Bridge Erection Machines

CIVIL ENGINEERING - Bridge Erection Machines - M.
Rosignoli

Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (UNESCO-EOLSS) page 1/51

BRIDGE ERECTION MACHINES

Marco Rosignoli
HNTB Corporation, USA

Keywords: Beam launchers, self-launching gantries, telescopic gantries, pivoted gantries, overhead
and underslung machines, movable scaffolding systems (MSSs), heavy lifters, lifting frames, form
travelers, span carriers with underbridge, design loads, modeling, analysis, load testing, instability,
robustness, progressive collapse.

Contents

1. Introduction to Bridge Construction Methods
2. Main Features of Bridge Erection Machines
3. Beam Launchers
4. Self-Launching Gantries for Span-By-Span Precast Segmental Erection
5. Movable Scaffolding Systems (MSSs) for Span-By-Span Casting
6. Self-Launching Machines for Balanced Cantilever Construction
7. Carriers and Gantries for Full-Span Precasting
8. Design Loads of MSSs and Form Travelers
9. Design Loads of Heavy Lifters
10. Modeling and Analysis
11. Instability of 3D Trusses
12. Instability of Vertical Support Members
13. Load Testing
14. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Glossary
Bibliography
Bibliographical Sketch

Summary

Bridge industry is moving to mechanized construction because this saves labor, shortens project
duration and improves quality. This trend is evident in many countries and affects most construction
methods. Mechanized bridge construction is based on the use of special machines.

New-generation bridge erection machines are complex and delicate structures. They handle heavy
loads on long spans under the same constraints that the obstruction to overpass exerts onto the final
structure. Safety of operations and quality of the final product depend on complex interactions
between human decisions, structural, mechanical and electro-hydraulic components of machines,
and the bridge being erected.

In spite of their complexity, the bridge erection machines must be as light as possible. Weight
governs the initial investment, the cost of shipping and site assembly, and the launch stresses.
Weight limitation dictates the use of high-strength steel and designing for high stress levels in
different load and support conditions, which makes these machines potentially prone to instability.

CIVIL ENGINEERING - Bridge Erection Machines - M. Rosignoli

Bridge erection machines are assembled and dismantled many times, in different conditions and by
different crews. They are modified and adapted to new work conditions. Structural nodes and field
splices are subjected to hundreds of load reversals. The nature of loading is often highly dynamic
and the machines may be exposed to impacts and strong wind.

Loads and support reactions are applied eccentrically, the support sections are often devoid of
diaphragms, and most machines have flexible support systems. Indeed such design conditions are
almost inconceivable in permanent structures subjected to such loads.

The level of sophistication of new-generation bridge erection machines requires adequate technical
culture. Long subcontracting chains may lead to loss of communication, the problems not dealt with
during planning and design must be solved on the site, the risks of wrong operations are not always
evident in so complex machines, and human error is the prime cause of accidents.

Experimenting new solutions without the due preparation may lead to catastrophic results. Several
bridge erection machines collapsed in the years, with fatalities and huge delays in the project
schedule. A level of technical culture adequate to the complexity of mechanized bridge construction
would save human lives and would facilitate the decision-making processes with more appropriate
risk evaluations.


Every bridge construction method has its own advantages and weak points. In the absence of
particular requirements that make one solution immediately preferable to the others, the evaluation
of the possible alternatives is always a difficult task.

Comparisons based on the quantities of structural materials may mislead. The technological costs of
processing of raw materials (labor, investments for special equipment, shipping and site assembly
of equipment, energy) and the indirect costs related to project duration often govern in
industrialized countries. Higher quantities of raw materials due to efficient and rapid construction
processes rarely make a solution anti-economical.

Low technological costs are the reason for the success of the incremental launching method for PC
bridges. Compared to the use of ground falsework, launching diminishes the cost of labor with
similar investments. Compared to the use of an MSS, launching diminishes the investments with
similar labor costs. In both cases launching diminishes the technological costs of construction and
even if the launch stresses may increase the quantities of raw materials, the balance is positive and
the solution is cost effective.

The construction method that comes closest to incremental launching is segmental precasting. The
labor costs are similar but the investments are higher and the break-even point shifts to longer
bridges. Spans of 30-50m are erected span-by-span with overhead or underslung launching gantries.
Longer spans are erected as balanced cantilevers: self-launching gantries reach 100-120m spans and
lifting frames cover longer spans and curved bridges.

Heavy self-launching gantries are used for macro-segmental construction of 90-120m spans. Span-
by-span erection of macro-segments requires props from foundations. Balanced cantilever erection
involves casting long deck segments under the bridge for strand jacking into position. Both
solutions require high investments.


On shorter bridges, prefabrication is limited to the girders and the deck slab is cast in-place. Precast
beams are often erected with ground cranes. Sensitive environments, inaccessible sites, tall piers,
steep slopes and inhabited areas often require assembly with beam launchers, and the technological
costs increase.

LRT and HSR bridges with 30-40m spans may be erected by full-span precasting. The investment is
so high that the break-even point is reached with hundreds of spans. The precasting plant delivers 2-
4 spans per day for fast-track construction of large-scale projects. Optimized material and labor
costs add to the high quality of factory production. Road carriers and ground cranes may erect four
single-track U-girders (two LRT spans) every night. Heavy carriers with underbridge and gantries
fed by SPMTs are the alternatives for ground delivery of HSR spans. Precast spans longer than
100m have been erected with floating cranes.

Medium-span PC bridges may also be cast in-place. For bridges with more than two or three spans
it is convenient to advance in line by reusing the same formwork several times, and the deck is built
span-by-span. Casting occurs in either fixed or movable formwork. The choice of equipment is
governed by economic reasons as the labor cost associated with a fixed falsework and the
investment requested for an MSS are both considerable.

Starting from the forties, the original wooden falsework has been replaced with modular steel
framing systems. In spite of the refined support structures, labor may exceed 50% of the
construction cost of the span. Casting on falsework is a viable solution only with inexpensive labor
and small bridges. Obstruction of the area under the bridge is another limitation.

An MSS comprises a casting cell assembled onto a self-launching frame. MSSs are used for span-
by-span casting of long bridges with 30-70m spans. If the piers are not tall and the area under the
bridge is accessible, 90-120m spans can be cast with 45-60m MSSs supported onto a temporary
pier in every span. Repetitive operations diminish the cost of labor, the quantities of raw materials
are unaffected, and quality is higher than that achievable with a falsework.

Bridges crossing inaccessible sites with tall piers and spans up to 300m are cast in-place as balanced
cantilevers. When the bridge is short or the spans exceed 100-120m the deck supports the form
travelers. Overhead travelers are preferred in PC bridges while underslung machines are used in
cable-stayed bridges and cable-supported arches. With long bridges and 90-120m spans, two longer
casting cells may be suspended from a self-launching girder that also balances the cantilevers
during construction.


The industry of bridge erection machines is a highly specialized niche. Every machine is initially
conceived for a scope, every manufacturer has its own technological habits, and every contractor
has preferences and reuse expectations. The country of fabrication also influences several aspects of
design. Nevertheless, the conceptual schemes are not many.

Most beam launchers comprise two triangular trusses made of long welded modules. The diagonals
may be bolted to the chords for easier shipping although site assembly is more expensive. Pins or
longitudinal bolts are used for the field splices in the chords. New-generation single-girder
machines allow robotized welding and have less support saddles and smaller winch-trolleys. 50m
spans are rarely exceeded in precast beam bridges.


A launching gantry for span-by-span erection of precast segmental bridges also operates on 30-50m
spans but the payload is much higher as the gantry supports the entire span during assembly. The
payload of an MSS for in-place span-by-span casting is even higher as it also includes the casting
cell, although the nature of loading is less dynamic.

Versatile twin-girder overhead machines comprise two trusses that suspend deck segments or the
casting cell and carry runways for winch-trolleys or portal cranes. The field splices are designed for
fast assembly and the modular nature of design permits alternative assembly configurations. These
machines are easily reusable; however, their weight, labor demand and complexity of operations
may suggest the use of more specialized machines on long bridges.

Lighter and more automated single-girder overhead machines are built around a central 3D truss or
two braced I-girders. A light front extension controls overturning and a rear C-frame rolls along the
completed bridge during launching. Single-girder overhead machines are compact and stable and
require ground cranes only for site assembly. Telescopic configurations with a rear main girder and
a front underbridge are also available for bridges with tight plan curves.

Underslung machines comprise two 3D trusses or pairs of braced I-girders supported onto pier
brackets. Props from foundations may be used to increase the load capacity when the piers are short.
A rear C-frame rolling over the completed bridge may be used to shorten the girders. Underslung
machines offer a lower level of automation than the single-girder overhead machines and are
affected by ground constraints and clearance requirements.

Span-by-span macro-segmental construction requires heavy twin-truss overhead gantries with a rear
pendular leg that takes support onto the deck prior to segment lifting. Transverse joints at the span
quarters and a longitudinal joint at bridge centerline divide 80-100m continuous spans into four
segments. The segments are cast under the gantry with casting cells that roll along the completed
bridge and are rotated and fed with the prefabricated cage at the abutment.

Overhead gantries for balanced cantilever erection of precast segments reach 100-120m spans.
Compared to span-by-span erection, the payload is lower as no entire span is suspended from the
gantry. The negative moment from the long front cantilever and the launch stresses on so long spans
govern design. Varying-depth trusses are structurally more efficient while constant-depth trusses are
easier to reuse on different span lengths. Stay cables are rarely used in new-generation machines.

Overhead MSSs for balanced cantilever bridges operate in a similar way. Two long casting cells
suspended from a self-launching girder shift symmetrically from the pier toward midspan to cast the
two cantilevers. After midspan closure and launching to the next pier, the casting cells are set close
to each other to cast the new double pier-head segment. These machines can be easily modified for
strand-jacking of macro-segments cast on the ground.

The bridge itself can support lifting frames for balanced cantilever erection of precast segments or
form travelers for in-place casting. These light machines are used in short or curved bridges, PC
spans up to 300m, and cable-stayed bridges. Lifting frames and form travelers permit erection of
several hammers at once and different erection sequences than from abutment to abutment, but they
require more prestressing and increase the demand for labor and ground cranes.

Carriers with underbridge and heavy gantries fed by SPMTs are used to erect precast spans. Spans
are rarely longer than 40m in LRT and HSR bridges and 50m in highway bridges due to the
prohibitive load on the carriers and the bridge. Longer spans have been handled with floating cranes
when the bridge length permitted amortization of such investments.

3. Beam Launchers

The most common method for erecting precast beams is with ground cranes. Cranes usually give
the simplest and most rapid erection procedures with the minimum of investment, and the deck may
be built in several places at once. Good access is necessary along the entire length of the bridge to
position the cranes and deliver the girders. Tall piers or steep slopes make erection expensive or
prevent it at all.

The use of a beam launcher solves any difficulty. A beam launcher is a light self-launching machine
comprising two triangular trusses. The truss length is about 2.3 times the typical span but this is
rarely a problem as the gantry operates above the deck (Figure 1). Beam launchers easily cope with
variations in span length and deck geometry, plan curvatures and ground constraints. Crossbeams
support the gantry and allow shifting to erect the edge girders and to traverse the gantry for
launching along curves.

Figure 1: 102m, 90ton launcher for 45m, 120ton beams (Comtec)

Two winch-trolleys span between the top chords of the trusses and lodge two winches each. The
main winch suspends the beam and a translation winch acting on a capstan moves the trolley along
the gantry. A third trolley carries an electric generator that feeds gantry operations. When the beams
are delivered at the abutment, the winches may be replaced with less expensive long-stroke
cylinders.

A beam launcher operates in one of two ways depending on how the beams are delivered. If the
beams are delivered on the ground, the launcher lifts them up to the deck level and places them onto
the bearings. If the beams are delivered at the abutment, the launcher is moved back to the abutment
and the winch-trolleys are moved to the rear end of the gantry. The front trolley picks up the front
end of the beam and moves it forward with the rear end suspended from a straddle carrier. When the
rear end of the beam reaches the rear winch-trolley, the trolley picks it up to release the carrier.

The longitudinal movement of the gantry is a two-step process. Automatic clamps block the trusses
to the crossbeams and the winch-trolleys move the beam one span ahead; then the winch-trolleys

are anchored to the crossbeams, the blocks are released and the translation winches push the trusses
to the next span. Redundancy of anchorages is necessary in both phases for safe launching along
inclined planes. The sequence can be repeated many times so when the beams are delivered at the
abutment, the gantry can place them several spans ahead. When the bridge is long, moving the
gantry over many spans slows the erection down and may be faster to cast the deck slab as soon as
the beams are placed and to deliver the next beams along the completed bridge.

Truss deflections at landing at the piers are recovered with alignment wedges. The alignment force
is small but the support saddles must be anchored to avoid displacements or overturning.
Realignment may also be achieved with long-stroke cylinders that rotate arms pinned to the tip of
the truss. Similar devices are also applied to the rear end of the gantry to release the support
reaction when launching forward and to recover the deflection when launching backward.

Figure 2: 74m, 98ton single-girder shifter for 28m, 60ton beams (Deal)

New-generation single-girder launchers are based on two braced I-girders. The main girder is less
expensive than two triangular trusses due to robotized welding, the winch-trolleys are smaller, the
number of support saddles halves, and the crossbeams are shorter. Lightened launching noses may
be attained with laser-cut windows in the webs to avoid hand welding. A C-frame supports the rear
end of the gantry and allows the beams to pass through when delivered along the completed bridge.
The C-frame is not necessary when the beams are delivered on the ground as the launcher lifts and
shifts them into position within the same span (Figure 2).

Crossbeams anchored to the pier caps carry rails for lateral shifting of the gantry. The crossbeams
have lateral overhangs for placement of the edge girders and to traverse the gantry for launching
along curves. Adjustable support legs located so as not to interfere with the precast beams are used
to set the crossbeams horizontal. Some launchers have light service cranes at the ends of the trusses
to reposition the crossbeams without any need for ground cranes.

The support saddles comprise bottom rollers that shift laterally along the crossbeam and top rollers
that support the truss. Equalizer beams allow the top rollers to cope with the flexural rotations in the
truss and the gradient of the launch plane. A vertical pivot connects the two roll assemblies to allow

rotations in the horizontal plane. Lateral shifting along the crossbeams is achieved with capstans or
light long-stroke cylinders.

Automatic clamps block the trusses to the crossbeams during winch-trolley operations. Launching
occurs along inclined planes and breaking of any component of the tow system would leave the
gantry unrestrained on low-friction supports. Redundancy of tow systems involves oversizing and
slow operations.


Span-by-span erection of precast segmental bridges is used for spans shorter than 50m in highway
bridges and 30-45m in dual-track LRT bridges with box- or U-section. Single-track LRT spans with
U-section are typically precast full-length for ground delivery and erection with two ground cranes
because of the faster erection rate.

All the segments for a span are placed onto or suspended from the gantry before gluing so that no
additional deflections can occur. After application of prestress, lowering the gantry releases the
span onto the bearings in one operation. The spans of continuous bridges are released onto jacks
and connected with concrete stitches to the pier-head segments. The solutions of continuity are
locked with concrete shims and partial tensioning of a few permanent tendons before casting the
closures. The prestressing tendons are tensioned from a front stressing platform. A typical 40m
simply-supported span with epoxy joints is erected in 2 or 3 days. Erection rates of up to a span a
day are achievable with an underslung gantry and dry joints.

Overhead and underslung gantries are used to support a complete span of segments. A twin-girder
overhead gantry comprises two triangular trusses or braced I-girders supported onto crossbeams
(Figure 3). Trusses are lighter while I-girders are more stable and solid and allow robotized
welding. Connections designed to develop member strength exploit the modular nature of design
with the possibility of alternative assembly configurations. Field splices of new-generation
machines are designed for fast site assembly.

Figure 3: 98m, 405ton overhead gantry with 45ton portal crane
for 45m, 500ton dual-track U-girder LRT spans (NRS)


A winch-trolley or a portal crane spanning between the girders lifts and moves the segments into
position. Auxiliary support legs at the ends of the gantry are used to erect the pier-head segments of
continuous spans and to reposition the support crossbeams without ground cranes.

The overhead gantries are not much affected by ground constraints, straddle bents, C-piers and
variations in span length and deck geometry; however, they are more complex to design, assemble
and operate than the underslung machines, and they are also more expensive and slower in erecting
the segments with spreader beams.

The overhead gantries operate in one of two ways depending on how the segments are delivered. If
the segments are delivered along the completed bridge, the winch-trolley picks them up at the rear
end of the gantry, moves them forward to the assembly location, and lowers them down to the deck
level. If the segments are delivered on the ground, the winch-trolley lifts them up to the deck level.
Hangers and spreader beams hold the segments into position during assembly. After reaching the
assembly location, the segments are hung to the gantry and the winch-trolley is released for a new
cycle. To avoid interference with the hangers, the segments are moved out with the long side in the
longitudinal plane (Figure 4) and are rotated before suspension with a hydraulic hook.

Figure 4: Longitudinal movement of the segment (HNTB)

Heavier overhead gantries are used for span-by-span macro-segmental erection of 80-100m spans.
The span comprises four segments. A longitudinal joint at bridge centerline divides the box girder
into two halves, and transverse joints at the span quarters divide each half into a pier-head segment
and a midspan segment. A temporary pier supports the front end of the midspan segments in every
span, while the rear end is suspended from the front cantilever of the completed bridge. The
temporary pier also balances the pier-head segments (Figure 5). The construction joints have
through reinforcement and are closed with in-place stitches and integrative prestressing.

The macro-segments are cast beneath the gantry, on the completed deck. The gantry cannot rotate
so long and heavy segments so the two casting cells (Figure 6) roll along the completed bridge back
to the abutment, where they are rotated by 180 and fed with the prefabricated cage for the
conjugated segment. After reaching the gantry, vertical cylinders lift the casting cells from the rails
to apply the casting load over the webs of the box girder.



Figure 5: 46m, 640ton pier-head macro-segment
placed with a 162m, 1280ton overhead gantry

Figure 6: 46m casting cells for midspan (left)
and pier-head (right) macro-segments

The length of the gantry is about 1.8 times the typical span. A pendular W-frame at the rear end of
the gantry takes support onto the deck prior to lifting the segment. A front pendular leg (Figure 5) is
used during launching to reposition the front crossbeam. The two trusses are connected at both ends
and cannot be launched individually. The pier-head segments are inserted under the front crossbeam
and temporarily supported onto the pier cap; the front winch-trolley picks them up again in a more
advanced location for final placement.

Crossbeams support the gantry at the piers with articulated saddles that allow longitudinal and
lateral movements and rotations about the transverse and vertical axes. The support saddles
comprise transverse rollers that shift along the crossbeams and longitudinal rollers that support the


Figure 7: 32-roll saddle for 635ton service load

Figure 8: Launch cylinders

truss. Assemblies of equalizer beams follow the flexural rotations in the trusses, allow launching
onto grades, and equalize the load in the rolls (Figure 7). Rectangular rails welded to crossbeams
and trusses facilitate load dispersal into the webs, transfer lateral forces, and keep the rollers aligned
with the webs.

Some support saddles lodge longitudinal lock systems for the truss and all crossbeams are equipped
with transverse lock systems. The support legs of the crossbeams include adjustment cylinders with
safety nut to set the frame horizontal. The crossbeams are anchored to the piers with tensioned bars
that resist uplift forces. The crossbeams have long lateral overhangs and significant uplift forces
may arise in the anchor systems.


The lightest twin-girder overhead gantries may be launched with winches and capstans. Hydraulic
cylinders lodged within the support saddles and taking contrast into racks anchored to the trusses
provide higher thrust forces and safer operations. Paired cylinders are often used (Figure 8) so that
one cylinder locks the truss while the adjacent cylinder is repositioned.

A single-girder overhead gantry takes support onto the front pier of the span to erect and the front
pier-head segment of the completed bridge. The girder is rigidly framed to the front support legs, a
light front extension controls overturning, and a rear C-frame rolls along the completed bridge
during launching. No rear nose is necessary so these gantries are shorter and lighter than the twin-
girder overhead machines and better suitable for curved bridges.

Lateral bracing connects two I-girders or trusses. Bracing includes X-frames, connections designed
to minimize displacement-induced fatigue, field splices designed for fast assembly, and sufficient
flexural stiffness to resist vibration stresses. Cross diaphragms connected at the same locations of
lateral bracing or crossbeams framed into webs and flanges by vertical stiffeners distribute torsion
and provide transverse rigidity. Bracing and field splices are designed so as to allow a winch-trolley
suspended from the bottom flanges/chords to run through.

Figure 9: Friction launcher on adjustable support block

Some first-generation overhead machines were equipped with stay cables, a deviation tower applied
to the support legs at the rear pier, and a long rear balancing truss with counterweights at the end.
Cable-stayed gantries have been abandoned with time in spite of their structural efficiency as the
cables complicate and slow down the operations and increase labor demand. Varying-depth trusses
are also rarely used in span-by-span erection as they are hardly reusable on different span lengths.

Special launch devices are necessary when the support legs are integral with the main girder.
Launching is achieved by friction, taking advantage of the vertical load that the girder applies to the
launcher (Figure 9).

Support boxes are located under the bottom flanges of the girder. Longitudinal launch cylinders
move the boxes along the low-friction surfaces of two pivoted arms and vertical jacks at the ends of

the arms lift and lower the main girder. The working cycle is as follows. (1) The jacks lower the
girder onto the support boxes. (2) The launch cylinders push the boxes forward and the thrust force
is transferred to the girder by friction. (3) When the boxes reach the front end of the arms, the jacks
lift the girder and the launch cylinders pull the support boxes back to the initial position to start this
cycle again.

A vertical pivot between friction launcher and support block allows rotations when launching along
curves. Low-friction surfaces between support block and base frame allow lateral shifting. The
geometry control systems are equipped with sliding clamps so that the entire assembly can be hung
to the launching nose during span assembly (Figure 10). The sliding clamps also prevent uplift
during launching as the base frame is anchored to the deck with tensioned bars.

The rear support of the gantry is a C-frame that rolls along the completed bridge during launching.
Transverse cylinders shift the frame laterally when launching along curves. Longitudinal cylinders
rotate the frame about the vertical axis to the local radius of plan curvature. Vertical cylinders at the
base of the frame adjust geometry to deck superelevation and control the support reaction that the
C-frame applies to the deck during launching. The top crossbeam of the C-frame is inserted into a
rectangular slot with low-friction surfaces in the main girder for direct transfer of the support
reaction.

Figure 10: Friction launchers suspended from the main girder

After application of prestress, the rear launcher is moved over the front pier-head segment. The
span is released onto the bearings by retracting the main cylinders of the front legs and the rear C-
frame, and the launcher thus lands onto the deck. After anchoring the launcher to the deck, full
retraction of the front cylinders leaves the gantry supported onto the launcher and the rear C-frame,
and launching begins.

When the tip of the launching nose reaches the new pier, the winch-trolley places the new pier-head
segment, and the front launcher is then moved onto the latter for launch completion. An auxiliary
front support leg controls overturning during these operations. At the end of launching the gantry is
lifted for span erection, which also disengages the launchers. Finally, both launchers are parked

along the launching nose to clear the segment assembly area; these movements are driven by light
hydraulic motors.

Friction launchers offer high intrinsic safety as the worst consequence of hydraulic faults is launch
stoppage. Equipment can be designed for the launch loads and overloaded without excessive
concerns in case of need. PLCs permit synchronization of the two launchers and setting limit
pressures to avoid overloading. Launch-cycle automation with displacement sensors simplifies
operations and increases the launch speed.

Telescopic single-girder overhead gantries have been designed for erecting dual-track LRT bridges
with tight plan curvature (Figure 11). The winch-trolley is suspended from the main girder and the
segments are delivered on the ground or along the completed bridge through the rear C-frame. In
order to cope with tight plan curvatures, the gantry comprises a main girder and a front self-
launching underbridge. A turntable with hydraulic controls for translation and vertical and
horizontal rotations connects the main girder to the underbridge. During launching the turntable
pulls the main girder along the underbridge. When the front support legs reach the new pier and the
rear C-frame reaches the front end of the completed bridge, the underbridge is launched forward to
clear the area under the main girder for erection of the new span.

Figure 11: 41m, 96ton underbridge and 47m, 132ton main
girder for 37m, 340ton dual-track LRT spans (Deal)

Many precast segmental bridges have been erected with underslung gantries. These machines are
positioned beneath the deck with the main girders on either side of the pier. The gantry supports the
box girder segments under the wings with adjustable sliding saddles for control of cambers;
underslung gantries are rarely used with U-sections. The gantry takes support onto pier brackets, W-
frames on through girders, or crossbeams hung to the pier cap. When the piers are short and slender,
the pier brackets may be supported onto props from foundations to avoid sockets in the pier (Figure
12). This solution is frequently used in LRT bridges.

The segments are placed onto the gantry with a ground crane or a lifting frame. When the segments
are delivered along the completed bridge, the lifter is placed at the rear end of the gantry. When the


Figure 12: 76m, 325ton underslung gantry with 40ton
crane for 35m, 490ton dual-track LRT spans (NRS)

Figure 13: 91m, 333ton pivoted underslung gantry with 40ton
crane for 36.7m, 392ton dual-track LRT spans (NRS)

segments are delivered on the ground, the crane is placed at the front end of the gantry. The
segments are placed onto the gantry close to the lifter and rolled into position. A portal crane may
also be used to lift the segments and move them into position. Upon application of prestress, the
span is released onto the bearings by lowering the gantry.

Overturning is controlled with front and rear launching noses and the length of the gantry is more
than twice the typical span length. This makes the standard underslung machines hardly compatible
with curved bridges as the girders conflict with the piers and the completed bridge. The front ends
of the main girders may be connected with a crossbeam that slides along a central self-launching
underbridge. A rear C-frame rolling along the completed bridge during launching further shortens
the rigid portion of the machine. These telescopic gantries cope with tight plan radii but require a
particular V-design of the pier caps to create the launch clearance for the front underbridge.

Pivoted girders with hydraulic hinges have also been used: the machine of Figure 13 may erect 40m
dual-track LRT spans with 75m radius. Pivoted girders have also been used in overhead machines:
the gantry of Figure 3 may erect 30m dual-track LRT spans with 60m radius. If one considers the
constraints of precast segmental erection in congested urban areas, it is not surprising that so many
innovative bridge erection machines have been designed for LRT systems.

The underslung gantries are simple to design, assemble and operate. Segment erection is fast and
props from foundations can be used to increase the load capacity when working low on the ground.
However, these machines project beneath the deck, which may cause interference with straddle
bents and C-piers, clearance problems when passing over roads or railroads, and difficulties in the
end spans as the abutment walls are wider than the piers. This problem is solved by applying the
rear noses after launching the gantry to the second span over props from foundations. The front
noses are also dismantled before launching the gantry to the last span. The abutment walls must be
tall not to prevent operations in the first and last span.


A PC bridge can be cast span-by-span proceeding from an abutment toward the opposite one. When
the piers are short and the area under the bridge is accessible, the formwork can be supported onto a
ground falsework. In bridges of length sufficient to amortize the investment, the use of an MSS
allows transferring the casting cell to the new span in a few hours instead of weeks. The savings of
labor are substantial, the area under the bridge is unaffected, and quality of construction is better
than that achievable on a falsework.

An MSS is typically designed to cast an entire span. Solid or voided slabs with stiffening haunches
at the piers are used for 30-40m highway spans, ribbed slabs with double-T section are used up to
50m spans, and box girders reach 50-70m spans. Box girders for railway bridges rarely exceed 50m
spans. Simply-supported spans are cast full length. For continuous decks, the abutment span is cast
with a short front cantilever and the subsequent spans extend out over the piers for 20-25% of the
typical span length.

The rear end of the MSS takes support onto the front cantilever of the completed bridge to minimize
the distance between the supports of the MSS and to diminish the time-dependent stress
redistribution of staged construction within the continuous deck. The casting cycle is one or two
weeks per span.

If the piers are not tall and the area under the bridge is accessible, 90-120m continuous spans may
be divided into two segments with joints at the span quarters. The front end of the midspan segment
and the MSS are supported onto a temporary pier, and the rear end of the MSS is suspended from a
C-frame that rolls along the completed bridge. In-line casting of 90-120m varying-depth spans is
much faster than balanced cantilever construction, with casting cycles of two to four weeks for the
entire span.

Solid, voided and ribbed slabs are cast in one phase while box girders are cast in one or two phases.
The inner tunnel form for one-phase casting remains within the completed span and is extracted and
reopened within the reinforcement cage of the new span. Two-phase casting involves casting
bottom slab, webs and support diaphragms in a first time and the top slab after two or three days. A
form table supported onto the first-phase concrete is extracted from the previous span to cast the
deck slab.


Two-phase casting restricts the quantity of concrete processed daily and facilitates handling of inner
forms. J oints at the top slab level also avoid the horizontal cracks that sometimes affect one-phase
casting due to settlement of fresh concrete in the webs. The main concerns with two-phase casting
are related to the deflections of the MSS. The weight of the top slab deflects the casting cell, which
may cause cracking in the non-prestressed first-phase U-section.

Concrete is poured with conveyor belts or pumps. In the simply supported spans, concrete should be
poured starting at the center of the span and progressing symmetrically toward the ends to minimize
the deflections of the casting cell in the final phases of filling. This sequence is labor intensive and
the use of retarding admixtures is often preferred to keep the concrete fluid for the entire duration of
filling. This allows casting the span directionally from bulkhead to bulkhead but the shutters must
be designed for full hydrostatic loads. In the continuous spans, the casting cell is filled with one of
two alternative sequences. In a first procedure, concrete is poured starting at the front pier and
proceeding symmetrically until the front cantilever is filled; then the remaining section is filled
backward toward the construction joint. This sequence diminishes the flexural rotations in the main
girders at the front pier and is preferred when the MSS is supported onto two lines of saddles (W-
frames on through girders or two crossbeams on wide towers).

Figure 14: 97m, 690ton underslung MSS for 44m,
1190ton dual-track HSR spans (ThyssenKrupp)

In a second procedure, concrete is poured starting at the front bulkhead and proceeding backward.
This sequence requires less labor and facilitates finishing, and larger flexural rotations are not a
major issue when the MSS is supported onto one line of saddles (pier brackets). In both cases the
construction joint is cast at the end of pouring to avoid settlement. Forms are stripped prior to
tensioning of tendons to minimize prestress losses in the forms, and the MSS is then lowered in one
operation to transfer the span weight to the bearings.

The self-launching frame of an underslung MSS (Figure 14) supports the bottom crossbeams of the
casting cell with adjustable saddles for setting of camber and superelevation. An underslung gantry
supports the precast segments under the wings while an MSS supports the bottom crossbeams, and
the machine therefore projects deeply under the bridge.

The reinforcement cage for the entire span may be prefabricated behind the abutment and delivered
along the completed bridge. This shortens the casting cycle to one week with one shift per day and
improves risk mitigation with parallel tasks. Cage insertion is simple because access to the casting

cell is free from obstructions in an underslung MSS. The cage carrier moves forward on stiffened
strips of the outer form and lowers cage and front bulkhead into the casting cell in one operation.
The carrier may be equipped with concrete distribution arms and a covering to protect the casting
cell during concrete pouring.

The underslung MSSs take support onto pier brackets or W-frames on through girders (Figure 38).
The support saddles lodge friction launchers or launch cylinders acting into racks. The pier brackets
include jacks with safety nut or screw jacks that lift the MSS to the span casting elevation and lower
it back onto the launch rollers after application of prestress. Some MSSs suspend the pier brackets
from the main girders after dismantling and hydraulic motors move the brackets to the new pier for
crane-less application.

W-frames on through girders are always assembled with ground cranes. Cylinders with safety nut
supported onto the through girders lift the W-frame to the span casting elevation and lower it back
after application of prestress to release the span. Support saddles designed for the total load (weight
and payload) are often based on PTFE skids. At the current state of practice, rollers and PTFE
sliders are complementary. Sliders are used for slow launching of high loads and rollers are used for
medium loads and fast launching.

Overturning is controlled with launching noses and the length of these machines is more than twice
the typical span. The standard underslung MSSs are not suitable for bridges with tight plan radii;
pivoted girders with hydraulic hinges have been used in curved bridges in spite of their cost and
complexity and the load eccentricity of the offset casting cell. Underslung MSSs also project
beneath the deck, which may cause interference with straddle bents and C-piers, clearance problems
when passing over roads or railroads, and difficulties in the first and last span.

In a twin-girder overhead MSS (Figure 15), hangers suspend the outer form from two trusses or box
girders. Assemblies of crossbeams and modular towers support the main girders at the piers. The
towers are anchored with tensioned bars that resist uplift forces. The crossbeams have long lateral
overhangs and significant uplift forces may arise in the anchor systems.

Figure 15: 110m, 1490ton overhead MSS with 60ton
crane for 57.4m, 1380ton single-track HSR spans

An auxiliary tower is placed onto the cantilever of the completed bridge to minimize the distance
between the supports of the MSS, to avoid form settlements at the joint, and to control the stress
redistribution of staged construction within the deck. Cylinders with safety nut lift the crossbeams
to the span casting elevation and lower them back after application of prestress to release the span.
The length of the MSS is more than twice the span length. This is rarely a problem with overhead
machines as the girders do not interfere with the deck and the piers. A portal crane with L-frame
and pendular leg assists the operations of the casting cell. After releasing the span, the hanger bars
are decoupled and the modules of outer form are lowered to the ground and transported under the
next span to be lifted after launching. The inner forms remain in the completed spans and are
repositioned after cage assembly.

Twin-girder overhead MSSs cope with different span lengths and straddle bents and C-piers. Being
above the deck, they are less affected by ground constraints. However, they are more complex to
design, assemble and operate than the underslung MSSs, and much slower during launching as the
outer form is lowered to the ground. Cage prefabrication requires several portal cranes for cage
insertion into the casting cell and is rarely used with these machines.

In a single-girder overhead MSS for 40-50m highway spans, the outer form is suspended from a
central girder that takes support at the front pier of the span to cast and onto the front cantilever of
the completed bridge. These machines are custom-designed for long parallel bridges that allow
amortizing of the investment: they are lighter and shorter than the twin-girder overhead MSSs, able
to reposition the support systems, and simpler to assemble and operate. They allow faster launching
and form setting with substantial savings in labor costs, operations are more automated, and the
casting cell can be covered and equipped with concrete distribution arms.

The main girder comprises two braced trusses or I-girders. Lateral bracing includes X- or K-frames,
connections designed for fast site assembly and to minimize displacement-induced fatigue, and
sufficient flexural stiffness to resist vibration stresses. Cross diaphragms or crossbeams framed to
webs and flanges by vertical stiffeners provide transverse rigidity and distribute torsion. Bracing,
crossbeams and stiffeners are designed to allow unrestricted operations of winch-trolleys suspended
from the bottom flanges (Figure 16).

Figure 16: 110m, 890ton single-girder overhead MSS for 47.5m, 860ton spans

Brackets overhanging from the main girder suspend form hangers with telescopic connections for
setting of camber. Pinned splices at bridge centerline divide the bottom crossbeams of the outer
form into two halves. Hydraulic extractors assist pin removal after release of the span. Long-stroke
hydraulic cylinders at the base of the form hangers rotate the two halves of the outer form to vertical
to avoid interference with the pier during launching (Figure 17). The single-girder overhead MSSs
are launched with the outer form suspended from the main girder and the casting cell is reclosed
with an inverse sequence of operations after launching.

Lateral bracing and edge girders connect the form suspension brackets to enhance the lateral
stability of the MSS. The form hangers are connected by vertical bracing to enhance torsional
stability during span casting. Form hangers and bottom crossbeams may be designed for the full
load of the casting cell or may be integrated with hanger bars crossing the casting cell. The outer
form is less expensive but many holes have to be sealed in every span and inserting and removing
the hanger bars further increases the labor cost.

Figure 17: Opened outer form during launching
(AP Bridge Construction Systems)

The front support of the MSS comprises a box leg on either side of the main girder and an upper
box diaphragm that creates a C-frame. Every leg includes a base cylinder with safety nut and a
telescopic assembly for extraction of the bottom portion of the leg from the deck. The telescopic
assembly is locked by a through pin during span casting. A hydraulic extractor assists pin removal
after lowering the MSS onto the friction launcher, and long-stroke auxiliary cylinders lift the
bottom portion of the leg prior to launching (Figure 18). The leg is protected from fresh concrete
with left-in-place plastic pipes or steel forms fixed to the leg.

The rear support of the MSS is an adjustable C-frame designed to allow cage insertion and to cope
with deck curvature and superelevation. Hydraulic cylinders with safety nut lower the MSS in one
operation after application of prestress. The force applied to the deck during launching is controlled
hydraulically.

Launching is achieved with two electronically synchronized friction launchers as in a single-girder
overhead gantry for precast segmental erection. The rear launcher moves the MSS in the first phases
of launching and the front launcher is placed onto the front pier when the launching nose reaches it.


Figure 18: Front support leg

A front auxiliary leg supports the cantilever during placement of the front launcher onto the pier.
Plan geometry is adjusted at the rear launcher and the rear C-frame in curved bridges.

In so refined MSSs the reinforcement cage is always prefabricated behind the abutment for the
entire span to shorten the casting cycle to one week or less with one shift of carpenters and
ironworkers per day. Parallel tasks also improve risk mitigation. The cage includes front bulkhead,
anchorages, ducts, spacers and all embedded items. Strand is typically inserted into the ducts during
span curing. The cage carrier (Figure 19) comprises modules hinged to each other and running on
the same rails as the rear C-frame of the MSS; the front module is motorized. The cage is tied to a
full-length lifting frame to accelerate insertion into the casting cell and avoid distortion.

The MSS has a rear cantilever where the winch-trolleys are parked at cage arrival (Figure 20). The
hydraulic legs of the lifting frame are extracted to lift the cage from the bottom platform of the
carrier. The front winch-trolley picks up the front module of the lifting frame and moves out along
the MSS; this pulls the lifting frame forward along the carrier. The second winch-trolley picks up
the second module of the frame, and so on until complete cage suspension.

The lifting frame is moved forward and lowered into the casting cell, the hydraulic legs are
retracted to release the cage, and the frame is extracted from the cage and moved back onto the
carrier with an inverse sequence of operations. The bottom platform of the carrier is used as rebar
jig during cage prefabrication.



Figure 19: Cage carrier for 47.5m spans

Figure 20: Parking area for winch-trolleys

In machines with a lower level of automation, the web cage is assembled over the new span during
curing and is suspended from the MSS during launching. Monorail winches assist cage assembly
and lowering into the casting cell after launching. New-generation single-girder overhead MSSs
are targeting 90m spans in tangent highway bridges and 70m spans in HSR bridges. Constant-depth
trusses are generated with stacked assemblies of modular panels and arched overhead trusses further
increase the stiffness of the casting cell (Figure 21). The modular nature of assembly facilitates
adaptation to shorter spans, although a higher level of automation is often preferred for span-by-
span casting of 40-50m spans.

Launching on long spans requires light machines. The MSS of Figure 21 has 1.79 payload/weight
ratio. Trusses and space frames are used for form hangers and bottom frame, and hanger bars cross
the casting cell to further lighten the outer form. As a drawback of the high structural efficiency, the
large number of field splices increases cost and duration of site assembly and complicates
inspections.


Figure 21: 140m, 780ton overhead MSS for 70m, 1400ton spans (BERD)

Figure 22: Sensor-controlled 7.0MN prestressing for two-phase casting (BERD)

One-phase casting of 90m box girders would involve handling 700-900m
3
of concrete in a few
hours. Two-phase casting reduces the demand on batching plant and concrete delivery lines along
the completed bridge but requires control of deflections of the casting cell in so flexible MSSs.

Sensor-controlled tendons (Figure 22) may be automatically tensioned during filling of the casting
cell and released during application of prestress. The automation and control systems include
sensors, electric boards, PLC, hydraulic groups, prestressing jacks with motorized safety nut, and
control and communication systems. The prestressing system response is damped to avoid tendon
vibrations.

Prestressing increases cost and complexity of the MSS and the axial load makes the truss more
prone to out-of-plane buckling. Combining sophisticated automation and control systems with the
skill and attention of workers in constructions involves additional challenges. On the other hand,
span-by-span casting of 70-90m spans with weekly casting cycle is much faster than balanced
cantilever construction, design of reinforcement and prestressing is more efficient, and the operators
of bridge erection machines must be accurately trained anyway.


Balanced cantilever construction is suited to precast segmental and cast-in-place bridges. Precast
segmental construction requires powerful erection machines but allows industrialized casting and
faster erection and is therefore addressed to bridges with a great number of spans. Segment
assembly with ground cranes or lifting frames permits free erection sequences while the use of a
self-launching gantry requires that the deck be erected from one abutment toward the opposite one;
however, directional erection permits delivering the segments along the completed bridge.

The deck of in-place bridges is cast in short segments with pairs of form travelers. Time-schedule
dictates the number of form travelers to be used simultaneously. When the cantilevers from the two
piers face each other at midspan, the closure segment is cast and bottom slab tendons are installed to
make the deck continuous. The travelers are then lowered to the ground and repositioned onto a
new pier-head segment.

Balanced cantilever bridges have box girder section. Ribbed slabs have been built in the past and
are still used in the cable-stayed bridges as torsion and most of the negative moment are resisted by
two planes of cables. Box girders may have constant or varying depth. Constant-depth decks are
simpler to cast but competitive in a narrow span range (50-70m) while varying-depth decks are used
on spans ranging from 70m to 250-300m. Depth variation adapts the flexural capacity to demand
but the pier-head segments soon become too tall and heavy for ground transportation and lifting,
and spans longer than 120-130m are generally cast in-place.

The construction method dictates the length of the pier-head segments. In a cast-in-place bridge the
pier-head segment must accommodate a pair of form travelers in the initial stages of cantilever
construction and lengths of 8-10m are frequent. Props from foundations or pier brackets support the
casting cell. Geometry is complex, the working space is limited and the segment is typically divided
into numerous casting phases. Reinforcement and prestressing are also complex and construction
durations of 2 to 4 months for a pier-head segment are not infrequent.

In a precast segmental bridge the pier-head segment should have the same weight as the other
segments not to require special lifting devices. The segment contains a thick support diaphragm and
the bottom slab is also thick to resist the negative bending from the cantilevers, so the segment is
very short. This facilitates placement as the gantry must also take support at the pier during
handling of the pier-head segment.

The most common erection methods for precast segments are with ground cranes, lifting frames or
gantries at the deck level. Ground cranes require good access to the deck along the entire length of
the bridge. Cranes usually give the simplest and most rapid erection procedures with minimum
investment. Cranes are readily available in many countries and multiple cantilevers can be erected
at once. The main constraints on crane erection are access and tall piers, as balanced cantilever
bridges are often selected in response to inaccessible terrains.

Deck-supported lifting frames are used on tall piers, long or curved spans, spans of different length,
and spans over water where special lifters can handle heavier segments and barge delivery
minimizes geometry and weight constraints. Lifting frames are also the standard solution for
erection of cable-stayed bridges when time or site constraints discourage from in-place casting.

Fixed frames anchored to the tip of the cantilever can lift only from the ground and have limited
segment handling capability. Derricks have a rotating arm that can lift segments from behind or
laterally; they have a large maneuvering area but apply significant loads to the deck and are used


Figure 23: Lifting of 90ton pier-head segment (Comtec)

Figure 24: 30m, 90ton lifting frame for 64ton segments (Deal)

only in cable-stayed bridges. A mobile lifting frame comprises a motorized base frame and a
cantilever nose that supports a lifting trolley. Light segments are lifted with winches and heavier
segments with strand jacks. A lifting frame is much lighter than a wheeled crane as it is devoid of
counterweights. This simplifies placing the machine onto the pier-head segment at the beginning of
erection and diminishes deck prestressing but requires anchoring the machine to the deck before
lifting of every segment. The pier-head segment is lifted or cast in-place to establish a platform on
which one or two lifting frames are secured. An auxiliary frame may be used to lift the pier-head
segment with the winch-trolley of the lifting frame (Figure 23).

Straddle carriers with cantilever noses on both sides of the machine move from one side of the pier
to the other to lift the segments in turn. Straddle carriers with winch-trolleys and spreader beams
wider than the top slab can pick up the segment at the base of the pier and move it out beneath the
cantilever (Figure 24). Other types of motorized frames move the segment over the deck and rotate
and lower it into position. Most lifting frames also suspend a stressing platform beyond the segment
for fabrication and tensioning of the top slab tendons In spite of the single-operation-machine nature
and the disruption when moving to the next pier, the lifting frames can solve erection conditions
incompatible with ground cranes and gantries. The erection cycle is typically one segment per day.

Launching gantries achieve faster erection rates and minimize ground disruption when the segments
are delivered along the completed bridge. Gantries are suited to building over water or other such
obstructions; however, they erect the deck from abutment to abutment and are delayed if problems
occur at any pier or span. One or two winch-trolleys lift and transport the segments into position. If
the segments are delivered along the completed bridge, the winch-trolley picks them up at the rear
end of the gantry. If the segments are delivered on the ground, the winch-trolley raises them up to
the deck level.

Figure 25: 160m, 320ton gantry for 102m spans and 105ton segments (VSL)

The earliest single-truss overhead gantries were slightly longer than the span to erect. The length of
the truss was sufficient to span between the front cantilever of the completed bridge and the next
pier during launching, and minimizing the distance between the supports resulted in lighter gantries.
Some of these machines were equipped with a deviation tower and symmetrical stay cables that
relieved the negative bending in the truss. The use of stay cables complicates the operations and
increases labor demand but may be a brilliant solution when few long spans have to be erected
(Figure 25) and the remainder of the bridge can be erected without activating the stay-cables or
minimizing their adjustment. These light machines are easier to ship and erect than the standard
twin-girder overhead gantries.

A single plane of stay cables is generally preferred and a fan layout simplifies pull adjustment from
a stressing platform at the top of the tower. A few cables may also be anchored to the bottom chords
to provide torsional restraint to the truss. Single-truss gantries are preferred for better control of out-
of-plane buckling and simpler structural nodes at the anchor points of the cables. The winch-trolleys
run along the bottom chords and the field splices in the truss have longitudinal bolts above the top
flange and below the bottom flange to permit the wheels to pass through.


Figure 26: 108m, 278ton gantry for 45m spans and 60ton segments (VSL)

Figure 27: Placement of the first 182ton down-station segment
with a 198m, 876ton gantry for 101m spans (HNTB)

Short gantries overload the front cantilever of the completed bridge. Placing the pier-head segments
is also more complex. The length of new-generation machines is more than twice the span length
(Figure 26). These machines take support at the piers during span erection and the higher cost of a
longer gantry is balanced by less reinforcement and prestressing in the entire bridge. Placement of
pier-head segments and launching are also simplified, and labor demand is lower.

The typical launch sequence for a new-generation gantry for long balanced cantilever spans is as
follows. (1) The cantilevers are erected with the gantry anchored to crossbeams sitting onto the pier-
head segments of the completed bridge and the new pier. (2) After midspan closure and tensioning
of continuity tendons, the front pendular leg takes support onto the front cantilever and the winch-
trolley moves the front crossbeam forward to the 3
rd
or 4
th
segment. (3) The front leg is released and
the gantry is launched until the rear end reaches the rear crossbeam. (4) The rear auxiliary leg takes

support onto the deck and the winch-trolley moves the rear crossbeam to midspan. (5) The rear leg
is released and the gantry is launched until the front leg takes support onto the new pier. (6) The
gantry places the pier-head segment and the first down-station segment (Figure 27). (7) The winch-
trolley moves the front crossbeam onto the new pier-head segment and the rear crossbeam onto the
pier-head segment of the completed bridge. (8) The front leg is released and the gantry is launched
forward and anchored to the crossbeams in the erection configuration for the new span. No ground
cranes are necessary for launching.

When the length of the bridge is insufficient to amortize the investments of segmental precasting,
the balanced cantilever bridges are cast in-place. In-place casting is also the standard solution for
curved spans and spans longer than 120m.

Figure 28: Overhead form traveler

When form travelers support the casting cells, the segments are 3-5m long for reasons of weight and
load unbalance. 5-6m segments are possible although form flexibility may cause cracking and
geometry defects and the form travelers are more expensive. The standard convertible traveler is
designed for 5m segments up to 500ton heavy, casting cell included.

A typical overhead form traveler consists of a casting cell suspended from a number of trusses equal
to the number of webs in the box girder. The trusses of the oldest travelers were heavy and long to
enhance the action of rear counterweights. In the new-generation machines the counterweights have
been replaced with adjustable tie-downs rolling within launch rails and the trusses are lighter and
shorter. Trusses, front and rear crossbeams and bracing systems are modular assemblies of pinned
members for fast assembly. The steel frame of an overhead traveler may weigh between 25ton and
95ton (Figure 28).

The casting cell is suspended with hangers and adjustable to varying deck geometry (segment
length, box height, thickness of webs and bottom slab) and road alignment (curvature and
superelevation). Working platforms are incorporated around the traveler and a stressing platform is
suspended beyond the bulkhead for fabrication and tensioning of tendons. The inner form is
stripped from the previous segment and pulled forward within the cage of the new segment by
rolling along suspended rails.


When the pier-head segment is 7-10m long, two form travelers can be assembled at the same time.
It typically takes 2 weeks to assemble a traveler and another 2 weeks to assemble the casting cell.
Casting the initial segment takes another 2 to 3 weeks. The segments are typically cast on a 5-day
cycle after the learning curve has passed.

The segments are cast in one phase proceeding from the front bulkhead backwards to minimize
settlement at the construction joint. The inner shutter is equipped with windows for concrete
vibration. Concrete with early high strength is used to shorten the casting cycle.

In the overhead travelers the trusses are supported onto the front deck segment and anchored to the
second segment with tie-downs that prevent overturning (Figure 29). Vertical cylinders at the front
support lift the traveler from the launch rails for casting. After tensioning the top slab tendons, the
outer form is stripped and the traveler is lowered onto the launch rails. Adjustable tie-downs roll
along the rails to prevent overturning during launching.

Launching is a two-step process: first the rails are pushed forward and anchored to the new
segment, and then the traveler is lowered onto the rails and pulled forward. Rails and traveler are
launched with the same set of hydraulic cylinders. Launch cylinders are repositioned alternately
during launching to avoid uncontrolled movements of the traveler.

Figure 29: Anchoring and launch devices

In the underslung form travelers for PC box girders, a C-frame supported onto the webs of the front
segment suspends a longitudinal 3D truss on either side of the deck, beneath the box wings. In the
cable-stayed bridges the C-frame is replaced with hydraulic hangers rolling along the edge girders
to avoid interference with the cables (Figure 30). Counter-rollers at the rear end of the trusses take
contrast against the deck soffit to prevent overturning.

The forms are stripped by releasing the vertical cylinders of C-frames and hangers. Launch
cylinders push the launch rails over the new segment and then pull C-frames and hangers along the
rails. Launching an underslung traveler is more complex but the reinforcement cage for the segment
can be prefabricated as the casting cell is free from obstructions.



Figure 30: 24m, 202ton underslung traveler
for 9x24m, 320ton deck segments (VSL)

Figure 31: 18.7m, 122ton underslung traveler
for 7.9m, 267ton arch segments (NRS)

The underslung form travelers for cable-stayed bridges are heavy due to the wide deck and the long
segments based on cable spacing. Deflections are controlled with stiff longitudinal trusses and
transverse 3D trusses or space frames that support the bottom form table of the casting cell and
control torsion in the main trusses. Auxiliary stay cables may be anchored to the pylons to control
the deflections of the longest segments.


Underslung travelers with full-width C-frame are also used for in-place casting of cable-supported
arches (Figure 31). The C-frame is anchored to the arch during operations of the casting cell due to
the slope of the arch segments. Strand brakes are incorporated into the launch rails for additional
safety from uncontrolled movements. The segment is cast in one phase by filling the casting cell
upward. The top shutter is closed with the progress of filling to facilitate inspection and concrete
vibration. The support cables of the arch are installed after launching the casting cell to the next
segment to avoid interference.

As an alternative to the use of form travelers cantilevering from the deck, a balanced cantilever
bridge can be cast with a single- or twin-girder overhead MSS (Figure 32) supported at the pier and
onto the front cantilever of the completed bridge. Two long casting cells suspended from one or two
girders shift symmetrically from the pier-head segment to midspan to cast the cantilevers. After
achieving midspan continuity, the girders are launched to the next span and the casting cells are
moved to the next pier and set close to each other to cast the new pier-head segment.

Figure 32: 158m, 1600ton MSS for balanced cantilever casting of 120m
spans with 11.3m, 680ton two-phase segments (ThyssenKrupp)

The use of a suspension-girder MSS is suitable for spans up to 100-120m and tangent or slightly
curved bridges of adequate length. The length of the main girders is about 1.3 times the maximum
span. Despite its cost, an MSS for balanced cantilever construction offers many advantages. The
machine provides easy access for workers and materials from the completed bridge. If the deck is
supported onto bearings, the MSS stabilizes the cantilevers and avoids temporary lock systems at
the piers. Deck balancing is also useful when the deck is continuous with tall piers. Less
prestressing is necessary along the entire bridge as no form travelers are suspended from the
cantilevers.

Casting cells suspended from many points are so stiff that the segments can be 10-12m long and
wider than 20m. Transferring the casting cells to the next pier is much simpler (no dismantling and
reassembly work is necessary), no special casting cell is necessary for the pier-head segments, the
use of ground cranes is minimized, construction is faster, and labor savings may be substantial. The
end deck segments at the abutments are also cast with the MSS. The main limitation is the need for
casting the deck from one abutment toward the other.



Figure 33: Strand-jacking of 8.0m, 650ton segment (ThyssenKrupp)

The MSSs for balanced cantilever casting can be easily adapted to macro-segmental erection. The
casting cells are replaced with lifting platforms for strand-jacking. Long deck segments are cast
under the bridge and lifted into position (Figure 33). The pier-head segments are cast in-place with
short casting cells suspended from the machine. Wet joints with through reinforcement avoid the
geometry requirements of short-line match-casting and allow bridge design for partial prestressing.
The segments are hung to the main girders during casting of 1.0-1.5m stitches and application of
top-slab prestressing.


Many LRT and HSR bridges have been built with precast spans. Full-span precasting allows rapid
construction and high quality from repetitive casting processes in factory conditions.

Box girders are used for HSR and highway bridges and U-girders are used for HSR and LRT
bridges. The spans may be longer than 100m when floating cranes are used for placement. Ground
transportation is rarely used for spans longer than 40m for HSR and LRT bridges and 50m for
highway bridges. The investment needed to set up large precasting facilities and to provide heavy
span transportation and placement machines limits the cost-effectiveness of full-span precasting to
long bridges with many equal spans, small radii of plan curvature and low gradient. These
conditions are met more easily in HSR bridges.



Figure 34: 58m, 321ton carrier for placement
of 31.5m, 740ton single-track HSR spans

The spans are placed onto bearings or seismic isolators to simplify the erection process. Simply-
supported spans also diminish the thermal stresses in the continuous welded rails of HSR bridges.
The spans can be connected with in-place stitches to form a continuous structure, although in-place
stitches do not offer the same high levels of quality as the rest of the bridge.

The precasting plant is located near the bridge. The reinforcement cages are prefabricated and
different combinations of pre- and post-tensioning are possible. The spans are removed from the
casting cells with heavy portal cranes or wheeled carriers and stored on temporary foundations for
completion of prestressing, application of bearings and finishing. The precasting plant delivers two
to four spans every day in relation to the erection rate of the delivery and assembly lines.
For HSR viaducts over land, the spans are transported along the completed bridge with wheeled
carriers. A span carrier (Figure 34) comprises two wheeled trolleys connected by a box girder
supporting two winch-trolleys. Movement and steering are governed by hydraulic motors powered
by diesel engines.

Picking up the span from the casting cell involves a complex sequence of operations. The carrier is
moved alongside the span, the trolleys are rotated by 90 by pivoting about hydraulic props, and the
carrier is moved transversely over the span. After applying the spreader beams and lifting the span,
the carrier is moved back to the transportation route and realigned with an inverse sequence of
operations. The same operations are repeated to place the span onto the supports of the storage area
and to pick it up for final delivery.

After reaching the abutment, automatic drive systems controlled by ultrasound sensors govern the
movement of the carrier over the webs of the box girders or within the U-section. The automatic-
drive speed of the machine of Figure 34 is 3.0 km/h at full load and 6.0 km/h unloaded. The carrier
spreads the load onto two spans and the axle load is equalized hydraulically or electronically to
compensate for span deflections.

At the front end of the completed bridge, the front trolley of the span carrier reaches the rear end of
the underbridge (Figure 35). A self-propelled support saddle rolling along the underbridge is
inserted beneath the front trolley. Hydraulic cylinders lift the rear end of the underbridge until the


Figure 35: Carrier moving forward along a 78m, 218ton underbridge

Figure 36: 75m, 520ton gantry with 38m, 80ton underbridge for placement
of 33m, 900ton dual-track HSR spans (Beijing Wowjoint Machinery)

wheels of the carrier are released. The motors of front saddle and rear trolley are synchronized to
move the carrier along the underbridge. After reaching the span lowering location, the rollers of the
underbridge are released and the motor of the support saddle is inverted to launch the underbridge
to the next span until the lowering area under the span is cleared. The counter-plates of bearings are
installed during pier construction. Three plates are set at the design elevation and the fourth plate is
set 4-5mm below. The span is lowered onto electronic load cells placed onto the counter-plates.
After adjusting the support reactions to the design tolerance with stainless-steel shims at the fourth

plate, the load cells are removed and the span is lowered onto the bearings. Finally, the underbridge
is moved backward to release the front trolley onto the new span. Transverse wheel spacing
required for operations of the underbridge allows the presence of other machines on the bridge
during span delivery for earlier start of finishing work.

Heavy gantries with underbridge are also used for placement of HSR spans in combination with
SPMTs that deliver the spans along the completed bridge (Figure 36). The front winch-trolley of
the gantry picks up the front end of the span and moves it forward while the rear end slides along a
support girder on the SPMT. Then the second winch-trolley picks up the rear end of the span to
release the transporter.

Launching the gantry to the next span takes a couple of hours and two or three spans can be erected
every day when crossover embankments exist along the bridge and the casting yard is designed for
such productions. Compared with the use of span carriers with underbridge, gantries require heavy
lifters in the casting yard to handle the spans and to place them onto the transporters. The SPMTs
apply higher loads to the bridge and delay the finishing work, which can start only upon completion
of span delivery.

The single-track U-girders for LRT bridges are much lighter. Their weight ranges from 130ton for
25m spans to 180ton for 35m spans and they may therefore be transported on public roads. When
the area under the bridge is accessible, two ground cranes may erect four U-girders (two complete
spans) every night. The U-girders may also be delivered along the completed bridge and erected
with twin-girder overhead gantries. The dual-track U-girders are too wide for full-span delivery and
are typically erected by segmental precasting.


The design loads of MSSs and form travelers are distinguished in permanent loads and varying
loads. Permanent loads include self-weight and superimposed dead load. Varying loads include
weight and pressure of fresh concrete, the reinforcement cage, the load redistribution at the
application of prestress, the actions transferred by lifting devices applied to the MSS, the load of
personnel and stored materials on the work platforms, the actions of snow and wind, and the
thermal variations.

The casting cell is designed for the weight of forms and reinforcement, the filling sequence and the
load redistribution at the application of prestress. Shutters are designed for the pressure of fluid
concrete and the stress distribution generated by supports, ties and anti-floating anchorages between
inner and outer forms. Lateral pressure of concrete may be computed with hydrostatic distribution
in the upper portion and constant value in the lower portion. Form design for full hydrostatic
pressure is specified for fast filling or when retarding admixtures are used for one-phase casting.
Load unbalance between the webs can displace the inner form and twist the MSS so concrete level
is kept controlled during filling.

Wind loads may be determined with reductions of the return period in relation to project duration.
For these machines it is possible to identify precise wind conditions for their use and the load
combinations distinguish normal operational conditions and out-of-service conditions. MSSs of
medium length are unlikely to sustain damage from wind-induced vibrations. Launching is avoided
in the presence of strong wind and achieving first lateral frequency higher than 0.20-0.25Hz is often
enough to prevent vibrations. Design standards prescribe slenderness limits for the members of a
truss and selecting the minimum size members of lateral bracing to satisfy the slenderness ratio is
often sufficient to obtain acceptable lateral frequencies and buckling factors.

The loads applied to MSSs and form travelers are grouped into two load conditions. Load
Condition I is the normal operational condition, which includes permanent loads, payload, load of
personnel and stored items on work platforms, loads applied by lifting devices, and wind and
thermal loads. Load Condition I is also used to analyze the launch stresses. Load Condition II is the
out-of-service condition, which includes permanent loads, partial load on work platforms (snow if
more demanding) and out-of-service wind. Wind in load Condition I is checked for any possible
configuration of the machine while out-of-service wind is checked in anchored conditions.

Load Condition I is also used to analyze the application of prestress. As prestress is applied, the
span lifts up from the casting cell. As the weight is relieved, however, the casting cell recovers the
deflection. An MSS is more flexible than a PC span and the casting cell recovers only a portion of
the deflection accumulated during concrete pouring. After application of prestress, therefore, the
MSS exerts a residual support action onto the span. Overloading of young concrete is avoided by
releasing the span in stages as prestress is applied or by tensioning only a part of the tendons prior
to releasing the span. The span is released by lowering the MSS to minimize stress redistribution
within the casting cell.

Both service (SLS) and strength (ULS) limit states are checked. SLSs correspond to the loss of
functionality of the machine (displacements of components, rotations of field splices that alter the
geometry of the casting cell, etc.); unit load factors are used for the two load conditions and the
resistance factors are prescribed by the design standards. ULSs are related to critical conditions
such as rigid equilibrium (overturning, uncontrolled sliding, etc.), rupture of connections, yielding,
and local and global (out-of-plane) buckling, and the two load conditions are checked with different
load factors.


The load combinations for the design of beam launchers, lifting frames, launching gantries and span
carriers are more complex because of the dynamic nature of loading. The discussion that follows is
based on FEM-1.001 but load classifications and combinations can be easily adapted to different
design standards.

The heavy lifters are grouped into classes in relation to the tasks they perform during their service
life. The classification determines the load amplification factor used for the design of the structural
components, which varies from 1.00 for A1-class units to 1.20 for A8-class units. The class is
determined based on the number of load cycles and the load level. A load spectrum relates the entity
of loading with the number of cycles. Since most load cycles of these machines occur at or near the
load capacity, the spectral factor is typically high. However, the number of cycles is low and these
machines are often designed as A2-class units with load factor 1.02.

A similar classification applies for the mechanical components. The load amplification factor varies
from 1.00 for M1-class units to 1.30 for M8-class units. The bridge erection machines are typically
designed as M2- or M3-class units with 1.04 and 1.08 load amplification factor, respectively. The
amplification factors for structural and mechanical components are applied to the loads and the load
combinations are then processed with load and resistance factors per design standard.
The design loads are divided into four groups: forces that act regularly during normal operations,
forces that arise occasionally in the machine in service, exceptional forces in service and out-of-
service, and forces that arise during assembly and dismantling.
The regular forces include permanent loads, payload and inertial effects of load movements. Weight
and mass of members are increased by 20-40% to account for attachments. Concentrated loads and

masses represent heavier components such as launch rollers, hydraulic articulations and electric
generators. Payload includes lifted accessories.

Vertical inertial forces derive from the sudden application or removal of the load (e.g. precast
segments on barges with rough sea), positive or negative accelerations during load movements, and
the intervention of the emergency brakes upon electric black-out. Longitudinal inertial forces derive
from accelerations or decelerations of winch-trolleys or portal cranes along the runways.

The occasional forces are wheel impacts, wind, snow, ice and thermal differences. Wheel impacts
are often disregarded when the field splices in the rails are welded and ground away at dismantling
of the machine. Snow and ice are often disregarded in ordinary weathers.

The exceptional forces are out-of-service wind, test loads, impacts against end-of-stroke buffers or
fixed obstacles, and the design earthquake. Impacts against buffers at the end of runways are often
disregarded for translation speed lower than 0.7m/s provided that the runways are equipped with
end-of-stroke switches. The effects are computed in relation to the deceleration impressed and are
increased by 25% for linear-spring buffers and 60% for constant-force hydraulic buffers.

The design loads are grouped into three load conditions. Load Condition I is the normal operational
condition and includes permanent loads, payload inclusive of vertical dynamic amplification, and
payload plus weight of winch-trolley or portal crane inclusive of longitudinal dynamic
amplification. All these loads are multiplied by the load amplification factor resulting from the
classification of the machine.

Load Condition II is the operational condition in the presence of occasional forces; it combines the
actions of Condition I with wind in service, snow, ice and thermal differences. In the presence of
strong wind the longitudinal dynamic amplification factor may be different from the value for Load
Condition I because the action of wind affects the starting and braking times of the portal cranes.

Load Condition III is the action of exceptional loads. It considers the following combinations: (1)
permanent loads and out-of-service wind; (2) permanent loads, payload and impacts against end-of-
stroke buffers or obstacles; (3) permanent loads, payload and design earthquake; and (4) permanent
loads, wind in service and assembly and dismantling operations. Although conceptually similar to
assembly, launching is typically checked as Load Condition II because of the higher frequency of
operations. Load testing may require specific checks when the static test load is greater than 140%
of the design load or the dynamic test load is greater than 120%

Both SLSs and ULSs are assessed. SLSs correspond to the loss of functionality of the machine;
unit load factors are used for the three load conditions and the resistance factors are prescribed by
the design standards. ULSs correspond to critical conditions and the three load conditions are
checked with progressively lower load factors.

Most design standards do not distinguish between local and global (out-of-plane) buckling and both
forms of instability are checked like any other ULS condition. Out-of-plane buckling of primary
members is a more risky event than local buckling of web panels or secondary members. No post-
critical domain or alternative load paths exist in many cases and the critical load is influenced by
geometry imperfections that are difficult to detect. It is therefore common practice to check out-of-
plane buckling of trusses and support towers with higher load factors, in the 2.0-2.5 range.



The optimum level of detail for the numerical model of a bridge erection machine depends on
numerous factors. The more refined the model, the more accurate the results of analysis and the
cambers to assign to the casting cell. However, simple models allow rapid investigation of different
load and support conditions, facilitate the research of the design-governing conditions, and provide
the stress magnitude to be expected from more refined analyses and the boundary conditions to
assign to local models.

The underslung machines are typically supported onto stiff pier brackets and simple beam models
are often sufficient for box girders or braced I-girders. Trusses are more complex to analyze and 3D
frame models are necessary when the pier brackets are flexible or primary truss members are loaded
indirectly. Modeling the supports is also necessary when the self-launching frame is supported onto
pier brackets and props from foundations to represent the different stiffness of supports.

Figure 37: 3D frame model of the MSS of Figure 15

Twin-truss overhead machines are supported onto the overhangs of long crossbeams and 3D frame
models of the entire machine are necessary to evaluate the effects of crossbeam deflections. In the
MSS of Figure 15 the casting cell is suspended on either side from two paired trusses. A third truss
controls out-of-plane buckling and carries the runway for the portal crane. The secondary truss and
one of the main trusses are extended into the launching noses while the third truss is interrupted at
the ends of the casting cell. The 5300-frame-element model of the MSS (Figure 37) highlights the
need for stability of these machines: the brown members resist the payload and the orange members
stabilize operations and launching. Most of the machine is aimed at stabilizing a few components.

An ideal truss should fulfill three conditions. (1) The members of diagonals and chords are pinned
at the nodes. This condition is never respected in a self-launching machine: the nodes are
continuous and when the truss has pinned splices for fast field assembly, the pins are located far
from the nodes. (2) The loads are applied at the panel nodes. Also this condition is never respected.
Bridge and form design dictates the location of the hangers for segments and casting cell. The load
applied by the winch-trolleys migrates along the top chords, the support reactions migrate along the

bottom chords during launching, and the trusses may be supported with out-of-node eccentricity
even during span casting. (3) The gravity axes of all members converging into a node cross at the
geometric panel node. This condition could actually be respected, although in most cases the
convergence points of the diagonals onto the chords are staggered to simplify node welding.

Depicting the effects of geometry imperfections requires accurate models. An ideal model describes
the entire machine: 3D trusses, winch-trolleys if capable to exert a lateral restraint action between
the chords, pendular legs, crossbeams and support towers. Out-of-node eccentricities and steps in
the gravity axis at the changes of cross-section are considered. Special joints are located at all points
of discontinuity such as internal releases of degrees-of-freedom, changes in cross-section, field
splices, support points, and points of application of concentrated loads. Point loads and masses
represent non-structural attachments, property modification factors account for distributed weight
and mass of attachments, and end offsets account for the finite size of diagonal and chord nodes.

Figure 38: Dismantling of a W-frame on through girders

The reliability of internal releases of degrees-of-freedom should be critically reviewed. The twin-
girder overhead machines take support onto flexible tower-crossbeam assemblies. The master tower
restrains the girders longitudinally and rollers or PTFE skids allow thermal displacements at the
secondary tower. Rollers and skids slide after overcoming breakaway friction. If the longitudinal
stiffness of the tower-crossbeam assembly is lower than the breakaway force, rollers and skids
cannot slide and thermal deformations in the main girders will cause horizontal bending in the
crossbeams and P-delta effects in the towers.

Similar considerations apply for the internal releases of rotations. The friction launchers support the
main girder with pivoted arms that can be modeled with eccentric cylindrical hinges. Mechanical
articulations are expensive when the tower legs are distant or W-frames on through girders are used
on either side of the pier. In such cases the crossbeams are placed onto hydraulic jacks (Figure 38)
that also provide geometry adjustment and lower the MSS to release the span. The jacks are
equipped with safety nuts that are tightened prior to span erection. Different restraint conditions are
therefore to be modeled for the jacks. During launching the jacks are modeled so as to keep the
support reactions uniform (the hydraulic circuits are interconnected to create a hydraulic hinge).
During span erection the jacks are modeled with vertical frame elements with released top rotations
to model the ball-and-socket head. Analysis with tightened jacks will show that the inner
crossbeams are more loaded than the outer ones due to flexural rotations in the main girders.


The stability of a freestanding truss is influenced by the degree of fixity at the supports, a support
condition prompting the truss to twist as it deflects laterally, the lateral restraint exerted by inclined
diagonals or lateral bracing on the compression chords, the location of loads in relation to the center
of shear of the cross-section, and the level of imperfection in the initial geometry of the truss.

In a twin-truss machine these factors coexist and coalesce. The degree of fixity at the supports is
low as the truss is supported onto flexible crossbeams. The truss bends laterally and twists because
of the deflections of the crossbeams and the height of the truss amplifies the lateral displacements of
the top chord. Triangular trusses are tall and narrow (the typical height-to-width ratio is about 3)
and the lateral restraint that so inclined diagonals exert onto the top chord is poor. The winch-
trolleys load the truss above the center of shear of the cross-section and the geometry imperfections
are amplified by a large number of field splices.

Design standards normally recognize two types of instability. The first type is related to the overall
sway of the structure (out-of-plane buckling) and the second type is related to deformations of a
member between its end nodes (local buckling). Out-of-plane buckling can rarely be assessed with
bibliographic values of the critical elastic moment in so complex structures.

Commercial software for structural analysis can depict buckling in every member of a truss but
analyzing many buckling modes with complex numerical models involves long computational
times. Out-of-plane buckling is therefore analyzed numerically and the local modes are checked
with the load magnification factors prescribed by the design standards in relation to the effective
length of members.

Figure 39: First buckling mode at segment lifting

Buckling analysis investigates the stability of the elastic equilibrium of a structure under a given set
of loads. Since buckling modes and factors depend on the load, buckling is analyzed for different
load conditions. Inertial load amplification also affects the buckling factor during movements of the
load. Out-of-plane buckling of a launching gantry is analyzed by simulating the placement of
segments. Analysis is simpler in an MSS as the casting cell is fixed.


Excessive confidence with a gantry due to having handled similar loads in the past may be a serious
mistake. Stability depends on the entity of the load but also on how the load is applied to the
machine. The buckling factor of the gantry of Figure 5 is lower at lifting of the pier-head macro-
segment (Figure 39) than at lifting of the midspan segment because the winch-trolleys are close to
each other instead of being at the ends of the segment.

Overloaded members may buckle suddenly and inspections are necessary during assembly and at
regular intervals. Damaged diagonals must be reinforced or replaced even when they seem to be in
non-critical locations as the load and support conditions vary so much in these machine that they
could become the critical element. Diaphragms should also be inspected frequently and the reasons
for out-of-flat should be investigated as this makes the members susceptible to local buckling.

The robustness of a machine depends on the stability of members against local buckling and on the
overall response of the machine to local failure. Local buckling of a primary member is often
critical in the support towers while stable alternative load paths often exist in so redundant trusses;
however, local buckling may trigger a chain reaction of failures causing progressive collapse.

The simplest way to ensure robustness and reduce the risk of progressive collapse is to require
insensitivity to local failure i.e. local buckling of a primary member must not cause collapse of the
machine or of a major part of it. Although the structural damage induced by local buckling is
limited, the sudden stress redistribution generated by the loss of carrying capacity of a member is a
highly dynamic process that requires analysis in the time domain.

The effects of local buckling can be analyzed with the following approach. (1) Start from an
accurate numerical model of the machine. (2) Perform a buckling analysis and compute forces and
moments at the ends of the buckling member under the loads that generate buckling. (3) Remove
the buckling member from the model and apply end forces and moments with a specific load case.
(4) Define a load function that increases from 0 to 1 and holds constant until fading of vibrations.
(5) Define an unload function that abruptly drops from 0 to -1 and holds constant for the duration of
the analysis. (6) Load the model quasi-statically by applying buckling loads and end nodal loads
with the load function. (7) Analyze the dynamic response to member buckling by removing the
nodal loads with the unload function.

As regards the integration method, modal superposition in the time domain provides a highly
efficient procedure with shorter run-times than direct integration. Closed-form integration of modal
equations is used to compute the response so that numerical instability is never encountered and the
time step may be any sampling value that is deemed fine enough to capture the peak response
values. Direct integration requires longer run-times and the results are sensitive to time-step size;
however, impact problems that excite a large number of modes are often solved more efficiently by
direct integration. This also applies for the dynamic analysis of loss of segments or impacts against
end-of-stroke buffers.

The load path in the support regions of a 3D truss may include several pairs of diagonals (especially
when the launch rollers are long) and load redistribution at member buckling is not always critical.
The peak response stresses are checked like any other ULS condition. If analysis detects buckling in
other members, the same approach may be used to analyze the entire buckling sequence until stress
stabilization or collapse. Nonlinear links that drop forces and moments to zero when the local
buckling load is reached may be inserted into the model to automate the analysis of progressive
collapse, although nonlinear direct integration further increases the run time.



Figure 40: Flange buckling in a 96m, 340ton MSS

Local buckling of flanges can trigger critical situations in the box girders as during launching the
support sections are devoid of diaphragms. In a twin-girder overhead MSS the left box girder (on
the right in Figure 40) was slightly misaligned left-bound. When the front launch cantilever was
48m long, the operator decided to realign it. A crossbeam was placed at the front support to sustain
two flat jacks on PTFE plates. The jacks had to be inserted under the webs to pull the box girder
right-bound along the low-friction surface. The procedure was misunderstood and after lifting the
box girder with the flat jacks, the PTFE plates were inserted between the box girder and the main
support jacks.

In the initial phases of realignment the bottom flange of the box girder resisted the transverse
bending generated by the increasing eccentricity in the support reactions. Eventually the outer
flange and the central flange panel buckled upwards. This generated two low-friction inclined
planes that gave raise to uncontrolled right-bound sliding of the box girder. Collapse was avoided
because the edge of the bottom flange impacted against the end block of the crossbeam. Launch
rails welded under the webs improve load dispersal, transfer lateral forces and also remind distract
operators where the support reactions must be applied.


The load of an erection machine is transferred to the bridge foundations through complex load paths
that include structural, mechanical and electro-hydraulic components. The support legs of these
machines are affected by specific forms of instability.

The pendular legs are among the most delicate components because their length must be varied to
take support onto the pier cap and onto the deck (Figure 5). This is achieved with articulated legs
and rotation cylinders, and the presence of multiple hinges along the vertical load path makes the
legs prone to out-of-plane buckling when fully extended.

The bottom crossbeam of a pendular W-frame (Figure 41) had a box section over the entire width.
Reusing the gantry in a curved bridge required shifting the support cylinders laterally to align them


Figure 41: Three-hinge load path in a pendular W-frame

with the deck webs, so the crossbeam was windowed at the ends. As a result, the torsional constant
in the windowed end sections dropped to about one-thousandth of the box girder constant.

When the support cylinders are at the ends of the crossbeam, the vertical load path is a three-hinge
scheme where the central hinge has minimal rotational stiffness due to the low torsional constant of
the windowed section. The buckling factor for self-weight was as low as 0.60. Box-stiffeners were
applied to increase the torsional constant and stabilize the frame.

When a machine is supported onto temporary towers, the load applied to the towers is always
eccentric. As cantilevers partially fixed at the base, the towers are sensitive to forces and couples
applied to the top. If the towers are deformable, buckling analysis must account for the P-delta
effect. Flexibility of foundations should also be considered, especially when only some of the tower
legs take support onto the pier footing. Figure 42 shows the bracing systems of the rear support
tower of an MSS. The upper section is reasonably braced while the lower section is braced with
light tubes and iron wire. Slenderness ratios and notional design loads for horizontal braces are far
from being respected in this machine.

Design of end connections affects strength and stability of the modular towers. When the legs are
compressed and the contact surface between column and end plate is machined, the end weld is
subjected to minimal stresses. In case of load reversal, the end weld is designed for tension and
compression is resisted by the machined surface. If the contact is machined poorly, however, the
weld can break in compression and at load reversal, the column can detach from the end plate. This
is one of the cases where design details should account for the expected level of QA/QC of
fabrication.

Modular towers are also used as props from foundations. These towers have adjustment screws at
the base (verticality) and at the top (local gradient) and diagonal turnbuckles assure stability of the
adjustment screws when fully extracted. Local buckling in a support tower is the most plausible
cause of collapse of two bridge spans, two bridge piers and the erection gantry (Figure 43).


Figure 42: Bracing deficiencies in a 19m support tower

Figure 43: Gantry collapse

Forensic investigation detected design and assembly deficiencies in the tower. Load eccentricity
and thermal loads were disregarded in the design. Lateral flexibility prevented sliding at the support
saddles and the P-delta effect of thermal deck deformations was also disregarded. The adjustment
screws were extracted excessively, the end turnbuckles were all missing, and the lateral connections
between auxiliary frames and main tower were installed at the middle of the panels instead of at the
nodes, which increased the effective length of compression legs (Figure 44). The subcontractor was
certified for ISO 9001 quality management systems. In spite of a 1.29 buckling factor with
theoretical geometry, the tower did buckle.


Figure 44: First buckling mode of the collapsed tower

As a matter of fact, buckling should always be checked with prudent load factors in these temporary
structures.

All adjustment screws should be regarded as potentially prone to local buckling. Upon completion
of launching, gantries and MSSs for span-by-span construction are lifted to the span erection level.
Hydraulic cylinders with safety nut or screw jacks are used to support the girders after lifting. When
the screw jacks are extracted excessively (Figure 8), local buckling can cause collapse. The allowed
extraction of screw jacks should be stated in the operation manual and the risky portion of the
screws should be marked.

13. Load Testing

Bridge erection machines are load tested after the first assembly. New load tests and comparisons
with previous tests should follow every major reassembly.

Beam launchers, launching gantries, lifting frames and span carriers may be subjected to static and
dynamic tests. The static test load is 10 to 40% higher than the design load. Load testing consists of
slowly lifting a progressively increasing load until reaching the full test load. The load is lifted at
different locations to reach full design stresses in the critical components of the machine and the
deflections are compared with the theoretical values. The dynamic test load is typically 10 to 20%
higher than the design load. The movements are tested individually at increasing speed. Black-out
tests can also be performed to check the intervention of the emergency brakes.

The MSSs are subjected to static tests. The load is increased in steps and the deflections are
surveyed at every step. The full load is kept for a certain time, the MSS is unloaded and the residual
deflections are measured. Testing the MSS during casting of the first span is not advisable because
loading cannot be interrupted. The deflections may also differ from the expectations, which would

result in inadequate geometry of the first span. Load testing may be performed by applying a
waterproof membrane and filling the casting cell with water. Additional load can be applied by
suspending concrete blocks.

14. Conclusions

Innovation in bridge erection methods is a need for industrialized countries to preserve their export
capability when competing with countries with less expensive labor. Fabricating bridge erection
machines in emerging countries was a way for consolidated manufacturers to maximize profit, but
selling cheap cloned machines soon became a new business for those emerging countries. As soon
as the new manufacturers reach adequate levels of QA/QC and acquire the capability of providing
technical assistance to designers and contractors, the transfer of technology will be completed.

Modern bridge erection machines are light, efficient, and complex. The level of sophistication of
new-generation machines requires adequate technical culture. A level of technical culture adequate
to the complexity of mechanized bridge construction would save human lives and would facilitate
the decision-making processes with more accurate risk analyses.

Acknowledgments

AP Bridge Construction Systems, Beijing Wowjoint Machinery, BERD, Comtec, Deal, HNTB,
Impresa Pizzarotti & C., NRS, Rizzani deEccher, ThyssenKrupp and VSL are gratefully thanked for
authorizing the publication of photographs of their machines or related to independent design
checking or technological consultancy assignments performed by the author.

Glossary

Alignment wedge: Truss extension with inclined bottom chords for progressive recovery of the elastic deflection and
release of the support reaction during launching.
Beam launcher: Light self-launching gantry for erection of precast beams.
Capstan: Endless ring cable for longitudinal movement of winch-trolleys.
Casting cell: Assembly of outer form, inner form and front bulkhead for casting of segments or spans.
Casting cycle: Repetitive sequence of operations for casting a bridge segment or span.
C-frame: Adjustable frame that supports/suspends a bridge erection machine by rolling along the completed bridge
during launching. It includes vertical cylinders that adjust the frame geometry to bridge superelevation, control the
support reaction during launching, lift the machine prior to erecting the span, and lower the machine onto the launch
systems after application of prestress. It may include additional hydraulic adjustment systems for transverse shifting and
rotation about the vertical axis when launching along curves.
Cylinder: Long-stroke hydraulic jack. It is typically equipped with a safety nut to be tightened for structural safety
during unattended operations. The end of the rod has a ball-and-socket joint or other types of articulation that minimize
the flexural stresses in the rod.
Equalizer beam: Pivoted beam that equalizes the load in two rolls located at the beam ends. Two equalizer beams may
be assembled onto a longer equalizer beam for a 4-roll assembly. 8-roll assemblies are a practical limit for heavy self-
launching machines.
Form hangers: Suspension frames for a casting cell hung to an overhead MSS.
Form table: Sliding form for the central top slab strip between webs, used in two-phase casting of box girders. It may
be supported onto brackets bolted to the inner web face of the U-segment or onto modular frames supported onto the
bottom slab.
Form traveler: Self-launching casting cell for in-place segmental casting of balanced cantilever bridges.

Friction launcher: Support device able to generate longitudinal movements in the main girder by friction.
Hangers: Bars suspending precast segments or the casting cell from an overhead self-launching frame.
Heavy lifter: Self-propelled machine equipped with heavy lifting devices. Cranes, straddle carriers, derricks, cable
cranes, beam launchers, lifting frames, gantries and span carriers are designed with standards for heavy lifters.
HSR: High-Speed Railway.
Hydraulic hinge: Hydraulically interconnected cylinders that allow differential movements at the supported points with
equalized forces.
Launching nose: Extension applied to the main girder to control overturning during launching. The front nose is
applied to the front end of the main girder in the launch direction. The rear nose is applied to the rear end. Both noses
are equipped with alignment wedges or lifting arms for progressive recovery of the elastic deflection (front end) and
progressive release of the support reaction (rear end).
Lifting arm: Hydraulic system to recover the elastic deflection of the tip of the front nose and to release the support
reaction at the rear nose. A long-stroke cylinder rotates a pivoted arm to lift the tip of the launching nose to the launch
elevation and to lower it to release the support reaction.
Lifting frame: Beam-and-winch assembly for lifting and handling of precast segments.
LRT: Light Rapid Transit.
MSS: Movable Scaffolding System for in-place casting of PC bridges. A deck-supported MSS for balanced cantilever
bridges is called form traveler.
One-phase casting: Casting technique for solid or voided slabs, ribbed slabs and box girders where the entire cross-
section is cast at once.
Overhead machine: Bridge erection machine where precast segments or a casting cell are suspended from a self-
launching frame.
Payload: weight of the segment or the span before, during and after the application of prestress.
PC: Prestressed Concrete.
Pendular leg: Articulated auxiliary support leg retracted by hydraulic rotation about horizontal pivots.
Pier bracket: Adjustable support bracket of underslung machines anchored to the pier cap.
PLC: Programmable Logical Controller.
PTFE: Poly-Tetra-Fluor-Ethylene (commercial name is Teflon).
QA/QC: Quality Assurance and Quality Control.
Reverse launching: Backward transfer of a bridge erection machine along the completed bridge to erect a second
parallel bridge.
Roller: Assembly of cast-iron rolls onto one or more equalizer beams.
Self-launching gantry: Self-launching machine for erection of precast segmental bridges or spans.
SLS: Serviceability Limit State.
Span carrier: Multi-wheel machine for delivery and placement of precast spans along the completed bridge. It includes
two motorized trolleys connected by a box girder equipped with lifting winches. The load on the wheels is equalized
hydraulically or electronically.
SPMT: Self-Propelled Modular Transporter.
Spreader beam: Adjustable suspension system for precast segments.
Straddle carrier: Wheeled portal crane for handling of precast girders and segments.
Stressing platform: Work area for fabrication and stressing of permanent prestressing tendons.
Support crossbeam: Support girder for overhead machines equipped with adjustable support legs and support saddles
for the main girders that shift laterally along the crossbeam. A crossbeam comprises braced I-girders or a box girder
with stiffening diaphragms at the support legs.
Support saddle: Pivoted assembly of rollers that supports the main girder and allows rotations about the vertical and
transverse axes and longitudinal and transverse movements.

Support tower: Modular structure anchored to a foundation, a pier cap or a bridge deck to support a formwork, precast
segments or an overhead machine.
Telescopic gantry: Self-launching machine comprised of a rear main girder and a front underbridge. The front end of
the main girder slides along the underbridge during launching.
Traversing: Lateral shifting of the gantry along support brackets/crossbeams during launching along curves.
Two-phase casting: Casting technique for box girders where bottom slab and webs are cast in a first time and the top
slab is cast in a second time.
Tunnel form: Collapsible inner form for one-phase casting of box girders.
ULS: Ultimate Limit State.
Underbridge: Self-launching front support girder for telescopic gantries and for placement of precast spans with
wheeled carriers.
Underslung machine: Bridge erection machine where precast segments or a casting cell are supported onto a self-
launching frame.
W-frame: Trussed assembly of crossbeam and diagonals supported onto through girders crossing the pier
longitudinally to support underslung machines. Vertical adjustment is achieved with cylinders located between the
through girders and the support frame.
Winch-trolley: Trolley that rolls along the main girders and lodges a main lifting winch and a secondary translation
winch acting on a capstan. In some machines the translation capstan is replaced with hydraulic motors.

Bibliography

AASHTO (2003). Guide Specifications for Design and Construction of Segmental Concrete Bridges. American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). [This standard provides guidance on design and
construction of segmental PC bridges in the U.S. It includes loads and load combinations for analysis of staged
construction].
AASHTO (2008). Construction Handbook for Bridge Temporary Works. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO). [This manual provides general information for falsework construction in the U.S.].
AASHTO (2008). Guide Design Specifications for Bridge Temporary Works. American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). [This manual provides design guidance for ground falsework and other
temporary works for bridge construction in the U.S.].
AASHTO (2010). LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO). [This standard rules bridge design practice in the U.S. It includes some guidance on bridge
erection equipment].
AASHTO (2010). LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO). [This standard rules bridge construction in the U.S. It includes some guidance on
bridge erection equipment].
ACI (2004). Guide to Formwork for Concrete. American Concrete Institute (ACI). [This manual provides general
information and design guidance for formwork].
ASBI (2008). Construction Practices Handbook for Concrete Segmental and Cable-Supported Bridges. American
Segmental Bridge Institute (ASBI). [This handbook is an international reference for construction of segmental PC
bridges. It provides broad information on the technical and technological aspects of most erection methods for PC
bridges].
AISC (2006). Base Plate and Anchor Rod Design. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). [This booklet
provides guidance for design of base plates and anchor rods].
Boggs, D.; Peterka, J . (1992). Wind Speeds for Design of Temporary Structures. Proceedings of the 10
th
ASCE
Structures Congress, San Antonio, USA. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). [This paper defines wind load
to be used in the design of falsework and other types of temporary structures].
BSI (1982). Code of Practice for Falsework. British Standards Institute (BSI). [This booklet provides general design
and technical guidance for falsework in the U.K.].

BSI (2002). Eurocode 0. Basis of Structural Design. British Standards Institute (BSI). [EC:0 provides general guidance
for design of pedestrian, highway and HSR bridges. EC:0 has been updated with Amendment 1 in 2005. The EC
countries integrate the Eurocodes with National Annexes, available in different languages].
BSI (2004). Eurocode 1. Actions on Structures. British Standards Institute (BSI). [EC:1 provides state-of-the-art
guidance on the actions to be considered for the design of bridges, cranes, machinery, silos and tanks: general actions
on structures (EC:1.1-1), actions on structures exposed to fire (EC:1.1-2), snow loads (EC:1.1-3), wind actions (EC:1.1-
4), thermal actions (EC:1.1-5), general actions during construction (EC:1.1-6), accidental actions (EC:1.1-7), traffic
load on bridges (EC:1.2), actions induced by cranes and machinery (EC:1.3), and actions on silos and tanks (EC:1.4).
The EC countries integrate the Eurocodes with National Annexes, available in different languages].
BSI (2005). Eurocode 2. Design of Concrete Structures. British Standards Institute. [EC:2 provides state-of-the-art
guidance for the design of concrete and PC structures: general rules and rules for buildings (EC:2.1-1), general rules for
structural fire design (EC:2.1-2), design and detailing rules for concrete bridges (EC:2.2), and design rules for liquid
retaining and containment structures (EC:2.3). The EC countries integrate the Eurocodes with National Annexes,
available in different languages].
BSI (2005). Eurocode 3. Design of Steel Structures. British Standards Institute (BSI). [EC:3 provides state-of-the-art
guidance for the design of steel structures: general rules (EC:3.1-1), general rules for structural fire design (EC:3.1-2),
supplementary rules for cold-formed members and sheeting (EC:3.1-3), supplementary rules for stainless steels
(EC:3.1-4), design rules for plated structural elements (EC:3.1-5), supplementary rules for shell structures (EC:3.1-6),
supplementary rules for planar plated structural elements under out-of-plane loading (EC:3.1-7), design of joints
(EC:3.1-8), design for fatigue (EC:3.1-9), material toughness and through-thickness properties (EC:3.1-10), structures
with tension components (EC:3.1-11), steel bridges (EC:3.2), towers and masts (EC:3.3-1), chimneys (EC:3.3-2), silos
(EC:3.4-1), tanks (EC:3.4-2), pipelines (EC:3.4-3), piling (EC:3.5) and crane supporting structures (EC:3.6). The EC
countries integrate the Eurocodes with National Annexes, available in different languages].
BSI (2005). Eurocode 8. Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance. Bridges. British Standards Institute (BSI).
[EC:8 includes probabilistic equations for evaluation of the reduced seismic demand during construction based on
shorter return periods related to construction duration. The EC countries integrate the Eurocodes with National
Annexes, available in different languages].
BSI (2008). Code of Practice for Temporary Works Procedures and the Permissible Stress Design of Falsework. British
Standards Institute (BSI). [This booklet provides general information and design guidance for falsework in the UK].
BSI (2009). Execution of Concrete Structures. British Standards Institute (BSI). [This booklet contains guidance on
construction of concrete and PC structures].
CEN (2008) Falsework. Performance Requirements and General Design. European Committee for Standardization
(CEN). [This booklet provides general design guidance and performance requirements for falsework].
CEN (2009). Design of Fastenings for Use in Concrete. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). [This booklet
provides guidance on the design of concrete fasteners].
CSA (1975). Falsework for Construction Purposes. Design. Canadian Standards Association (CSA). [This booklet
provides general design guidance for design of falsework in Canada].
CSA-S6-00 (2000). Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. Canadian Standards Association (CSA). [This standard
provides comprehensive guidance for the design of bridges in Canada].
CIRIA (1977). Rationalization of Safety and Serviceability Factors in Structural Codes. Construction Industry Research
and Information Association (CIRIA). [This booklet is not directly related to bridge erection equipment, but calibration
of load and resistance factors is a major issue in defining future international design standards for bridge erection
equipment].
Ellingwood, B. (2008). Reliability Based Codes in the United States. Challenges to Professional Engineering Practice.
Proceedings of the 4th International ASRANet Colloquium on Integrating for Structural Analysis, Risk & Reliability,
Athens, Greece, 2008. [This publication identifies the main challenges of US standards based on reliability].
FEM 1.001 (1987) Rgles pour le calcul des appareils de levage. Federation Europeenne de la Manutention (FEM).
[This standard is an international reference for the design of launching gantries, lifting frames, span carriers, beam
launchers, winch-trolleys, portal cranes, strand-jacking platforms and other types of heavy lifters. Classification of
structural and mechanical components is compatible with design of bridge erection machines per local standards.
Available in three languages].

FIB (2009) Formwork and Falsework for Heavy Construction. Guide to Good Practice. International Federation for
Structural Concrete (FIB). [This manual mainly addresses form design and ground falsework].
Hewson, N.R. (2003) Prestressed Concrete Bridges: Design and Construction. Thomas Telford. [This book contains
detailed information on the technological aspects of several bridge erection methods].
Hill, H. (2004). Rational and Irrational Design Loads for Temporary Structures. Practice Periodical on Structural
Design and Construction, 9, 125-129. [This paper critically reviews the reliability of the design loads used for
temporary constructions].
HSE (2001). Reducing Risks, Protecting People. HSEs Decision-Making Process. Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
[This booklet provides general information on risk analysis in the decision-making process].
HSE (2011). Preventing Catastrophic Events in Construction. Health and Safety Executive (HSE). [This manual
provides HSE guidance of accident prevention in construction].
ISO (2009). Risk Management - Principles and Guidelines. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). [This
manual identifies general principles and guidelines of risk management].
ISO (2009). Risk Management - Risk Assessment Techniques. International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
[This manual identifies general risk assessment techniques and their effectiveness in risk mitigation].
Ratay, R. (2009). Forensic Structural Engineering Handbook. McGraw Hill Professional. [This book presents an in-
depth coverage of forensic engineering].
Reason, J . (1990). Human Error. Cambridge University Press. [This book investigates the most common causes of
human error].
Rosignoli, M. (1997). Incremental Bridge Launching. Concrete International, 19-2, 36-40. American Concrete Institute
(ACI). [This paper compares alternative construction methods for PC bridges in relation to the components of bridge
construction cost].
Rosignoli, M. (1997). Influences of the Incremental Launching Construction Method on the Sizing of Prestressed
Concrete Bridge Decks. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Structures and Buildings. The Institution of
Civil Engineers (ICE). [This paper discusses the impacts of incremental launching construction on the dimensions and
quantities of structural materials of PC bridges].
Rosignoli, M. (1997). Solution of the Continuous Beam in Launched Bridges. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, Structures and Buildings, 122, 390-398. The Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE). [This paper describes the
Reduced Transfer Matrix method for analysis of temporary erection stresses in bridges built by incremental launching.
The RTM method can analyze the hyperstatic launch stresses in every type of self-launching machine].
Rosignoli, M. (1998). Nose-Deck Interaction in Launched Prestressed Concrete Bridges. ASCE J ournal of Bridge
Engineering, 3-1, 21-27. American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE). [This paper provides closed-form equations
for analysis of the interaction between the PC bridge and the hydraulic launching nose and describes optimization
techniques for nose-deck interaction].
Rosignoli, M. (1998). Serio River Bridge, Creep and Incremental Launch. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, Structures and Buildings, 128, 1-11. The Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE). [This paper describes the
effects of creep of concrete on the temporary launch stresses and the modifications of launch equipment to overcome
creep deflections due to work stoppage].
Rosignoli, M. (1998). Site Restrictions Challenge Bridge Design. Concrete International, 20-8, 40-43. American
Concrete Institute (ACI). [This paper describes the erection equipment for two road bridges and a cable-stayed LRT
bridge built by incremental launching over six railroads with the help of cable-stayed temporary piers].
Rosignoli, M. (1998). Misplacement of Launching Bearings in P.C. Launched Bridges. ASCE J ournal of Bridge
Engineering, 3-4, 170-176. American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE). [This paper provides closed-form equations
for analysis of the temporary stresses generated by misplacement of the launching bearings during incremental
launching construction of PC box girders].
Rosignoli, M. (1999). Prestressing Schemes for Incrementally Launched Bridges. ASCE J ournal of Bridge Engineering,
4-2, 107-115. American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE). [This paper illustrates the prestressing schemes used to
overcome the temporary launch stresses in PC bridges built by incremental launching].
Rosignoli, M. (1999). Reduced Transfer Matrix Method for Analysis of Launched Bridges. ACI Structural J ournal, 96-4,
603-608. American Concrete Institute (ACI). [This paper deepens the discussion of the RTM method for the analysis of
temporary launch stresses in PC bridges].

Rosignoli, M. (1999). Presizing of Prestressed Concrete Launched Bridges. ACI Structural J ournal, 96-5, 705-710.
American Concrete Institute (ACI). [This paper discusses the impacts of incremental launching construction on the
dimensions and quantities of structural materials in PC bridges in relation to the main features of launch equipment].
Rosignoli, M. (1999). Nose Optimization in Launched Bridges. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,
Structures and Buildings, 134, 373-375. The Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE). [This paper summarizes the criteria
for optimal design of the steel noses for PC bridges built by incremental launching].
Rosignoli, M. (2000). Thrust and Guide Devices for Launched Bridges. ASCE J ournal of Bridge Engineering, 5-1, 75-
83. American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE). [This paper illustrates strand jacking systems and friction launchers
used for the incremental launching of PC bridges. It also describes launch bearings and lateral guides and provides
guidance for the most appropriate choice and design of launch equipment].
Rosignoli, M. (2001). Deck Segmentation and Yard Organization for Launched Bridges. ACI Structural J ournal, 23-2,
2-11. American Concrete Institute (ACI). [This paper compares alternative segmentations of PC bridges built by
incremental launching and their impacts on yard organization and the investments for erection equipment].
Rosignoli, M. (2002). Bridge Launching. Thomas Telford. [This 340-page book is devoted to the incremental launching
of bridges and related erection equipment. It covers design and construction of PC, steel, composite, and prestressed
composite box girders with corrugated plate webs and concrete slabs].
Rosignoli, M. (2007). Monolithic Launch of the Reggiolo Overpass. ACI Structural J ournal, 2, 61-65. American
Concrete Institute (ACI). [This paper describes design of bridge and erection equipment for a multi-cellular trapezoidal
span launched over an electrified railroad with the help of a temporary pier].
Rosignoli, M.; Rosignoli, C. (2007). Launch and Shift of the Tiziano Bridge. ACI Structural J ournal, 29-10, 44-49.
American Concrete Institute (ACI). [This paper describes design of bridge and erection equipment for a 200m twin-
box-girder bridge built by launching a first box girder, shifting the girder laterally, launching a second box girder, and
connecting the two girders with a central concrete stitch].
Rosignoli, M. (2007). Robustness and Stability of Launching Gantries and Movable Shuttering Systems Lessons
Learned. Structural Engineering International, 17, 133-140. [This paper deals with stability and robustness of self-
launching gantries and MSSs. It compares the time-integration techniques for dynamic analysis of out-of-plane
buckling and provides additional information on the analysis of progressive collapse].
Rosignoli, M. (2010). Self-Launching Erection Machines for Precast Concrete Bridges. PCI J ournal.
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI). Winter 2010, 36-57. [This long paper presents state-of-the-art information
on beam launchers, self-launching gantries and span carriers for precast bridges].
Rosignoli, M. (2010). Chairs introduction. 1
st
IABSE International Seminar State-of-the-art Bridge Deck Erection:
Safe and Efficient Use of Special Equipment Singapore, November 2010. International Association for Bridge and
Structural Engineering (IABSE). [Chairs introduction focused on the absence of international standards for design and
operations of bridge erection equipment and the impacts on safety of workers and quality of bridges].
Rosignoli, M. (2011). Industrialized Construction of Large Scale HSR Projects: the Modena Bridges in Italy. Structural
Engineering International, 21-4. [This paper deals with the project organization for full-span precasting of 755 spans of
HSR bridges in 30 months under global warranty (time, cost and quality) and the criteria used for the independent
design checking of equipment and the QA/QC qualification of casting and erection processes].
Rosowsky, D. (1995). Estimation of Design Loads for Reduced Reference Periods. Structural Safety, 17, 17-32. [This
paper provides guidance on the analysis of meteorological loads during erection].
SAA (1995). Formwork for Concrete. Standards Association of Australia (SAA). [This manual provides general
guidance and design instructions for falsework].
SAA (2007). Bridge Design. Standards Association of Australia. [This standard provides guidance for the design of
bridges in Australia].
Scheer, J . (2010). Failed Bridges: Case Studies, Causes and Consequences. Wiley VCH. [This book contains updated
information on bridge failures].
Sexsmith, R. (1988). Reliability During Temporary Erection Phases. Engineering Structures, 20, 999-1003. [This paper
deals with structural safety and other reliability aspects of staged construction].
Sexsmith, R.; Reid, S. (2003). Safety Factors for Bridge Falsework by Risk Management, Structural Safety, 25, 227-
243. [This paper describes a risk-management-driven approach to the load and resistance factors for the design of
temporary structures].

Starossek, U.; Wolff, M. (2005). Progressive Collapse: Design Strategies. Proceedings of IABSE Symposium,
Structures and Extreme Events, Lisbon, Portugal. International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering
(IABSE). [This paper illustrates design strategies to mitigate the risk of progressive collapse and to provide adequate
robustness of structures].
Starossek, U. (2006). Progressive Collapse of Structures: Nomenclature and Procedures. Structural Engineering
International, 16, 113-117. [This paper defines nomenclature and procedures related to progressive collapse].
Starossek, U. (2009). Progressive Collapse of Structures. Thomas Telford. [This book examines causes, analysis
methods and design approaches for prevention of progressive collapse of structures].

Bibliographical Sketch

Marco Rosignoli received his Doctorate in Civil Engineering cum laude at the University of Ancona (Italy) in 1981.
From 1982 to 1997 he served as construction manager, project manager, bridge department lead and technical director
with prime European bridge contractors. From 1997 to 2006 he worked as an international free-lance consultant for the
design and the independent design checking of major bridges and bridge erection machines. After serving as Chief
Bridge Engineer at HNTB for 2 years, he is leading the Southeast Division Bridge and Tunnel Professional Services of
HNTB since 2008. Assistant to bridge designers, contractors and owners in 21 countries and 4 continents, expert in
bridge design and construction technologies, and international authority on the incremental launching of bridges, Dr.
Rosignoli is author of 2 books and 80+publications on mechanized bridge construction. Author of Chapter 6 of ASBI
(American Segmental Bridge Institute) Construction Practices Handbook and member of ASBI Board of Directors and
ASBI Technical Advisory Committee, he has founded and is chairing IABSE (International Association for Bridge and
Structural Engineering) working group WG-6 Bridge Construction Equipment for the 2009-2013 period.

CIVIL ENGINEERING
Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS)
i
CONTENTS

Civil Engineering
Kiyoshi Horikawa, Musashi Institute of Technology, Tokyo, University of Tokyo, and Saitama University,
Japan

1. Introduction
2. Historical Background of Civil Engineering
2.1. Engineering in General
2.2. Civil Engineering as the Oldest Engineering Discipline
3. Functions of Civil Engineering
3.1. Role of Civil Engineering
3.2. The Civil Engineering Profession
3.3. Branches of Civil Engineering
4. Social Development Of Civil Engineering
4.1. Education Systems
4.2. Licensing
4.3. Civil Engineering Societies
5. Prospects for the Twenty-First Century
5.1. Positive and Negative Legacies in the Twentieth Century
5.2. Role of Civil Engineering in the Twenty-First Century
5.2.1. Development of Better Balanced "Hard" and "Soft" Technologies
5.2.2. Establishment of Suitable Maintenance Systems for Existing Structures and Facilities
5.2.3. Efforts to Mitigate Damage Caused by Natural Disasters
5.2.4. Minimization of Human Impacts on Natural Environment
5.2.5. Effective Utilization of Advanced Technologies, such as Information Technology
5.2.6. Global Environmental Problems

Fields within Civil Engineering - Ports and Canals as Waterborne Transport Facilities
Yoshimi Goda, Yokohama National University, Japan

1. Introduction
2. Ports and Canals in the Ancient World
2.1. Irrigation Canals and Rivers for Waterborne Transport
2.2. Port Construction in the Ancient World
3. Ports and Canals in the Seventh to Fifteenth Centuries
3.1. Grand Canal of China
3.2. Early Canals in Europe
3.3. Mediterranean and Hanseatic League Ports
4. Ports and Canals in the Sixteenth to Nineteenth Centuries
4.1. Briare Canal and Midi Canal of France
4.2. Canal Mania Age of England
4.3. Development of Transoceanic Trade Ports
4.4. Erie Canal of America
4.5. Suez Canal
5. Ports and Canals in the Twentieth Century
5.1. Panama Canal
5.2. Port Development for Great Steamships
5.3. Development of Ports for Containerships
6. Towards the Twenty First Century

Transportation Engineering
Izumi Okura, Yokohama National University, Japan
Masao Kuwahara, The University of Tokyo, Japan
Hirokazu Akahane, Chiba Institute of Technology, Japan
CIVIL ENGINEERING
ii
Fumihiko Nakamura, Yokohama National University, Japan

1. Introduction
2. Traffic Flow Fundamentals
2.1. Traffic Flow Characteristics and Theory
2.1.1. Time-Space Diagram
2.1.2. Flow-Density-Speed Relationship
2.1.3. Queuing Theory
2.1.4. Kinematic-Wave Theory
2.1.5. Car-Following Theory
2.1.6. Traffic Simulation
2.2. Traffic Capacity
2.2.1. Simple Section
2.2.2. Merging, Diverging, Weaving Sections
2.2.3. Intersections
2.3. Sensing Technology and Surveillance
2.3.1. Sensors
2.3.2. Surveillance
3. Transportation Planning
3.1. Data Collection
3.1.1. OD Surveys and PT Surveys
3.1.2. Advanced Survey Methods
3.2. Demand Prediction
3.2.1. Four-step Prediction Approach
3.2.2. Discrete Choice Analysis
3.3. Transportation Management
3.3.1. District-wide Management
3.3.2. Public Transportation Management
3.3.3. Comprehensive Traffic Management
3.3.4. Transportation System Management to Transportation Demand Management
3.3.5. Advanced Ways for Management
4. Geometric Design of Highways
4.1. Classification of Highways
4.2. Cross-section of Highway
4.3. Alignment of Highway and Sight Distance
4.3.1. Horizontal Alignment
4.3.2. Vertical Alignment
4.3.3. Sight Distance
4.3.4. Three Dimensional Alignment
4.4. Intersections and Interchanges
4.4.1. At-Grade Intersections
4.4.2. Interchanges
5. Traffic Management
5.1. Aims of Traffic Management
5.2. Classification of Measures of Traffic Management
5.3. Measures that Influence Places and Times of Generation of Traffic Demand
5.4. Measures that Influence Transport Mode Choices
5.5. Smoothing of Traffic Flows
6. Safety
6.1. Necessity of Systematic Approaches
6.2. Fundamentals of Accident Analysis in Each Step
6.2.1. Identification of Sites to Be Treated
6.2.2. Diagnosis: Problems, Causes and Possible Solutions
6.2.3. Selection of Measures to be Applied
6.2.4. Evaluation of Measures Applied

CIVIL ENGINEERING
iii
Urban and Community Planning
Kazuaki Miyamoto, Faculty of Environmental and Information Studies, Musashi Institute of Technology,
Japan
Antonio Paez, School of Geography and Geology, McMaster University, Canada

1. Introduction
2. Planning System
2.1. Definition of Planning
2.2. Systems Approach to Planning
2.3. Types of Planning
2.3.1. Land Use Planning
2.3.2. Transportation Planning
2.3.3. Environmental Planning
2.3.4. Other Types of Planning
2.3.5. Comprehensive Planning
2.4. Hierarchical Geographic Structure
2.4.1. Planning Area
2.4.2. Relationships between Hierarchical Plans
2.5. Planning Stages
2.5.1. Master Plan
2.5.2. Feasibility Study
2.5.3. Detailed Design
2.6. Planning Process
2.6.1. Flow of Planning Process
2.6.2. Determination of Objectives
2.6.3. Survey and Data Gathering
2.6.4. Data Analysis
2.6.5. Policy-Making
2.6.6. Implementation
2.6.7. Monitoring
3. Urban and Community Systems
3.1. Land-Use, Transportation and the Environment
3.1.1. The City as a System
3.1.2. Interactions between Urban System Elements
3.2. Governmental Agencies
3.2.1. Urban System Elements and the Agencies in Charge
3.2.2. Coordination of Agencies
4. Policy Measures
4.1. Classification of Policy Measures
4.2. Regulation
4.3. Pricing/Taxation
4.4. Operation
4.5. Education/Information
4.6. Investment
4.7. Integration of Policy Measures
5. Analysis and Planning Techniques
5.1. Outline of Analysis Tools
5.1.1. Investigation of the Present Situation
5.1.2. Forecasts
5.1.3. Unit of Analysis
5.1.4. Key Factors for Planning
5.2. Socio-Economic Framework
5.2.1. Population
5.2.2. Economic Framework
5.3. Land Price
5.3.1. Importance of Land Price
5.3.2. Estimation of Land Price
5.4. Urban Models
CIVIL ENGINEERING
iv
5.4.1. System of a Urban Model
5.4.2. Existing Urban Models and Applications
5.5. Decision Support System
6. Institutional Set-Up
6.1. Planning Agencies and Practice
6.2. Citizen Participation
7. Finance
7.1. Government Finance and Project Evaluation
7.2. Value Capture
7.3. Private Finance

Wastewater Management Engineering
Tomonori Matsuo, Department of Regional Development Studies, Toyo University, Itakura, Japan
Eiichi Nakamura, National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management, Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure and Transport, Tsukuba, Japan
Masahiro Osako, Research Center for Material Cycles and Waste Management, National Institute for
Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Japan

1. Introduction
2. Wastewater Management
2.1. Historical Summary of Water Pollution Control
2.2. Collection and Treatment Schemes of Wastewater
2.3. Characterization of Wastewater
2.3.1. Municipal Wastewater
2.3.2. Industrial Wastewater
2.4. Processes for Wastewater Treatment
2.4.1. Screening
2.4.2. Sedimentation
2.4.3. Activated Sludge Processes
2.4.4. Biofilm Processes
2.4.5. Stabilization Ponds and Aerated Lagoons
2.4.6. Disinfection
2.4.7. Advanced Wastewater Treatment
2.5. Processes for Sludge Treatment
2.5.1. Thickening
2.5.2. Digestion
2.5.3. Dewatering
2.5.4. Incineration
2.5.5. Composting
3. Solid Waste Management
3.1. Historical Summary of Wastes Problems
3.1.1. Accumulation of Solid Wastes and Start of Public Health Issues
3.1.2. Conversion of Mass-disposal Society to Recycle-Oriented Society
3.1.3. International Concern over Hazardous Wastes
3.2. Definition of Wastes
3.2.1. Definition and Classification of Wastes
3.2.2. Types of Wastes
3.2.3. Properties of Wastes
3.3. Waste Management Processes
3.3.1. Generation of Wastes
3.3.2. Sorting, Collection, Transportation
3.3.3. Intermediate Treatment and Landfilling
3.4. Waste Management System
3.4.1. Responsibility for Waste Management
3.4.2. System for Environmental Preservation
3.5. Waste Control Policies in the 21st Century
3.5.1. Order of Priority of Waste Control Policies
CIVIL ENGINEERING
v
3.5.2. Building an Integrated Management System Concept of Zero Emissions
4. Concluding Remarks

Water Resources Engineering
Nobuyuki Tamai, Department of Civil Engineering, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan

1. Introduction
1.1. Hydraulics for Rivers
1.2. Hydraulics for Pipe Flows
1.3. Fluvial Hydraulics
1.4. Engineering Hydrology
1.5. Maritime Hydraulics
2. Recent Development in Water Resources Engineering
2.1. Worldwide Surge of Environmental Concern
2.2. Sustainability of Water Resources Projects
2.3. Hydroinformatics
2.4. Influence of Global Warming
3. Real Problems in Human Societies
3.1. Flood and Drought
3.2. Dams and Reservoirs
3.3. Hydropower Generation
4. New paradigmWater Ethics
4.1. How Water Resources Engineering Satisfies Water Ethics?
4.2. Partnered Approach
4.3. Value of Environment

Survey Engineering
Eihan Shimizu, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Tokyo, Japan

1. Introduction
1.1. Brief Historical Review
1.2. Geodetic Surveying and Plane Surveying
2. Fundamentals of Plane Surveying
2.1. Plane Coordinate System
2.2. Vertical Datum
2.3. Errors in Surveying and Their Adjustments
3. Basic Survey Measurements
3.1. Introduction
3.2. Distance Measurement
3.3. Angle Measurement
3.4. Leveling
3.5. Total Station
4. Control Surveys in Plane Surveying
4.1. Introduction
4.2. Triangulation
4.3. Trilateration
4.4. Traversing
4.5. Control Surveys with GPS
5. Topographic Surveys
5.1. Introduction
5.2. Ground Methods
5.3. Aerial Photogrammetric Methods
5.4. Newer Methods for Topographic Surveys
6. Other Branches of Surveying
7. Surveying and Geographic Information System

CIVIL ENGINEERING
vi

Control Point Surveying and Topographic Mapping
Shoichi Oki, Land Bureau, National Land Agency, Japan

1. Introduction
2. Geometric Background
2.1. Ellipsoid
2.2. Transformation between Geodetic Systems
2.3. Geoid
2.4. Datum Reconstruction with Space Geodesy
2.5. Surveying Instruments for Horizontal Survey
2.5.1. Transit
2.5.2. EDM
2.5.3. Total Station
2.6. Survey Instruments for Vertical Survey
3. Horizontal Control
3.1. Datum Origin
3.2. Geodetic Network
3.3. Control Point surveying
3.3.1. Triangulation
3.3.2. Trilateration
3.3.3. Traversing
3.3.4. GPS in Trilateration and Traversing
4. Vertical Control
4.1. Vertical Datum
4.2. Leveling
5. Topographic Mapping
5.1. Photogrammetry
5.2. Ground Method

Global Positioning System
Tatsunori Sada, Mitsui Construction Co., Ltd., Japan

1. Introduction
2. Overview of GPS
2.1. Space Segment
2.2. Control segment
2.3. User segment
2.4. Point Positioning by GPS
2.5. Errors in GPS Observables
2.6. Coordinate System of GPS
3. Relative Positioning by GPS
3.1. Differential GPS
3.2. Carrier Phase Positioning
4. Surveying with GPS
4.1. Static Surveying
4.2. Kinematic Surveying
5. The future of GPS

Photogrammetry
Hirofumi Chikatsu, College of Science and Engineering, Tokyo Denki University, Japan

1. Introduction
2. Orientation
2.1. Stereoscopic instruments
2.2. Exterior orientation
CIVIL ENGINEERING
vii
2.3. Interior orientation
2.4. Relative orientation
2.5. Absolute orientation
2.6. Successive orientation
2.7. Accuracy
3. Calibration
3.1. Collinearity equations
3.2. Initial approximations of orientation parameters
3.3. Combined adjustment
3.4. Analytical Aero-triangulation
4. Matching
4.1. Area-based matching
4.2. Feature-based matching
5. Accuracy in digital photogrammetry
6. Application examples of digital photogrammetry
6.1. City modeling
6.2. Human motion analysis
6.2.1. Gait analysis
6.2.2. Ergonomics and management
6.3. Digital archives of Relics
7. Into the 21st century

Satellite Remote Sensing
Eihan Shimizu, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Tokyo, Japan

1. Introduction
2. Principles of Remote Sensing
2.1. Electromagnetic Radiation
2.2. Spectral Reflectance of Earth Surface Features
3. Overview of Representative Satellite Remote Sensing Systems and Their Characteristics
3.1. Characteristics of Satellite Remote Sensing Systems
3.1.1. Spatial Resolution
3.1.2. Spectral Resolution
3.1.3. Temporal Resolution
3.2. Representative Satellite Remote Sensing Systems
4. Fundamentals of Data Processing
4.1. Color Composite Imaging
4.2. Image Classification
5. Recent Trends of Satellite Remote Sensing

Geographic Information System
Myoung-Young Pior, Faculty of Real Estate Science, University of Meikai, JAPAN

1. Introduction
2. Types of Data used in GIS
2.1. Graphic Data
2.1.1. Graphic Entities
2.1.2. Graphic Data Models
2.1.3. Data Layer
2.2. Nongraphic Data
2.2.1. Attributes
2.2.2. Topological Relationships
2.2.3. Map Annotations
3. Data Acquisition and Data Base Maintenance
3.1. Data Acquisition
3.1.1. Generating New Digital Data
CIVIL ENGINEERING
viii
3.1.2. Acquiring Existing Digital Data
3.2. Data Base Maintenance
4. Spatial Data Analysis and Output Production
4.1. Spatial Data Analysis
4.1.1. Measurement Analysis
4.1.2. Spatial Relationship Analysis
4.1.3. Buffering
4.1.4. Overlay
4.1.5. Thiessen Polygon
4.1.6. Network Operations
4.1.7. Digital Terrain Analysis
4.2. Output Production
5. GIS Applications
6. Other Similar Systems
6.1. LIS (Land Information System)
6.2. AM/FM (Automated Mapping/Facility Management) System
6.3. CAD/CAM (Computer Aided Design/Computer Aided Manufacturing)

Construction and Structural Engineering
Atsuhiko Machida, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Saitama University, Japan

1. Introduction
2. Structural Type
3. Structural Materials
4. Structural Analysis
5. Structural Design
6. Construction Management

Structural Types
Manabu Ito, University of Tokyo, Japan

1. Definition of Structure
2. Tension Structure
3. Arch
4. Column and Tower
5. Truss
6. Beam
7. Rigid Frame
8. Plane Structure
9. Spatial Structure
10. Selection of Structural Type

Structural Analysis
Worsak Kanok-Nukulchai, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand

1. Structural System
2. Structural Modeling
3. Linearity of the Structural System
4. Definition of Kinematics
5. Definitions of Statics
6. Balance of Linear Momentum
7. Material Constitution
8. Reduction of 3D Constitutive Equations for 2D Plane Problems
9. Deduction of Euler-Bernoulli Beams from Solid
10. Methods of Structural Analysis
11. Discrete Modeling of Structures
12. Matrix Force Method
CIVIL ENGINEERING
ix
13. Matrix Displacement Method
14. Trends and Perspectives

Construction Techniques
Y. Ito, Former Senior Vice President and the deputy general manager of the civil engineering division of
TAISEI Corporation, JAPAN

1. Introduction
2. Development of construction techniques
2.1. Architectural Technology
2.1.1. Super Highrise Building Technology
2.1.2. Seismic Technology
2.1.3. Large Space Technology
2.2. Tunneling Technology
2.2.1. Crushing Techniques of Rock
2.2.2. Muck Transport Technique and Space Supporting
2.3. Bridge Technology
2.3.1. Bridges in Ancient Times
2.3.2. Modern Bridges
2.3.3. Todays Bridges and Future
2.4. River Management Technology
2.5. Dam Technology
2.5.1. Fill Dams
2.5.2. Concrete Dams
2.6. Offshore and Port Technology
2.6.1. Port Technology
2.6.2. Coast Preservation Technique
2.6.3. Facilities Crossing a Strait or a Sea Area
2.7. Foundation Technology
2.8. Soil Improvement Techniques
2.9. Shield Tunneling Technology
2.10. Earth-Retaining Excavation Techniques

Earthquake Protection
Motohiko Hakuno, Professor Emeritus, Earthquake Research Institute, University of Tokyo, Japan

1. Introduction
2. Some Recent Earthquakes: Important Observations and Lessons
3. Conclusion

Structural Stability and Nonlinear Behavior
H. Iemura, Department of Civil Engineering Systems, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

1. Introduction
2. Nonlinear Materials and Members
3. Structural Limit States
4. Structural Failures
4.1. Buckling Failures
4.2. Impact Failures
4.3. Shear Failures
4.4. Flexural Failures
5. Inelastic Behavior
5.1. Hysteretic Restoring Force
5.2. Inelastic Energy Absorption
5.3. Inelastic Earthquake Response
6. Earthquake Energy Partitioning
CIVIL ENGINEERING
x
7. Structural Deterioration
8. Damage Index

Earthquake Resistant Design
Masanori Hamada, Department of Civil Engineering, Waseda University, Japan

1. Seismic Coefficient Method
2. Response Spectrum
3. Modified Seismic Coefficient Method
4. Elasto-Plastic Response and Ultimate Strength of Structures
5. Performance-Based Design
6. Earthquake Ground Motion for Design
7. Dynamic Response Analysis
8. Response Displacement Method
9. Seismic Diagnosis and Retrofitting

Earthquake Resistant Bases and Foundations
Kohji Tokimatsu, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan

1. Introduction
2. Ground Failures Other than Soil Liquefaction
2.1. Slope Failures
2.2. Debris Flow
3. Ground Failures Associated with Soil Liquefaction
3.1. Soil Liquefaction
3.2. Mechanism of Soil Liquefaction
3.3. Liquefaction-induced Lateral Spreading
3.4. Pile Damage Resulting from Liquefaction-induced Ground Displacement
4. Ground Motion Characteristics in Soft and Liquefied Soils
5. Simplified Procedure for Soil Liquefaction Evaluations
6. Liquefaction Remediations
7. Simplified Design Method for Pile Foundations
7.1. Estimation of Stress and Deformation of Pile
7.2. Estimation of Cyclic Ground Displacement
7.3. Estimation of Permanent Ground Displacement near Waterfront
8. Base Isolation

Earthquake-Resistant Building Construction
Shunsuke Otani, Department of Architecture, Graduate School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo,
Tokyo, Japan

1. Introduction
2. Historical Development
3. Seismic Actions
3.1. Characteristics of Earthquake Motion
3.2. Lateral Response in Buildings
4. Performance Requirements of Buildings
4.1. Life Safety Limit States
4.2. Reparability Limit States
4.3. Serviceability Limit States
5. Capacity Design Method
6. Seismic Isolation and Vibration Control
7. Retrofitting of Existing Buildings

Safety Analysis
Masaru Hoshiya, Musashi Institute of Technology, Japan

CIVIL ENGINEERING
xi
1. Design Principle
2. Uncertainties for Structural Systems and Acting Loads
3. Safety Factor and Probability of Failure
4. Design Practice
5. Safety Goals and Structural Performance

Geotechnical Engineering
Kenji Ishihara, Department of Civil Engineering, Chuo University, Tokyo, Japan

1. Introduction
2. Subsurface Investigation for Site Characterization
2.1. Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
2.2. Cone Penetration Test (CPT)
2.3. Plate Loading Test
2.4. Geophysical Investigations
2.4.1. Downhole and Uphole Method
2.4.2. Crosshole Method
3. Foundations
3.1. Types of Foundations
3.1.1. Individual Column Footing
3.1.2. Continuous Foundation
3.1.3. Mat or Raft Foundation
3.1.4. Pile Foundation
3.2. Methods of Pile Installation
3.3. Design Tenets for Footing Foundation
3.4. Pile Foundation
3.4.1. Criteria for Pile Design
4. Earth Pressure and Open Cuts
4.1. Earth Pressure on Retaining Wall
4.2. Earth Pressure in Open Cut
4.3. Ground Deformation Induced by Open Excavation
5. Ground Improvement
5.1. Replacement
5.2. Sand Drain and Dewatering for Clay Deposits
5.3. Prefabricated Vertical Drain (PVD)
5.4. Compaction of Sand Deposits
5.4.1. Vibro-floatation
5.4.2. Sand Compaction Pile (SCP)
5.4.3. Drainage Method for Sandy Soils
5.5. Other Improvement Methods for Cohesive Soils
5.5.1. Vibro-Compaction in Cohesive Soil Deposits
5.6. Dynamic Compaction
5.7. Solidification Technique
5.7.1. Permeation Grouting
5.7.2. J et Grouting
5.7.3. Deep Mixing Method (DMM)
6. Underground Development
6.1. Tunneling in Soft Grounds
6.1.1. Shield Tunneling
6.2. Stability of Tunnel Heading
6.3. Ground Movement

Soil Mechanics
Kenji Ishihara, Department of Civil Engineering, Chuo University, Tokyo, Japan

1. Introduction
2. Definition of Property Indices
CIVIL ENGINEERING
xii
2.1. Definition of Basic Property Indices
2.1.1. Void Ratio, e
2.1.2. Saturation Ratio, S
r
(%)
2.1.3. Water Content, (%)
2.1.4. Bulk or Wet Unit Weight or
t

2.1.5. Dry Unit Weight
d

2.1.6. Unit Weight and Specific Weight of the Solid Phase
s
and G
s

2.1.7. Buoyant Unit Weight or Submerged Unit Weight,
1

2.2. Relations among Property Indices
2.3. Sieve Analysis and Grain Composition
2.3.1. Grain Composition
2.4. Consistency of Fine-Grained Soils
2.4.1. Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit
2.4.2. Plasticity Index
3. Compaction of Soils
4. Seepage of Water through Soils
4.1. Darcy Law
4.1.1. Measurement of Permeability Coefficient
4.2. Seepage Instability
4.2.1. Boiling in Sand Deposits
4.2.2. Piping in Cohesive Soils
4.2.3. Filter
5. Consolidation of Clay
5.1. Compressibility of Clays
5.2. Normal Consolidation and Overconsolidation
5.3. Theory of Consolidation
5.4. Ground Settlement Due to Pumping Water
6. Strength of Soil
6.1. Shear Strength of Granular Soils
6.2. Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils
6.3. Shear Strength of Soils in General
6.4. Environments of Drainage Influencing Shear Strength of Soils
6.4.1. Dilatancy of Granular Materials
6.4.2. Undrained Shear
6.4.3. Drained Shear
6.4.4. Excess Pore Water Pressure
6.5. Undrained Shear Strength of Clays
7. Earth Pressure
7.1. Rankine Earth Pressure Theory
7.2. Coulomb Earth Pressure Theory
8. Bearing Capacity of Foundations
8.1. Background Consideration
9. Stability Analyses of Slopes
9.1. Stability Analysis for a Simple Case
9.2. Stability Analysis for General Slopes
9.3. Simple Method (Swedish Method)
9.4. Bishop Method
9.5. Determination of the Factor of Safety
9.6. Conduct of Stability Analysis
9.6.1. Design of Earth Structures
9.6.2. Evaluation of Degree of Safety for Existing Earthfills and Natural Slopes
9.6.3. Back-analysis of Collapsed Slopes

Engineering Geology
David M. Cruden, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Earth and Atmospheric
Sciences, University of Alberta, Canada

CIVIL ENGINEERING
xiii
1. Characteristics Properties of Minerals
1.1. Definitions and Classification
1.2. Optical Properties
1.3. Crystallographic Properties
1.4. Other Properties
1.5. Identification Strategy
2. Igneous Rocks
2.1. Classification by Texture
2.2. Composition
3. Sedimentary Rocks
3.1. Classification
3.2. Clastic Sediments
3.3. Chemical Sediments
3.4. Organic Sediments
3.5. Composition of Sedimentary Rocks
3.6. Structures in Sedimentary Rocks
4. Metamorphic Rocks
4.1. Definitions
4.2. Types of Metamorphism
4.3. Mineralogical Changes as a Function of Temperature and Pressure
4.4. Metamorphic Texture
4.5. Nomenclature
5. Ores, Industrial Minerals and Fossil fuel
5.1. Explanation of Terms
5.2. Ores
5.3. Fossil Fuels
5.4. Industrial Minerals
6. The Shape of the Land Surface
6.1. Topographic Maps
6.2. Aerial Photographs
6.3. Erosion by Water
6.4. Alluvial Deposits
6.5. Aeolian Deposits
7. Erosion and Deposition by Gravity and Ice
7.1. Types of Slope Movement
7.2. Erosion by Flowing Ice
7.3. Erosion by Glacial Meltwater
7.4. Glacial Deposits
8. Geological Maps
8.1. Introduction
8.2. The Orientation of Surfaces
8.3. Folds
9. The Record in the rocks
9.1. Faults
9.2. Plutons
9.3. Unconformities
9.4. Relative Age of Rocks
9.5. The Geological Time-Scale
10. The Dynamic Earth
10.1. Plate Motion
10.2. Volcanoes
10.3. Earthquakes

Mining Engineering and Mineral Transportation
Yuichi Nishimatsu, Mineral Resources Division, Sumitomo Metal Mining Co. Ltd. Japan.

1. Introduction
2. A Historical Review of Mining Engineering
CIVIL ENGINEERING
xiv
3. Features of Mining
3.1. Industrial and Technical Features
3.2. Geographical Separation between Production and Consumption of Minerals
4. Development and Operation of Mines
5. Mining and Mining Equipments in Underground Mines
5.1. Mining Operation in the Working Face of Metal Mines
5.2. Mining Operation in the Working Face of Coal Mines
5.3. Excavation and Loading in the Driving Face of Roadway
6. Mineral Transportation in Underground Mines
6.1. Mineral Transportation in Level Roadway
6.2. Rope Haulage and Shaft Winding
7. Rock Pressure and Support in Underground Mines
7.1. Rock Pressure
7.2. Support System in the Stope and Working Face
7.3. Support in Roadway
8. Surface Mining
8.1. Features of Surface Mining
8.2. Open Pit Mine of Massive Mineral Deposit
8.3. Strip Mining of Coal Deposits
8.4. Surface Mining of Alluvial Mineral Deposit (Placer Mining)
9. Water Drainage and Mine safety
9.1. Water Drainage in Mines
9.2. Ventilation and Mine Safety
10. Environmental Impact and Reclamation in Mining
11. Conclusion

Surface Mining Methods and Equipment
J iro Yamatomi, The University of Tokyo, Japan
Seisuke Okubo, The University of Tokyo, Japan

1. Surface Mining Methods
1.1. Classification of Surface Mining Methods
1.2. Open Pit vs. Underground Mining Methods
1.3. Open Pit Mining
1.4. Open Cast Mining
1.5. Placer Mining
1.6. Solution Mining
2. Surface Mining Machinery

Underground Mining Methods and Equipment
Seisuke Okubo, The University of Tokyo, Japan
J iro Yamatomi, The University of Tokyo, Japan

1. Underground Mining Methods
1.1. Classification of Underground Mining Methods
1.2. Underground Operations in General
1.3. Room-and-pillar Mining
1.4. Sublevel Stoping
1.5. Cut-and-fill Stoping
1.6. Longwall Mining
1.7. Sublevel Caving
1.8. Block Caving
2. Underground Mining Machinery

Drilling Machines
Hideshi Watanabe, Furukawa Co. Ltd., Japan

CIVIL ENGINEERING
xv
1. Introduction
1.1. Principles of Rock Drilling
1.2. Drill Adaptability
2. Construction of Drilling Equipment
2.1. Working Fluid
2.2. Thrust and Feed Equipment
2.3. Rotation System
2.4. Drilling Rod
2.5. Cuttings Removal (Flushing)
2.6. Bit
2.7. Supporting Equipment and Carriers
3. Mechanical Principles of Percussion Drilling
3.1. Construction of Percussion Rock Drills
3.2. Features of Percussion Rock Drills
3.3. Output Parameters
3.4. Principles of Elastic Wave Propagation and Penetration Resistance of the Bit
4. Classification of Rock Drills
4.1. Percussion Rock Drills
4.1.1. Hand-held Rock Drills (Pneumatic)
4.1.2. Drifter
4.1.3. DTH
4.2. Rotary Drill
5. Applications of Drilling Equipment
5.1. Underground Mining
5.2. Surface Mining

Offshore Drilling and Production Equipment
Shoichi Tanaka, The University of Tokyo, Japan
Yo Okada, Japan Oil Engineering Co., Japan
Yuichiro Ichikawa, Japan Drilling Co., Ltd., Japan

1. Introduction
2. Outline of Rotary Drilling Method
3. Offshore Drilling Structures
3.1. Technical Features of Offshore Drilling
3.2. Mobile Bottom-supported Rigs
3.2.1. J ack-up Drilling Rigs (J ack-up Rigs, Self-elevating Drilling Rigs)
3.2.2. Submersible Drilling Rigs (Submersible Rigs, Swamp Barges)
3.2.3. Tender-Assisted Platforms and Tenders
3.3. Floating Offshore Drilling Rigs (Floaters)
3.3.1. Technologies Required by Floaters
3.3.2. Drillships
3.3.3. Semisubmersible Drilling Rig
3.4. Location Surveys for Offshore Drilling
4. Offshore Oil/Gas Production Systems
4.1. Brief History of Offshore Production Systems
4.2. Various Types of Offshore Platforms
4.2.1. Bottom-supported Platforms
4.2.2. Floating Platforms
4.3. Subsea Production Systems
4.3.1. Subsea Christmas Trees
4.3.2. Subsea Manifolds
4.3.3. Subsea Boosting and Processing
4.3.4. Subsea Control System
4.4. Prospect of Offshore Production System

CIVIL ENGINEERING
xvi
Mineral Comminution and Separation Systems
Toshio Inoue, Department of Geosystem Engineering, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

1. Significance of Mineral Beneficiation
2. Overview of Mineral Processing Systems
3. Components of Mineral Beneficiation Technology
4. Comminution System
5. Gravity Separation
6. Flotation
7. Magnetic Separation
8. Electrostatic Separation
9. Solid-Liquid Separation and Waste Treatment
10. Other Methods of Mineral Extraction
11. Disposal of Solid Wastes and Waste Water Treatment
12. Conclusion

Surface Mining Transportation Systems
Takao Nagai, IT Group, Development Division, Komatsu Ltd, Japan

1. Surface Mining
1.1. Surface Mining Operation
1.2. Surface Mining Methods
2. Equipment Used for Surface Mining
2.1. Surface Mining Equipment
2.2. Transportation System Used in Surface Mining
2.2.1. Hauling Truck
2.2.2. Dragline and Stripping Shovel
2.2.3. Bucket Wheel Excavator
2.2.4. Belt Conveyor
2.2.5. Motor Scraper
3. Transportation Management System for Surface Mining

Underground Mining Transportation Systems
Kikuo Matsui, Kyushu University, Japan

1. Introduction
2. From Surface to Underground/Vice Versa
2.1. Shafts
2.1.1. Cage
2.1.2. Skips
2.2. Inclined Shafts or Inclined Drifts
3. Underground Transport for Materials and Equipment
3.1. Track System/Rail-mounted Systems
3.2. Trackless Systems
3.3. Combined Systems
3.4. Longwall Equipment Transport
4. Ore/Coal Transport
4.1. Metalliferous Mines
4.2. Coal Mines
4.2.1. Heading Face Area
4.2.2. Longwall Face Area
4.2.3. Belt Conveyors
4.2.4. Surge Control for Belt Conveyor Haulage
4.2.5. Rail Systems
4.2.6. Shaft Winding
5. Personnel Transport
5.1. Access to Underground
CIVIL ENGINEERING
xvii
5.2. Personnel Transport in Working Sites
5.2.1. Trackless Personnel Transport Systems
5.2.2. Track-mounted Personnel Transport Systems
5.3. Belt Conveyor Systems
5.4. Other Systems

Mining and Exploration for Mineral Resources
Takashi Nishiyama, Kyoto University, Japan
Katsuhiko Kaneko, Hokkaido University, Japan

1. Introduction
2. Geologic Prospecting
2.1. Ore Deposits Formed During Magmatic Process
2.1.1. Separation and Concentration due to Crystallization in Basic Magma at Specific Places
and at Specific Stages
2.1.2. Separation and Concentration due to Immiscibility in the Melt
2.2. Hydrothermal Deposits
2.2.1. Porphyry-type Deposits
2.2.2. Kuroko-type Massive Sulfide Deposits
2.2.3. Skarn-type Deposits
2.2.4. Vein-type Deposits
2.3. Sedimentary Deposits
3. Geophysical Prospecting
3.1. Gravity Survey
3.2. Magnetic Survey
3.3. Electric Survey
3.3.1. Self-potential Method
3.3.2. Resistivity Method
3.3.3. Induced Polarization Method
3.3.4. Electromagnetic Method
3.4. Seismic Survey
3.4.1. Reflection Method
3.4.2. Refraction Method
3.5. Radiometric Survey
4. Geochemical Prospecting
4.1. Basic Principles
4.2. A Few Practical Geochemical Explorations
4.3. Fluid Inclusion and Isotope Studies

Bridge Erection Machines
Marco Rosignoli, HNTB Corp., USA

3. Beam Launchers
13. Load Testing
14. Conclusions
Forthcoming...

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING AND GEOMECHANICS

Structural, Geotechnical and Earthquake Engineering
Sashi K. Kunnath, UC DAVIS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, USA

Mechanics of Structural Materials
Jeff Brown, Department of Engineering,Hope College, USA

Linear Analysis of Structural Systems
Aslam Kassamali, Department of Civil&Environmental Engineering,Southern Illinois University, Illinois

Nonlinear Analysis of Frame Structures
Enrico Spacone, PRICOS-Architettura viale Pindaro ,Universita' di Chieti-Pescara, Italy

Plastic Design vs Elastic Design of Structures
Subash Goel, Department of Civil & Environment Engineering, 2350 Hayward, USA

Structural Stability
Eric Lui, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Syracuse University, USA

Structural Reliability
Siddhartha Ghosh, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, India

Modeling and Analysis of Progressive Collapse Potential for Moment Frames
El-Tawil, Department of Civil & Environment Engineering, University of Michigan, USA

Structural Steel Analysis and Design: Fundamentals
Eric Lui, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Syracruse University, USA

Structural Steel Analysis and Design: Advanced Topics
Amit Kanvinde, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, USA

Modeling for Geotechnical Engineering Application
Pradeep Kurup, Department of Civil & Environoment Engineering, University of Massachusetts, USA

Foundation Engineering:Shallow Foundations
Dave Chan, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alberta, Canada

Design and Analysis of Deep Foundations
Rodrigo Salgado, Department of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, Indiana, USA

Structural Dynamics
Joseph Tedesco, Cullen College of Engineering, University of Houston, USA
Ted Krauthammer, Cullen College of Engineering, University of Houston, USA

Pushover Analysis of Structures
Erol Kalkan, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, USA

Engineering Seismology
Erol Kalkan, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, USA

Structural Design for Earthquake Resistance
Rajesh Dhakal, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

Seismic Design of Concrete Building Structures
CVR Murty, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, India

Seismic Design of Steel Bridges
Lian Duan, California Department of Transportation, USA

Seismic Isolation of Structural Systems
Satish Nagarajaiah, Department of Civil & Environment Engineering, Rice University, USA

Seismic Energy Dissipation Systems in Struc Engg
Panos Tsopelas, Department of Civil Engineering, Catholic University, USA

Semi-Active Control of Structural Systems
Anil Agrawal, Department. of Civil Engineering, The City College of New York, USA

Seismic Response of Masonry Structures
Benson Shing, Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, USA

Seismic Analysis & Design of Masonry-Infilled Frames
Khalid Mosalam, Department of Civil & Environment Engineering,University of California, USA

Seismic Response & Design of Pile Foudation Systems
Y.H. Chai, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, USA

Modeling Techniques for Concrete Structures
John Bolander, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, USA

Computational Methods for Seismic Analysis of Structures
Michael Scott, Department of Structural Engineering, School of Civil and Construction Engineering,Oregon State
University , USA

Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction Analysis
Tahmeed M. Al-Hussaini, Department of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering &
Technology(BUET), Bangladesh

Computational Geomechanics
Boris Jeremic, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, USA

Blast and Impact Effects on Strutures
Shalva Marjanishvili, Hinman Consulting, San Francisco, USA

FRP Composites for Structural Engineering Applications
Giorgio Monti, Dipartmento di Ingegneria Strutturale e Geotecnica,Universita di Roma "La Sapienza", Italy

Computational Geomechanics
Boris Jeremic, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, USA

Blast and Impact Effects on Structures
Shalva Marjanishvili, Hinman Consulting, San Francisco, USA

Composite Materials and Structures
Vistaph Karbahari, Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, USA

FRP Composites for Structural Engineering Applications

Urban Restoration of Historical Cities

Modeling Techniques for Steel Structures

Modeling for Geotechnical Engineering Applications

Advanced Mechanics of Materials

Rock Mechanics

Seismic Design of Hybrid Steel-Concrete Structures

Inflatable and Skin Structures

Design Experience and Construction of Steel Structures

Emerging Technologies in Structural Steel Systems

Structural Steel Technology

Bridge Erection Machines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bridge Erection Machines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Bridge Erection Machines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIVIL ENGINEERING - Bridge Erection Machines - M.

You might also like