant for the bridgelighting system.

5. Items related to load testing.


6. All other items necessary to re-spond to other technical questionsraised by MPW.

The final contract was for a bridgelength of 2500 m (8202 ft) and a naviga-tion clearance of 50 m (164 ft) wide and20 m (65.6 ft) high above high water atthe location of the natural deep chap-nel. Also included is the construction ofa two-lane paved approach road ap-proximately 2 km (1.24 miles) long toconnect the bridge to the existingJahra-Subiya.road on the mainland, anda short ramp down to existing groundon Bubiyan Island.

The period of construction was esti-mated to be 775 days. Construction of-ficially started on June 17, 1981.

COST OF PROJECTThe contract price was for a total

project firm ceiling of KD 14,096,722(in Kuwait Dinars). Note that a factor of1.28 can be used relative to the valuespresented in Table 1.

The unit cost of the Bubiyan Bridgeamounts to about $90.00 (US) per sq ftexcluding fenders and approach works.This cost is for construction in Kuwait.Relative to construction prices in theUnited States, the cost can be estimatedto be approximately two-thirds of thisvalue.

BRIDGE CONCEPTThe successful proposal submitted by

Bouygues consisted of a three-di-mensional truss or space frame con-cept (Figs. 2 through 4). The concept ofprestressed concrete trusses is not new.Concrete trusses have been used inbuilding construction1'2 and in bridgesthroughout the world. For example:

1. The Mangfall Bridge in Germany3.4is a three-span, cast-in-place, pre-stressed concrete structure. It may bedescribed simply as a box girder con-sisting of solid top and bottom flanges

connected by two vertical webs, whichare trusses.

2. The Rip Bridge in Australia, 4 •5,6 justnorth of Sydney, is a three-span can-tilever arch-truss structure. The upperchord (roadway slab), diagonal and ver-tical truss members, and lower chordare composed of precast elements,which are made integral by cast-in-place concrete and post-tensioning.

3. Other prestressed concrete trussbridges have been constructed inFrance, the Soviet Union and Japan.

All the structures mentioned abovehave one aspect in common: the pre-stressed concrete trusses are alloriented in a vertical plane. The con-cept is the same as in conventionaltruss bridges constructed of structuralsteel members.

The three-dimensional truss conceptpresented for the Bubiyan Bridge is es-sentially a multitriangular-cell boxgirder wherein the longitudinal solidwebs are replaced by an open latticesystem of trusses. Because the latticetruss webs are oriented in an inclinedplane, as opposed to a vertical plane,adjacent trusses have common nodepoints (intersection of diagonal andvertical truss members with theflanges).

This spatial geometry then forms inthe transverse direction another systemof trusses. Thus, the flanges are con-nected by a system of inclined orthog-onal trusses (a system of mutually per-pendicular trusses) as shown in Fig. 5.Because the trusses are inclined to eachother, with the diagonal and verticalmembers intersecting at common nodepoints, they form a space frame com-posed of interconnecting pyramids andhalf-pyramids. Thus, the structural be-havior of the bridge with regard to dis-tribution of load resembles that of atwo-way slab in building construction.

This structural concept is new in itsapplication to a bridge structure. How-ever, the concept of a space frame trusshas been previously applied to roof

W4

Fig. 2. Elevations of Bubiyan Bridge (prepared by Bouygues).

Fig. 3. Artist's sketch of Bubiyan Bridge (prepared by Bouygues).

structures for large column-free sportfacilities, auditoriums, civic centers,and the like. These space structureshave been constructed primarily of

, metallic (steel or aluminum) tubularsections. There was no reason to be-lieve that, with the current state-of-the-art in prestressed concrete, seg-mental construction, and existing con-crete truss construction, a prestressedconcrete space frame concept could notbe consummated — in particular for abridge structure.

The fabrication and erection of thesuperstructure is consistent with state-of-the-art conventional prestressed pre-cast segmental construction, includingthe external prestressing. Although theconcept of a space frame structure isnew to bridge construction, its unique-ness is only in assembling existing con-cepts into a single concept.

Figs. 3, 4, and 5 show an artist'ssketch, construction model, and typicalsegment of the bridge.

PROJECT DESCRIPTIONTotal length of structure, from cen-

terline of Mainland abutment bearingto centerline of Bubiyan Island abut-ment bearing, is 2503.05 m (8212.11 ft).This length of structure is divided byexpansion joints into 12 units of eitherfive or six continuous spans (see Fig. 6and Table 2). Thus, there are a total of62 spans. Transversely, the super-structure has a width of 18.2 m (59.7 ft)which accommodates two roadways of4.3 m (14.1 ft) with shoulders of 2.3 m(7.5 ft) and two sidewalks of 1.5 m (4.92ft), as shown in Fig. 7(a).

Horizontal and vertical alignmentsare in accordance with AASHTO: "APolicy on Geometric Design of RuralHighways, 1965." Vertical curvaturehas a radius of 10,000 m (32,800 ft) incrests and 5000 m (16,400 ft) in sags.Maximum grade is 3 percent and designspeed is 120 km/hr (75 miles per hour).

Each pier consists of twin 1.792 m

74

Fig. 4. Construction stage model of Bubiyan Bridge.

Fig. 5. Model of typical segment with top flange removed (Bubiyan Bridge).Note external post-tensioning tendons.

PCI JOURNAL/January-February 1983 75

200.80 8 200.044 200.793

1{p'L +2.600.00 3%

SI40.16 40.16 40.167 40.174 ^ 40.172 ; 40.1'1 40.160 40.166 40.161 40.154 40.144

IT,

200.71 1 ,,. 200.680

Brag, f80(1k

spoo

40.132 ! 40.134 tl 40.138 1 40.140! 40.144 1 40.145 4 40.147 1 53.822 ! 40.147 4 40.145

I = 3.2800 ft

Fig. 6. Elevation of Bubiyan Bridge showing span arrangement. See Fig. 34 for finaldesign modifications to structure for Bubiyan Island ramp.

76

Table 2. Tabulation of spans, Bubiyan Bridge, m (ft).

Unit Span dimensions in unit Unit length

Vi 6 @ 40.16 (131.7585) 240.96 (790.5511)V2 5 @ 40.16 (131.7585) 200.80 (685.7927)V3 5 @ 40.16 (131.7585) 200.80 (658.7927)V4 5 @ 40.16 (131.7585) 200.80 (658.7927)V5 40.16 - 40.167 - 40.174 - 40.172 - 40.171 200.844 (658.9370)

(131.7585 - 131.7815 - 131.8045 - 131.7979 - 131.7946)V6 40.168 - 40.166 - 40.161 - 40.154 - 40.144 200.793 (658.7697)

(131.7848 - 131.7782 - 131.7618 - 131.7388 - 131.7060)V7 5 @ 40.142 (131.6995) 200.71 (658.4974)V8 40.132 - 40.134 - 40.138 - 40.140 - 40.144 200.688 (658.4252)

(131.6667 - 131.6732 - 131.6864 - 131.6929 - 131.7060)V9 40.145 - 40.147 - 53.822 - 40.147 - 40.145 214.406 (703.4318)

(131.7093 - 131.7159 - 176.5814 - 131.7159 - 131.7093)V10 40.144 - 40.140 - 40.138 - 40.134 - 40.132 200.688 (658.4252)

(131.7060 - 131,6929 - 131.6864 - 131.6732 - 131.6667)V11 [email protected](131.6995) 200.71 (658.4974)V12 6 @ 40.142 (131.6995) 240.852 (790.1969)

Total length: 2503.05 (8212.1096)

Note: See Table 4 for final design modifications to structure for Bubiyan Island ramp.

18.2

30 1.5 40 2.30 4.30 30 30 4.30 2.30 40 1.5 30

aspha t wearing surface0 2% --.a

I cm = 0.3937 in.1m= 3.2808 ft

(a) three-dimensional (scheme 5)

9.20

4.60 4.6 2

40 4.30 2.30 `10 1.50 30

1 cm = 0.3937 in1 m = 3.2808 ft (b) box-girder (scheme 6)

Fig. 7. Alternate superstructure cross sections.


Precast Element

Cast-in-place-' II*13.43613.43 0

Concrete

HWL +2.60

LA'L –1 ri

Casing 18 min Thick

Loose Sand or Silt

Sandstone : -i---

1.792 dia.

it1 mm = 0.0394 in. I(1m=3.2808ft

6.872

Fig. 8. Typical pier arrangement.

78

Fig. 9. Typical twin pier shafts (courtesy of Bouygues).

Fig. 10. Typical segment and pier segment (courtesy of Bouygues).


flC

HALF SECTION 1 2 1

9. 2.152 3 ^

^ Oti

ci N^' 16 m

PRECAST `'6

TRIANGULAR \ 1 cm = 0.3937 inj 1 m = 3.2808 ft

TRUSSELEMENTS Q^

34 3

Fig. 11. Details of a typical segment showing various sections.

II

IJ \\ ■^

SECTION 4

C)C-

0Cz

CD

CD

iiCDQ

CCD

W )37 in

i m = 3.D08 ft

00

HALF SECTION

14 80 90 9 0 80 14

SECTION 1

TTTTTT

SECTION 2

Fig. 12. Details of a pier segment showing various sections.

5

SECTION 3

(5.88 ft) diameter shafts spaced at 6.872m (22.55 ft) (see Figs. 8 and 9). Eachshaft is constructed by driving a 18 mm(0.7 in.) "weathering" steel casing 2 m(6.6 ft) into sandstone, excavating belowthe casing level to the proper elevationto provide the socket required, placingreinforcement, and concreting to theunderside of the pier caps. Conven-tional forming techniques are used fromthe top of the steel casing to the under-side of the pier caps. The steel casing isconsidered as a stay-in-place form andis not considered to act structurally(other than for erection loads).

Piers for low level units (V1 throughV5) are socketed 7 m (23 ft) into thesandstone. Maximum socket length inthe highest unit (V9) is 12 m (39.37 ft).Socket length for other piers varieslinearly from 7 to 12 m (23 to 39.37 ft)as a function of the pier height. Piercaps consist of a precast stay-in-placeform shell that is then filled with rein-forced concrete.

Each span of the structure, with theexception of the navigation span, con-sists of eight typical segments and thepier segments (see Fig. 10). The navi-gation span contains eleven typicalsegments. Details of a typical segmentare presented in Fig. 11. A typical seg-ment basically contains a top flange of19 cm (7.48 in.) thickness, a bottomflange of 15 cm (5.9 in.) thickness, andprecast triangular elements that formthe space frame truss members con-necting the two flanges. The pier seg-ment (Fig. 12) contains heavy verticalweb elements (shaped similar to anI-girder) which accommodate thepost-tensioning anchorages, and diago-nal slab elements whose size is a func-tion of stress requirements.

Prestressing is accomplished by ex-ternal post-tensioning in a manner sim-ilar to that utilized in the Long Key4.7.8and the Seven Mile Bridges in theFlorida Keys. Typical spans are post-tensioned by eight tendons and thenavigation span by twelve tendons.

Each tendon consists of 24 strands.Each strand has an area of 139 mm2 andan ultimate strength of 1814 MPa (0.6in. diameter 263 ksi strand). Tendonsare continuous in a five or six span unit.Tendons in an individual span aremade continuous with the previousspan by a coupling located forward (inthe direction of erection) of each piersegment unit (Fig. 13). All tendons aresheathed in polypropylene ducts whichare reinforced with an internal metallicliner at each harp point.

The tendon profile is similar to thatof pretensioned girders with two harp-ing points (Fig. 13). There are two ten-dons per longitudinal bottom flange rib,except for the longer navigation spanwhere there are three tendons per rib.It can be seen from Fig. 13 that in atypical span the upper tendon for allfour ribs is harped at Joint 4. The bot-tom tendon of the exterior ribs isharped at Joint 2 and the bottom tendonfor the interior ribs is harped at Joint 3.The post-tensioning profile is selectedsuch that there will be no stress rever-sals in the diagonals under service load.

COMPARISION OF 3-DCONCEPT WITH

CONVENTIONAL BOXGIRDER

In response to the Request for Offers,Bouygues prepared a study (drawingsand calculations) of an alternative solu-tion (Concept No. 6, Table 1). This al-ternate differs from the basic 3-D spaceframe alternate only with respect to thecross section of the superstructure,which consists of two single-cell con-ventional segmental box girders [seeFig. 7(b)] . Top and bottom flangethicknesses are 0.20 and 0.18 m (8 and 7in.), respectively, and the average webthickness is 0.28 m (11 in.).

External prestressing tendons are lo-cated inside the box cells and are an-

82

0

Tendon Profile along interior ribs 2 and 3

70 \

ca ,n

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4

^ 1

Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 Section 8

1 cm = 0.3937 in

Rib Location Key

Fig. 13. Tendon profile in a typical span showing various section details.


Table 3. Comparison of substructure.

Reactions, moments, displacementsSpaceframe

Boxgirders

Percentchange*

Max. reaction at top of pier, T (kips) 780 (1720) 930 (2050) + 19.2Max. moment at top of high piers, T-m (k-ft) 730 (5280) 903 (6529) +23.7Deck displacement from seismic load, cm (in.) 11 (4.33) 14 (5.51) +27.3Max. reaction in sandstone, T (kips) 930 (2050) 1080 (2381) +16.1Max. moment in piles at sandstone level, T-m (k-ft) 390 (2821) 480 (3472) +23.1

* With space frame as base.

chored at the pier diaphragms. Changein tendon profile is accomplished bydeviation saddles located at the inter-section of the webs with the bottomflange; the basic concept is the same asthat in the Long Key and Seven MileBridges.

The box girder alternate is equivalentto the space frame alternative with re-spect to overall length, span dimen-sions, width, depth, and navigationclearances. Therefore, an opportunitypresents itself for comparison of thetwo alternates from an economical andtechnical viewpoint.

As previously indicated in Table 1,the box girder alternate was 17 percentmore expensive than the space framealternate. The dead weight of the su-perstructure (exclusive of wearing sur-face, barriers, etc.) is 18.49 T/m (12.42kips per ft) for the space frame and21.32 T/m (14.33 kips per ft) for the boxgirders, an approximate 15 percent in-crease over the space frame.

Geometric characteristics of the piersare identical for both alternatives, tak-ing into account the bearing capacity ofthe sandstone foundation material. Theembedment length of the piles in thesandstone and reinforcement steel inthe piers and piles are controlled byseismic loads. Table 3 presents a com-

*Comparison between the two specifications be-came somewhat cumbersome and it has been sug-gested to the MPW that in the future the AASHTOSpecifications be used exclusively with an increaseof live load to HS-30 to accommodate heavier vehi-cle loads.

parison tabulation of various substruc-ture parameters. Since the box girdershave an increased mass as compared tothe space frame, it is penalized underseismic loading conditions.

From the data presented above, theadvantage of the space frame concept isobvious. Further, there is an advantagein the manner the load is distributedthroughout the superstructure. That isto say, there are many load paths. In theunforeseen event of a member failure,the load would redistribute itself byseeking an alternative load path.Therefore, there is a greater degree ofredundancy.

SUPERSTRUCTURE DESIGNThe design of the Bubiyan Bridge

was based on the AASHTO StandardSpecifications for Highway Bridges andthe Deutsche Industrie Normen (DIN)design loads — DIN 1072, Bridge Class(Bruckenlasse) 60. AASHTO designwas for the service load design methodwith HS20-44 live load. Because of thehigher vehicle loads in Kuwait, thestresses determined by AASHTO werethen analyzed for compliance with therelevant DIN Sections. The specifica-tion requiring the larger member sizecontrolled.* The design was thenchecked for ultimate strength for spe-cial Kuwait trailer loadings (tanks).AASHTO Specifications were used forthis analysis.

Structural design also included con-

84

3D model

- -- -- —tee

Element Checkpropernes the 2D

for ' modelID model validity

1D modelII.,I IV r11Iker1,,

propertiesfor 2Dmodel

coBendingcontinuity

1 en- \ ndingTy^ / en-continut

)1 continuity (`momenta Results moments Results

Elementary 3D Elementary 21)

loads combination loads combination

Extreme Forces Longitudinal Vertical shear

in diagonals normal stresses forceHorizontal axial

Diagonal Stress Sliding frictionReinforcement I I Justification I equilibriumJustification

Fig. 14. Linking of FASTRUDL computer models.

sideration of a future utilities loading of count the structure period and depth to500 kg/m (336 lb per ft). rock (AASHTO Section 1.2.20), a re-

Seismic investigations indicated that sponse coefficient of 0.06 was assumed.a Uniform Building Code (UBC) Zone 1 Design for creep, shrinkage and tem-classification, equivalent to a maximum perature effects were based on thehorizontal acceleration of 0.10g, was French Prestress Code IP2 which is inappropriate for the site. Taking into ac- conformity with International Recom-


mendations (published by CEB-FIP in1978).

No epoxy was specified in the jointsbetween segments; that is, the design isbased on dry joints. This means thatthere must be permanent compressionalong the plane of the joint, i.e., no ten-sion. These joint planes are checked toinsure that they are non-sliding.

This requirement is expressed by thecriterion, TIN -- 0.3, where T denotesthe shear force in the section and N thenormal force. The coefficient of frictionof concrete on concrete is assumed tobe a minimum of 0.6 which provides afactor of safety in excess of two forsliding in the above equation.

Compression diagonals are designedon the basis of an assumption of an ini-tial eccentricity of forces of 2 cm (3/4

in.). Tension diagonals are designedsuch that all tension is taken by the re-inforcing steel.

Analysis of the space frame super-structure was conducted using theFASTRUDL Structural Computer Code(derived from the MIT STRUDL Code)as developed in France by the FrenchMetal Structures Organization(CTICM) for offshore structures. Forthe general flexural analysis threeFASTRUDL models were used; a 1D,2D and 3D version (see Fig. 14).

In the 3D model, a typical span ismodeled in space with all the diagonalsand verticals of the typical segmentsrepresented as bar elements. Slabs, aswell as the vertical and diagonal dia-phragms in the pier segments, are rep-resented by four node plate elements.All nodes of the model have six DOF(degrees of freedom) nodes. Boundaryconditions are defined such that fournodes at each of the span extremitiesare restrained in the vertical direction.

In the 2D model, one typical span ismodeled in the vertical axis plane withthe nodes at the span limits restrainedin the vertical direction (simple spancondition). In the 1D model, six (orfive) spans (between expansion joints)

are modeled as a continuous beamwhich includes shear deflections.

The linking of the three models is in-dicated in the flow chart of Fig. 14. The1D model is used to compute all con-tinuity bending moments which are ap-plied to the 2D and 3D models. Inertiaand shear area for the 1D model aredefined from the 3D model such thatrotations and vertical deflections underunit loads are the same in the two mod-els, assuring that the 1D model is rep-resentative of the actual structure.

The 3D model allows full structuralanalysis under any loading condition,particularly transverse bending. Fromthe various transverse loading posi-tions, the extreme diagonal forces aredetermined. For each span of a five (orsix) span unit the continuity bendingmoments determined by the 1D modelare applied to the ends of the 3Dmodel. The combined effect providesthe extreme force effects for each diag-onal.

Properties for the 2D model are takensuch that rotations and deflectionsunder unit loads are the same as the 3Dmodel. Loads from the 3D model andthe bending continuity moments fromthe 1D model are applied to the 2Dmodel to determine longitudinal nor-mal forces and bending moments in thetop and bottom slab. In addition, verti-cal and axial forces are determined ateach joint to check the sliding friction.

FABRICATION OFSUPERSTRUCTURE

SEGMENTSFabrication of the precast super-

structure basically requires four oper-ations:

(1) Production of the precast trian-gular truss elements for the typicalsegments (Figure 11); (2) the slab diag-onals for the pier segments (Figure 12);(3) the pier segments; and lastly (4) thetypical segments.

86

Fig. 15. Fabrication of triangle reinforcement cage.

Precast TrianglesReinforcement is prefabricated into

cages (see Fig. 15) which are trans-ported to the casting area and storedvertically on racks. The triangles arecast in a vertical position in metal forms(Fig. 16), which are supported on threesupports. Twenty-six triangles are castsimultaneously with concrete beingdelivered by a tower crane.

A plasticizing additive is utilized inthe concrete to insure proper workabil-ity and filling of the form. In addition,external form vibrators as well as in-ternal needle type vibrators are used toenhance the concrete placement. Afterconcreting, the tops of the forms arecovered with a few centimeters of waterto avoid drying out. The triangles arestripped after 16 hours and stored verti-cally on framework racks (see Fig. 17).

During the first 2 days of storage thetriangles are protected from the sun bytarpaulin covers. Triangles are cured for

Fig. 16. Triangles are cast vertically inmetal forms. They are then stripped after16 hours and stored vertically.


Fig. 17. Precast triangles in storage racks.

a minimum of 1 week before beingplaced in the typical segment forms. Aschematic sequence of operations fortriangle production is given in Fig. 18.

Pier Segment Diagonals

Pier segment slab diagonals are pre-fabricated in essentially the same man-ner as the triangles described above.The narrow diagonals (Sections 1 and 3of Fig. 12) are cast in a horizontal posi-tion and are stored horizontally onwooden sleepers. The large slab diago-nals (Section 2 of Fig. 14) are cast as aset in a vertical position as indicated bythe schematic of operations given 'i'nFig. 19. These units are shown in thestorage yard in Fig. 20.

Pier Segments

Pier segments are actually fabricatedas two match-cast half segments. Thus,the expansion joint segments have the

same sequence of fabrication as theother pier segments with the obviousexception of accommodating the expan-sion joint detail. The forms are suchthat the bottom form under the verticalwebs is one continuous piece to ac-commodate both half segments. Thebalance of the formwork accommodatesa half segment and is moved from one-half segment to the other following thesequence of casting. Since the piersegment is tilted to follow the slope ofthe structure and since the bearingareas are level, adjustable boxes, forforming the bearing blocks, are incor-porated inside the form to conform tothe proper geometry of the bearingsurface.

The sequence of casting operations isas follows:

Day 1 1. Stripping of half Segment Aand transfer to storage [Fig.21(a)].

2. Stripping of half Segment Bbottom flange forms and

88

a

Placing reinforcing cages into forms

17

Concreting and initial16 hours curing

wosmg of iurms

^i ^iiiiili^ •

Stripping

Fig. 18. Schematic of triangle fabrication.

Storage and minimum1 week curing

transferring to half SegmentA[Fig.21(b)].

3. Placing reinforcement inwebs of half Segment A[Fig. 21(b)] .

Day 2 1. Reinforcing of lower deck,half Segment A [(Fig.21(c)].

2. Installation of precast diag-onal elements [Fig. 21(d)].

3. Completion of reinforce-ment in lower nodes.

4. Transfer of vertical web and

top flange forms from halfSegment B to half SegmentA[Fig. 21(e)].

Day 3 1. Reinforcing of top flange[Fig. 21(f)].

2. Placing bulkhead form.3. Concreting [Fig. 21(g)] .

Day 4 1. Remove half Segment B tostorage.

2. Repeat above cycle to pro-duce a new half Segment B.

Pier segment forms are shown in Fig.22.


0

Placing reinforcing cage into form

2

Closing of form and concreting - Stripping

Fig. 19. Fabrication schematic of pier segment diagonals.

Fig. 20. Pier segment diagonals in storage yard (courtesy of Bouygues).

90

(c) Place bottom flange reinforcementin half segment A

JB

(d) Position precast diagonals in half segment A

n

A

B

(a) Half segment A to Storage

^^^^^w viii ^/^\^.••^^^^I ^^

A B

(e) Transfer of web and topflange soffit formsCD

(f) Place top flange reinforcement (g) Concreting

Fig. 21. Schematic of pier segment casting operations.

Fig. 22. Pier segment forms (courtesy of Bouygues).

Typical SegmentsTypical segments are fabricated on

three separate long-line beds,'' whichare of sufficient length to cast all seg-ments required for a span. The fabrica-tion beds are straight and horizontal.The longitudinal curved profile is ob-tained by means of a polygonal en-velope, with breaks distributed on bothsides of the pier segment, i.e., eachspan is a straight line chord of the pro-file. The geometry is obtained by ad-justing the inclination of the pier seg-ments at each end of the bed.

Soffit forms for the four longitudinalribs are continuous for the entire spanlength bed. The form for the tendontrough at the bottom of the four ribs andthose for the tendon outlets are mobileand relocate with the casting sequence(Fig. 23). Top and bottom flange soffitforms are of segment length and relo-cate in accordance with the casting se-quence.

Precast triangles are positioned on

jigs (see Fig. 24) which are then posi-tioned in the casting bed prior to cast-ing the bottom flange (Fig. 25). Aftercasting and initial curing of the bottomflange, the bottom flange soffit form istransferred forward for the next seg-ment; precast triangles are positionedand the bottom flange is cast for thenew segment at the same time the topflange of the previous segment is cast.A casting cycle is illustrated in Fig. 26and described as follows:

Day 1 1. Adjustment of Pier SegmentA.

2. Forming bottom flange sof-fit, Segment 1.

3. Placing bottom flange rein-forcement cage, Segment 1.

4. Positioning of precast trian-gles with longitudinal ribforms.

5. Installation of lower bulk-head form.

6. Removal of Segments 6 and7 to storage.

92

Fig. 23. Longitudinal rib soffit forms (courtesy of Bouygues).

Fig. 24. Precast triangles positioned on jigs (courtesy of Bouygues).


Fig. 25. Precast triangles on jigs positioned in casting bed (courtesy of Bouygues).

7. Concreting bottom flange ofSegment 1.

Day 2 1. Stripping of bottom flangesoffit form from Segment 1and moving it forward intoposition for Segment 2.

2. Placing reinforcement forbottom flange, Segment 2.

3. Placing precast concretetriangles into position onSegment 2.

4. Top flange soffit formmoved from Segment 8 toSegment 1.

5. Installation of lower bulk-head form Segment 2 andupper bulkhead form Seg-ment 1.

6. Placing reinforcement topflange, Segment 1.

7. Segment 8 removed to stor-age.

8. Concreting bottom flangeSegment 2 and top flangeSegment 1.

Day 3 1. Stripping of bottom flangesoffit form from Segment 2and moving it forward intoposition for Segment 3.

2. Repeat Operations 2 and 3of Day 2.

3. Stripping of top flange soffitform from Segment 1 andmoving it forward into po-sition for Segment 2.

4. Repeat Operations 5 and 6of Day 2.

5. Concreting of top and bot-tom flange.

Day 4 1. Pier Segment A removed tostorage.

2. Typical Segment 1 removedto storage with precasttriangle jigs.

3. Repeat Operations 1 to 4 ofDay 3.

4. Triangle support jigs ofSegment 2 rolled backward.

5. Concreting top and bottomflange.

94

.. III-

Fig. 26. Schematic casting cycle for typical segments.


Day 5 1. Repeat Operations 1 to 4 ofDay 3.

2. Repeat Operation 4 of Day4.

3. Concreting of top and bot-tom flange.

Day 6 1. Segment 2 removed to stor-age.

2. Repeat Operation of Day 5.Day 7 1. Segment 3 removed to stor-

age.2. Repeat Operations of Day 5.3. Placing and adjusting Pier

Segment B.Day 8 1. Segment 4 removed to stor-

age.2. Repeat Operations of Day 5,

without bottom flangebulkhead.

Day 9 1. Segment 5 removed to stor-age.

2.'Relocate top flange soffitform from Segment 7 toSegment 8, without bulk-head form.

3. Remove triangle jigs fromSegment 7.

4. Strip bottom flange soffitform from Segment 8 andrelocate to Segment 1 posi-tion.

5. Install top flange rein-forcement in Segment 8.

6. Concreting of Segment 8top flange.

ERECTION OFSUPERSTRUCTURE

SEGMENTSErection of a typical span can be di-

vided into three basic operations: (1)relocation of the launching gantry fromthe completed span to the span to beerected, (2) hanging all the segments inthe span being erected from thelaunching gantry, and (3) post-tension-ing operations.

The precast segments are transportedfrom the storage yard to the launching

gantry by trailers. The launching gantryis a cable-stayed steel structure that iscapable of suspending all the segmentsin a span until they are post-tensionedand become self supporting. A trolley,moving below the launching girder,transports the segments from the trailerto its position in the span beingerected.

The erection sequence for a typicalspan is schematically illustrated in Fig.27, with the operations described asfollows:

Step 1 — Post-tensioning of Span N iscompleted. The superstructure is sup-ported on jacks at Piers N, N-1, andN-2. The clearance between the neo-prene bearing pads and the pier seg-ments at Pier N-2 is grouted with anon-shrinking grout and allowed tocure for 24 hours before stress is trans-ferred to the bearings. Railway track, onwhich the launching girder moves, ispositioned on top of the segments inSpan N.

Sept 2 — The launching girder ismoved forward on its wheels into posi-tion to erect the next span (N + 1). Thecentral support (under the cable-staypylon) is positioned on the centerline ofthe pier for a horizontal profile, or 16cm (6 in.) forward or to the rear for auphill or downhill grade of 3 percent,respectively. Excess post-tensionedstrand length from Span N is cut to ap-propriate coupling length.

Step 3 — Jacks at the central supportare engaged until the front wheels clearthe track by 5 cm (2 in.). The portion oftrack over Pier N-1 is removed and therear support is installed and jackeduntil the rear wheels clear the track by5 cm (2 in.). The superstructure at PierN-1 is adjusted by jacks to its propergeometry and the bearing pads groutpacked with non-shrink grout.

Step 4 — The prestressing platform isremoved from Pier N. The workingplatform at Pier Cap N is relocated toPier N + 1. Installation and adjustmentof jacks on Pier N + 1 is accomplished.

eI.1

u u u

N-1 N N+1

N-1 N N+1

-• ^t^' ^e 7-iiiI. UI.P!i ̂ '^- ^11`

II II

-;....-.-.-,3111 111111 II ^

..,... __ -^^ ......_.

"111111111

Fig. 27. Schematic erection sequence of a typical span.


Fig. 28. Schematic of launching girder support hangers.

Step 5 — Typical Segment 1 is deliv-ered by the trailer, picked-up by thelaunching girder trolley, moved forwardand rotated 90 degrees, and positionedto within 20 cm (8 in.) of the pier seg-ment. The segment is then supportedby the primary and secondary hangersfrom the launching gantry (see Fig. 28).The trolley is released and two adjust-able braces are positioned between theprimary hanger and the central support.Segment 1 is then positioned to within10 cm (4 in.) of the pier segment. Thesegment is then adjusted to its precal-culated geometric position.

Step 6 — During the geometry ad-justments of Segment 1, Segment 2 isdelivered and Step 5 operations are re-peated for Segment 2.

Step 7 — Remaining segments arepositioned as described above. Thegeometry of the deck at Pier N ischecked and adjusted if necessary. Theprestressing platform is positioned atPier N+ 1. Span N+ 1 is positioned andthe rear support is adjusted. Ducts andtendons are installed.

Step 8 — Tendons are tensioned inpairs and the stress in the rear support

is adjusted after each tensioning phase.During this operation the neoprenebearings at Pier N-2 are placed underload and the jacks removed. Upon com-pletion of stressing operations, the ele-vations of the pier segments at N andN+1 are checked and adjusted. Thehangers are released by jacking up therear support. The launching girder isthen set down on its rear wheels.

Step 9 — All hanging equipment isremoved. The launching girder is setdown on its forward wheels. Track islaid in Span N+ 1. The cycle is repeatedfor the next span.

In Step 5 above and Fig. 28, the twoprimary hangers are used to adjust theelevation and the transverse geometryand the two secondary hangers are usedto adjust the longitudinal inclination.'The horizontal adjustable braces allowpositioning of the segment with thepreviously erected segment. The posi-tion of each hanger is such that there isa clearance of approximately 10 cm (4in.) between the first typical segmentand the pier segment. Thus, thelaunching girder is allowed to take itsbending strain under full load of all the

98

Fig. 29. Erection of first span of bridge. Note that embankment under the first span istemporary and used only as a precautionary measure.

segments without colliding with thepier segment.

Similarly, the same gap is maintainedbetween segments during transfer ofload from the launching gantry trolleyto the primary hanger. The gap is thenclosed up by the horizontal braces be-fore post-tensioning. The primaryhanger is equipped with a pressureregulator to limit the transfer of loadbetween hangers during the post-ten-sioning operations.

Post-tensioning is accomplished bystressing the tendons in pairs. The su-perstructure load is gradually trans-ferred to the temporary supporting jacksby adjusting the stress in the rear sup-port of the launching girder. The jacksare coupled together so as to balancethe support reaction. Upon completionof prestressing operations, the clear-ance between neoprene bearings andthe pier segments is grouted with anon-shrink grout and allowed to cure

for 24 hours before transferring the re-action from the temporary jacks to thepermanent bearings.

Since the navigation span is threesegments longer, a modification of theabove procedure is required. The firstthree segments are erected by the con-ventional cantilever method from thepreceding span rather than being sus-pended from the launching girder. Inorder to preclude imbalance of thelaunching girder, a forward support isprovided for the launching girder at theforward pier. The balance of the seg-ments comprising the navigation spanare then erected following the proce-dure outlined for a typical span.

Figs. 29 and 30 show the erection ofthe first span. The embankment underthe first span is temporary and was usedby the contractor as a precautionarymeasure during "debugging" of thelaunching girder and adjustment of thestays.


Fig. 30. Front view of erected first span.

MODEL TESTINGBouygues, upon receiving a turnkey

contract for the Bubiyan Bridge project,obtained the cooperation and servicesof the French Ministry of Transport for'the designing and testing of a model(see Fig. 31) that would be representa-tive of the 3-D superstructure conceptof the Bubiyan Bridge.

The French Ministry of Transportwas very interested in participating,because of the obvious future imple-mentation of this concept in France,and delegated several agencies to themodel testing activities. These organi-zations and their responsibilities aredefined as follows°

1. Service d'Etudes Techniques desRoutes et Autoroutes (SETRA), (Roadsand Highways Technical Studies De-partment), who were responsible forthe computational aspects of the testsusing the STRUDL program.

2. Laboratoire Central des Ponts et

Chaussees (LCPC), (Central Laboratoryfor Roads and Bridges), who definedand mounted the instrumentation andwere responsible for data acquisition.

3. Direction Regionale de 1'Equip-ment (DRE), (Regional InfrastructureDepartment), who were responsible forthe testing and control of the operation.

4. Bouygues was responsible for thedesign and construction of the testmodel.

The purposes of the test model wereto determine the behavior and stress ofthe diagonals and its correlation withthe design, to verify the design with re-spect to any movement in the dry jointsof the segments, and to determine thecoefficient of friction of the tendons atthe points of tendon profile deviation.

A comparison of the cross section ofthe typical segment for the BubiyanBridge and the test model is presentedin Fig. 32. Typical segment length,height, and other dimensions of themodel are consistent with those of theprototype with the exception of theoverall width of the segment and thebottom flange thickness. Since there arethree bottom flange elements in theprototype and only one in the model,the thickness of the bottom flange inthe model was increased to preservethe same center of gravity of the crosssections.

In elevation (Fig. 33) the model hasan approximate span between supportsof 25 in (82 ft) and a cantilever of ap-proximately 8 m (26 ft) to simulate con-tinuity of superstructure at a pier. Be-cause of the differences in the modeland prototype, additional dead weightwas suspended from the model suchthat dead load stresses in the modelwere representative of those in theprototype.

Live loads were introduced into thestructure by tensioning bars attached tothe top flange and jacking against a raftfoundation below the model. Thesetensioning bars were located at nineappropriate locations in the super-

100

Fig. 31. Overall view of test model (courtesy of Bouygues).

L 1

MOD

Fig. 32. Comparison of test model and Bubiyan Bridge cross section.


Fig. 33. Isometric of test model showing location of tensioning bars.

structure (Fig. 33). The location of thelive load inducing tension bars also al-lowed the introduction of transversesymmetrical and unsymmetrical load-ing.

The longitudinal prestressing of themodel consists of four tendons, two perlongitudinal bottom rib, consisting of 24T 15 tendons (24 strands of 0.6 in. di-ameter). The prestressing force in themodel is approximately 10 percent lessthan that of the prototype such that theratio of unit prestress force to shearstress is representative of that in theprototype to determine slip in the drysegment joints.

Preliminary and partial evaluation ofshort-term loading indicates goodagreement with design. Vertical de-flections of the model confirm designvalues. Cracking was observed only intension diagonals with the order of oc-currence complying with design as-sumptions. Cracks were regularlyspaced and essentially corresponded tothe spacing of tie reinforcement [20 to40 cm (8 to 15 in.)]. Crack width was amaximum of 0.15 mm (0.006 in.) and amean of 0.07 mm (0.0028 in.) at 100percent loading. Loading for this casewas in increments of 10 percent withthe load being taken to zero betweenloading steps. Behavior of the diagonalnode points was unaffected by thecracking and all cracks closed when theelements returned to a compressionstate from a tension state.

Measured friction coefficient in thetendons was 0.24 as compared to a

value of 0.3 used for the design of theBubiyan Bridge.

No slippage was observed in thematch-cast segment dry joints.

The above data are based upon apartial evaluation of data from theshort-term loading tests. Analysis of theremaining data is continuing. Uponcompletion a determination will bemade as to any additional testing thatmay be required.

Anticipated future testing includes(1) long-term testing of from 3 to 4months with data acquisition and visualinspection at approximately 2-weekintervals, (2) vibration testing wherebya vibrator will be mounted at variouspoints on the deck and thus providedata regarding the period of vibration inthe diagonals, (3) temperature effects tobe gathered continuously over a 2-dayperiod of substantial sun exposure, and(4) test to failure.

MODIFICATIONS TOSTRUCTURE FOR BUBIYAN

ISLAND RAMPIt was recognized during the design

stage that a serious soils consolidationproblem existed on Bubiyan Island. Toavoid the anticipated long period ofsignificant and unacceptable settlementof the embankment ramp approach tothe bridge on the Island, which wouldhave resulted in future high mainte-nance costs, it was decided to add sanddrains to achieve rapid consolidation of

102

IIWL +2,600,00

LWL -1.60 3_%_

L4o.160j 40.168 40.175 40.174 40.172 140170 40.16840.163140.156140.144

NOTE:For units V1 through V3 see Fig. 6

C.)C-0Cm

rr

VO

1(10(1

Bridge I'rofiIe__,____..... _..-

NavigationSpan

[40.14

------ =.-=- =- -

5%40.I 2 40.132 40.134 40.138 40.144 40.145 40.147 53.822 40.147 40.145

I Fig. 34. Adjusted profile of Bubiyan Bridge. Im3.21108 ft

Table 4. Adjusted tabulation of spans, Bubiyan Bridge. Dimensions are in m (ft).

Unit Span dimensions in unit Unit length

V1 6 @ 40.16 (131.7585) 240.96 (790.5511)V2 5 @ 40.16 (131.7585) 200.80 (658.7927)V3 5 @ 40.16 (131.7585) 200.80 (658.7927)V4 40.16 - 40.168 - 40.175 - 40.174 - 40.172 200.849 (658.9534)

(131.758,5 - 131.7848 - 131.8077 - 131.8045 - 131.7979)V5 40.17 - 40.168 - 40.163 - 40.156 - 40.144 200.801 (658.7959)

(131.7913 - 131.7848 - 131.7684 - 131 7454 - 131.7060)V6 5 @ 40.142 (131.6995) 200.71 (658.4974)V7 40.132 - 40.134 - 40.138 - 40.140 - 40.144 200.688 (658.4252)

(131.6667 - 131.6732 - 131.6864 - 131.6929 - 131.7060)V8 40.145 - 40.147 - 53.822 - 40.147 - 40.145 214.406 (703.4318)

(131.7093 - 131.7159 - 176.5814 - 131.7159 - 131.7093)V9 40.144 - 40.140 - 40.138 - 40.134 - 40.137 - 40.143 240.836 (790.1444)

(131.7060 131.6929 - 131.6864 - 131.6732 - 131.6831- 131.7028)

V10 6 @ 40.143 (131.7028) 240.858 (790.2166)Vii 5 @ 40.143 - 40.24 240.955 (790.5348)

Total length: 2382.663 (7817.1358)

the ramp structure. This solution thenallowed a reduction in structure length(from that indicated in Fig. 6 and Table2) by three spans on Bubiyan Island,which therefore allowed an economictrade-off resulting in no additional costto the project (see Fig. 34 and Table 4).

To minimize the impact of this revi-sion on the overall bridge profile, thelocation of the main span for the navi-gation channel was relocated approxi-mately 200 m (660 ft) closer to themainland without seriously affectingnavigation.

Although pier construction and seg-ment casting were already underway,the above revisions were implementedbefore they had any impact upon workalready completed, and without anydelay to the progress of the project.

ERECTIONErection of the superstructure has

proceeded smoothly and according toschedule. Figs. 35 through 37 showvarious stages of erection of the super-structure.

Fig. 35. Longitudinal view of underside ofsuperstructure. At this stage bridge isabout two-thirds complete.

104

Fig. 36. Longitudinal view of superstructure during erection.

Fig. 37. Typical precast truss element being lifted into position.


In these photographs, the erectionhas reached the navigation span. Thebridge is approximately two-thirdscompleted.

The superstructure was essentiallycompleted by the end of December. Itis estimated that the entire project willbe finished by April 1983.

CLOSING REMARKS

The Bubiyan Bridge project repre-sents a significant step forward in thestate-of-the-art of bridge constructionand particularly in precast prestressedsegmental bridge construction. In thispaper the authors have attempted tobring to the attention of the professionthe significant aspects of the design,model testing, fabrication and con-struction of the Bubiyan Bridge withthe intent of encouraging andstimulating others to consider the con-cept of three-dimensional space framebridge structures.

The Bubiyan Bridge not only repre-

sents an important and significant ac-complishment in the transportationnetwork of Kuwait, but more impor-tantly a new and higher level in thetechnology and art of constructingbridges.

The innovative design and construc-tion procedures expressed in theBubiyan Bridge are such that not onlyBouygues and others associated withthe project, but the entire fraternity ofthose concerned with bridge designand construction world wide, can justifi-ably take a great deal of pride and senseof accomplishment.

REFERENCES

1. Harris, J. D., and Smith, I. C., Basic De-sign and Construction in PrestressedConcrete,. Chatto and Windus, London,England, 1963.

2. Martynowicz, A., and McMillan, C. B.,"Large Precast Prestressed VierendeelTrusses Highlight Multistory Building,"PCI JOURNAL, V. 20, No. 6, Nov.-Dec.1975, pp. 50-65.

3. Ballinger, C. A., Podolny, W. Jr., and Ab-rahams, M. J., "A Report on the Designand Construction of Segmental Pre-stressed Concrete Bridges in WesternEurope — 1977," International RoadFederation, Washington, D.C., June 1978.(Also available from Federal HighwayAdministration, Office of Research andDevelopment, Washington, D.C., ReportNo. FHWA-RD-78-44.)

4. Podolny, W. Jr. and Muller, Jean M.,Construction and Design of Prestressed

Concrete Segmental Bridges, John Wileyand Sons, Inc., New York, 1982.

5. Wheen, Robert J., "Australia's Rip Bridgeis Stitched Together," Concrete (Lon-don), V. 13, No. 3, March 1979.

6. Wheen, Robert J., "The Rip Bridge — AUnique Australian Structure," ConcreteInternational, V. 1, No. 11, November1979.

7. Gallaway, Thomas M., "Design Featuresand Prestressing Aspects of Long KeyBridge," PCI JOURNAL, V. 25, No. 6,Nov.-Dec. 1980, pp. 84-96.

8. Muller, Jean M., "Construction of LongKey Bridge," PCI JOURNAL, V. 25, No.6, Nov.-Dec. 1980, pp. 97-111.

9. Joint PCI-PTI Committee on SegmentalConstruction, "Recommended Practicefor Precast Post-Tensioned SegmentalConstruction," PCI JOURNAL, V. 27, No.1, Jan.-Feb. 1982, pp. 14-61.

106

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Obviously, a structure of the mag-nitude and complexity of the BubiyanBridge requires the talents and input ofmany individuals to reach a successfulconclusion. It is impossible to acknowl-edge all who participated and contrib-uted to the undertaking of this project;however, the following organizationsand key personnel are recognized fortheir significant contributions.

Bouygues, the designers and con-structors of this project, whose effi-ciency and organizational talents obvi-ously were vital to success. Key per-sonnel were: Pierre Richard, vicepresident Director Scientifique, inwhose fertile mind the structural con-cept of the Bubiyan Bridge was born;Roger A. Martin, head , of InternationalOperations Civil Works Departmentand Michel Toneti, manager attached tothe General Management, both ofwhom represented Bouygues duringthe negotiations of the contract with theMinistry of Public Works; Arnaud DeLa Chaise, Ingenieur E.P.U.L., projectengineer, Paris Office; Bernard Ras-paud, design manager, Paris Office;Francois Hanus, manager, Design andMethods Section, Public Works De-partment, Paris Office; C. Millerioux,resident engineer for the constructionsupervision staff on site; and AlbertBernardo, contractors project managerat the site, responsible for the organi-zation and coordination of all site ac-tivities.

The following organizations of theFrench Ministry of Transport for their

participation and cooperation in the su-perstructure model tests: Serviced'Etudes Techniques des Routes etAutoroutes (SETRA), (Roads andHighways Technical Studies Depart-ment), Division of Major ConcreteBridge Works; Laboratoire Central desPouts et Chaussees (LCPC), (CentralLaboratory for Roads and Bridges), Di-vision of Engineering Structures; andDirection Regionale de 1'Equipment(DRE), (Regional Infrastructure De-partment), Control of Works and Test-ing.

Terry Jones, resident engineer for theMPW Consultant (DeLeuw Cather In-ternational) and his staff at the projectsite, who provided technical advice andmanagement assistance to the Ministryof Public Works Project Engineer.

The Hayat Trading and ContractingCorporation, the local Kuwait agent forBouygues, for their contributions in thenegotiation and construction stages.

Joseph DeMarco, who was theFHWA Division Administrator-Kuwaitand later became chief, Foreign Proj-ects Division, Washington, D.C. andJ. A. Richard the current Division Ad-ministrator-Kuwait, for their guidanceand assistance.

Ali A. Al-Abdullah, MPW Chief En-gineer, Roads, and the many other offi-cials of the Ministry of Public Worksregarding legal and technical mattersduring development of the turnkeyBubiyan Bridge contract and ProjectAdministration.

Cover photograph courtesy of Bouygues,Design-Constructor, Clamart, France.


a 3-d precast segmental space frame · 2018-11-01 · a 3-d precast segmental space frame walter...

Documents