Technical Challenges of Large Movable Scaffolding Systems

Pedro Pacheco, CEO BERD, Assist. Prof. FEUP; Hugo Coelho, Production Manager, BERD; Pedro Borges, Project Manager,
BERD; António Guerra, Project Coordinator, BERD; Matosinhos, Portugal. Contact: [email protected]
DOI: 10.2749/101686611X13131377725640

Abstract
The method of construction of decks
of bridges and viaducts with several
spans using movable scaffolding systems
(MSS) is very efficient and competitive.
This solution is generally used for the 40
to 60 m span range. Over the last few
years, new experiences have been
acquired and new solutions have been
developed for the 70 to 90 m range (large
MSS or LMSS). In this range, unexpected
economical results may be achieved if
the number of spans is high and/or if the
costs of piers and foundations are rela-
tively high. With LMSS it is possible to
achieve very high productivity ratios. Fig. 1: Rio Cabriel Bridge, Spain

The application of LMSS implies sig-

nificant technical challenges. Some are For this span range (70–90 m), as 1. to provide bridge designers informa-
similar to the more common MSS, but recent studies have proven,1 the span- tion about the presented construc-
others become more relevant. by-span construction also ensures tion method;
important advantages such as con- 2. to contribute for a discussion among
This paper discusses bridge–equip- tinuity of the deck and a significant MSS specialists considering that
ment interaction including main ver- optimization of material consump- there is an obvious lack of norma-
tical loads on the bridge, horizontal tion (in particular that of prestressing tive documentation in this specific
forces on piers, wind actions, wind- steel) because the construction stage area.
induced vibrations on piers with MSS may be almost neutral to the deck
stabilization, accidental MSS-induced Some of the presented issues are
design.
actions, thermally induced horizontal empiric and some are from differ-
displacements, and deflection control. Until the last few years, bridges with ent scientific works in progress (not
Two real examples are presented. The 70 to 90 m span were typically con- published).
design criteria recommendations are structed by precast solutions, metallic
Along the text two examples of LMSS
listed in the conclusion section. solutions or cantilever method.2
applications are presented, allowing
Keywords: bridge engineering; bridge With recent developments in span-by- a more direct perception of the pre-
construction equipments; movable span construction equipments, a new sented issues. In the conclusion, rec-
scaffolding system; organic prestress- strong alternative is now available. ommendations are proposed, both
ing system; large scaffoldings. for bridge designers and for MSS
However, this construction method
specialists.
requires a complete and thorough
Introduction study of all the main technical chal-
lenges involved in its application, both General Aspects Regarding
Construction of decks of bridges and for the bridge designers and for the the Use and Conception of an
viaducts with several spans using mov- bridge-building equipment suppliers. LMSS
able scaffolding systems (MSS) is very
In international documentation3,4
efficient and competitive. This solution Adopting span-by-span cast in situ
there is a significant lack of informa-
is generally used for the 40 to 60 m construction with LMSS is a strong
tion about MSS’ or LMSS’ actions on
span range. Over the last few years new possible solution for bridges and via-
bridges. Although in some countries
experiences have been acquired and ducts of several spans (especially in the
there are important contributions on
new solutions have been developed conditions described earlier).
this subject,5,6 it is clear that there is a
for the 70 to 90 m range (large MSS
lot of research and code standardiza- If the particular aspects discussed in
or LMSS). In this range, unexpected
tion to be done. this paper are considered, it is pos-
economical results may be achieved if
sible to achieve a deck conception and
the costs of piers and foundations are In this paper, besides the presentation
design, mainly conditioned for bridge
relatively high and/or if access is dif- of general aspects regarding the use
service actions.
ficult, for example, bridges over water. and conception of LMSS, these con-
With LMSS it is possible to achieve struction equipments are discussed, The Rio Cabriel Bridge near Valencia,
very high productivity ratios. with two clear objectives: Spain (Fig. 1), and the bridge across

450 Technical Report Structural Engineering International 4/2011

 L/5 (L being the current span). But
experience has shown that for larger
spans (70–90 m) the most appropri-
ate location for joints is near L/4. This
solution enables reduction in flexural
moments on the deck section over the
penultimate pier during construction
Fig. 2: Bridge across the Hostovsky Creek Valley, Slovakia and allows for a better deflection con-
trol. Both the Rio Cabriel Bridge and
the bridge across the Hostovsky Creek
horizontal joints are frequently intro- Valley were constructed with joints
duced. This has implications on the located at L/4, with good results.
formwork design and on the defor- In Fig. 4, two curves of LMSS weights
mation control at the second-stage of neutral to the deck design are shown
concrete pouring operation, because (deck width 12,0 and 14,0 m, respec-
concrete cracks are to be avoided in tively). These curves are based on a
the first stage. simplified study that equalizes the
deck flexural moment over the last
pier with a deck for the maximum con-
LMSS Span Limits structive vertical loading scenario and
Fig. 3: Bridge across the Hostovsky Creek for bridge service vertical loading (the
Valley (night works)
One general question that may arise is: same pier with the complete deck).
what are the span limits of LMSS?
Thus, if the LMSS design is optimized,
the Hostovsky Creek Valley, near The answer is as dynamic as the state
its use can be neutral to the deck
Nitra in Slovakia (Figs. 2 and 3), are of art. Presently, there are two main
design, not implying additional mate-
two examples of bridges where the use conditioning issues: the scaffold weight
rial consumption because of construc-
of LMSS is a rational choice. In both and the stability while launching oper-
tion stage.
there are several spans, the piers are ation considering the wind action.
relatively high (about 45 m), and the Both the presented examples—LMSS
Another conditioning issue, mostly
cost of alternative methods would be of Rio Cabriel Bridge and LMSS of
depending on the LMSS type, may
quite high. the bridge across the Hostovsky Creek
also be considered: the deflection limi-
Valley—were not conditioned for deck
In the Rio Cabriel Bridge, with a cur- tation. Indeed the maximum accept-
design, with LMSS traveling weights of
rent span of 70 m, the probable alter- able deflection for current MSS, L/400,
nearly 770 t for spans of about 70 m.
native would be the cantilever method. may represent values over 200 mm for
With that option it would be possible LMSS, which might imply technical Regarding the stability of LMSS
to achieve a productivity of only about problems. This issue is discussed later considering the wind action dur-
120 m/month (with 6 form travel- in this paper. ing launching operation, although
ers) against the normal productivity such operation is to be conditioned
In the current MSS (40–60 m span),
of 140 m/month achieved with LMSS. by actual winds measured during
the equipment weight does not usually
Moreover, the alternative method the operation, if natural frequencies
affect the bridge design, which can be
would imply a very significant con- are too low, the well-known stability
rigorously verified by specific calcula-
sumption of additional prestressing assessments related to launching oper-
tion techniques.7 But in larger spans
steel because of the implicit needs of ation may not be sufficient to provide
(70–90 m), this might not be the case,
the cantilever method. safety, and specific studies have to be
depending on the LMSS weight.
done (eventually wind tunnel tests).
In the bridge across the Hostovsky The LMSS weight is greatly influenced Considering a basis of 16 modeled
Creek Valley, with a current span of by the location of the deck joints. The MSS and LMSS, approximated curves
69 m, the probable alternative method most common location for joints in of natural frequencies related to hori-
would be the span-by-span construc- medium span (40–60 m) bridges is at zontal transversal mode at maximum
tion with conventional MSS (42 m
span) implying construction of provi-
sional piers to reduce the deck span.
MSS weight (t)
This solution would imply significant
1400
additional costs related to provisional
1300
pier construction and demolition.
1200
Recent LMSS are very productive, 1100 12 m deck
having plethora of operational tools 1000 width
and being suitable for safe operations 900
at night (see Fig. 3). 14 m deck
800
width
Another particular aspect of LMSS 700
is the volume of concrete per span, 600
which may be very significant. 500 Span (m)
60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Concrete pouring operations above
500 m3 are frequently avoided, and Fig. 4: Indicative limits of LMSS traveling weights neutral to deck design

Structural Engineering International 4/2011 Technical Report 451

 Natural slope horizontal projection (unless
frequency (Hz) accidental actions are induced by the
1,4 equipment).
1,2 The combination of these actions leads
to several combination cases, from
1 Underslung which a few typical cases are selected.
Overhead In Fig. 6, as a reference example, six
0,8
severe cases are presented for Rio
Underslung Cabriel piers design. Although Rio
0,6
Overhead Cabriel piers are considerably high
0,4 (>45 m) these actions did not condi-
0,2
tion the design.

0 Span (m) Wind Actions

0 20 40 60 80 100
Fig. 5: Natural frequencies on MSS (horizontal transversal mode) at maximum cantilever Wind actions on MSS or LMSS are
position during launching clearly different during launching
operation stages and during equip-
ment stationary stages, considering the
duration of the stages/operations and
cantilever position, for different spans, may be relevant for pier design if the
adequate return period.
are shown, for underslung (two main longitudinal slope is high. For example,
girders) and for overhead equipments if the longitudinal slope is near 5%, it Usually, the most critical wind direc-
(see Fig. 5). may represent about 0,5 Href (if the tions are the transversal winds asso-
LMSS traveling weight is about 50% ciated with vertical winds during
In the absence of scientific research,
the limit of the lower frequency is of the deck weight per span). launching stage. Of course, longitudi-
established by experience. There are Current sliding solutions in MSS are nal winds may be conditioning for the
several MSS worldwide with frequen- bogies with wheels (typical frictions of design of specific components (loco-
cies of about 0,2 to 0,25 Hz (horizontal about 2–5%) or bogies with low-fric- motion system and bracings) but such
transversal mode). tion sliding materials (typical frictions assessment is no more than a common
of about 6–10%). Thus, considering the design task.
For equipments that reasonably
accomplish the weight limits shown in bridge design, during the LMSS con- For current MSS there are sustain-
Fig. 4, actual limit of spans for LMSS is ception it is preferable to adopt bogies able recommendations of wind design
about 90 m (for overhead equipments). with wheels. In this solution, friction and wind operation velocities6 (see
on launching would imply forces of Table 1). For LMSS there is no nor-
about 0,5 Href. mative documentation and there is
Horizontal Forces on Piers due no statistic information to determine
to LMSS The action due to LMSS braking
operation (during launching) strongly fixed values, because the piers may be
depends on the locomotion (mechani- especially high. Nevertheless, there is
Horizontal forces on piers due to
cal) solution but should be carefully documented information (in projects
LMSS mainly result from the follow-
analyzed by the LMSS designer/manu- where authors were involved) which
ing six actions: (a) horizontal projec-
facturer and transmitted to the bridge confirms that mentioned values for
tions of LMSS weight (sliding supports
designer. MSS may not be safe for high bridges
with slope), (b) friction (during launch-
where LMSS may be used. Thus, a
ing), (c) braking loads (during launch- Obviously, this action may be more case-by-case analysis is recommended
ing), (d) forces in locomotion reaction severe than the launching friction, if for LMSS design.
points, (e) wind actions (transversal friction braking devices are adopted.
and longitudinal), and (f) accidental Moreover, if the braking operation is It should be emphasized that LMSS
LMSS-induced forces (actions e and f too fast, relevant dynamic phenome- with natural frequencies lower than
are elaborated in subsequent text). non has to be considered. Nevertheless, 0,2 Hz (horizontal transverse mode)
if the LMSS are moved with hydraulic in maximum cantilever position (dur-
Usually, if there are no relevant seis-
locomotion solutions, braking opera- ing launching operation or eventually
mic actions and if the wind is not con-
tion may be “soft” and neutral to the with low frequencies in other relevant
ditioning, piers may have horizontal
bridge piers. modes) should be evaluated with
forces Href of about 4 to 5% of the
proper tools (eventually wind tunnel
deck weight (related to the pot bear- In some MSS and LMSS, the point tests).
ings friction). Of course, this must be of reaction of the locomotion system
studied by the bridge designer on a may be far from the more-loaded
case-by-case basis, but for conceptual bogie. This applies, for example, when Wind-Induced Vibrations
references, this value gives a first hand locomotion is promoted by winches on Piers with Eventual MSS
approach of the importance of admis- that are fixed on the scaffold (the
sible LMSS-induced horizontal forces Stabilization
main body) and on an MSS support
(not to condition pier design through (the extremity of the cable), which Currently, bridge designers take into
LMSS actions). is fixed on a pier. This force value is account the necessary dynamic assess-
Horizontal projections of LMSS usually of the same magnitude of the ments of the bridges, both in construc-
weight (sliding supports with slope) sum of friction with the longitudinal tion and service stages, considering

452 Technical Report Structural Engineering International 4/2011

 Fz Fy Fx Mx My Mz
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN.m) (kN.m) (kN.m) Fz

Mz
Case 1 Concrete pouring —wind 60 Km/h 14 354 174 8 922 32 24 Mx
Fx
Case 2 Launching—wind 60 Km/h 5493 230 330 6824 2541 224
Fy My
Case 3 LMSS fixed—wind 170 Km/h 5374 1398 4 7478 51 445

Case 4 Concrete cure—wind 170 Km/h 14 756 1398 5 7490 112 436

Case 5 Accidental launching (position 1) 4392 0 828 3490 6380 1880

Case 6 Accidental launching (position 2) 3458 0 787 2743 6071 1827

Fig. 6: Service loads on the front pier in the Rio Cabriel Bridge

ably they should be treated that way in

the design of a BCE.
Launching operation Launching operation Equipment fixed
(average wind) (km/h) (peak) (km/h) (storms) (km/h) Two recommendations for LMSS
designers result from the following:
MSS6
40 60 140–170
1. Characteristic values of operational
Table 1: MSS wind design velocities tolerance magnitudes should be
calculated by considering the cor-
responding values in the Operation
Manual multiplied by a partial
the structure by itself. Nevertheless, between the LMSS and the bridge
safety factor.
there is one particular aspect of the were studied to provide a horizon-
2. Fundamental connections of ele-
construction stage, which is not obvi- tal elastic support of the pier (33 000
ments with structural function, which
ous even for skilled designers, because kN/m), which led to a critical wind
are connected/disconnected for
it is not identified by any bridge cal- velocity higher than the maximum
every cycle, should have redundancy.
culation model and becomes more concrete pouring operational wind
relevant in high pier bridges where velocity of 25 m/s. This study clearly indicates that a
typically LMSS are to be used. greater number of the accident situ-
In LMSS applications this particular ations are much more relevant for
During the concrete pouring opera- issue has to be studied by the bridge equipments design than for bridge
tion, there is a significant increase of designer, particularly if the piers are design. Nevertheless, there are two
mass in the front pier, without imme- high. accident situations that should be con-
diate increase in stiffness (because sidered in bridge design:
the concrete is still liquid). Indeed,
Accidental LMSS-Induced
the concrete filled on the MSS form- 1. imbrication of LMSS in sliding
work significantly reduces the natural Actions on the Bridge
devices or wheels;
frequencies of the front pier (in Rio 2. dynamic force on structural ele-
An analysis of 47 recorded accidents
Cabriel that reduction was from 0,49 ments where winches are fixed, due
and incidents (in four continents) with
to 0,34 Hz), because there is signifi- to collapse of one winch.
bridge-building equipments (PhD
cant mass on top of the pier (see mass
research, in progress, of one of the The first typically results from the geo-
MA2 in Fig. 7) but not a stiff deck to
authors, not published) gives relevant metric defects of the steel structure of
provide its bracing yet. The vortex-
information on bridge construction the LMSS main girder on the sliding
induced bending oscillation and the
equipment (BCE). Although, at pres-
transverse galloping8 are two possible surface. If there is a vertical step in a
ent evidence of the accident cause two modules connection, depending
wind-induced vibration forms of the
is available only in 36% of the cases on the step magnitude, during launch-
piers.
(firmly identified accidental causes ing operation the locomotion force
In the Rio Cabriel Bridge, the most [FIAC]), it is quite obvious that the is incremented when the step passes
relevant potential phenomenon was primordial cause of the accidents is the sliding device or wheel, until loco-
the vortex-induced bending oscillation the human factor (75% of FIAC). motion unit power limit is reached.
leading to a critical wind velocity of Another important factor is the fail- If the step is significant, that action
20,3 m/s, due to low natural frequency ure of fundamental mechanical com- may lead to significant horizontal dis-
of the pier (0,34 Hz).8 ponents without redundancy (about placements on the pier. This must be
12% of FIAC). Natural catastrophes computed by the LMSS designer after
This critical wind velocity (very low)
represent only 2% of all registered taking into consideration the steel
could not be accepted, and additional
accidents. construction tolerances (or measured
measures were taken in cooperation
between the bridge designer and the This information gives the idea that values) and geometric characteriza-
LMSS designer (an interaction model some human errors may be thought of tion of the sliding device or wheel and
was developed). The connections as “characteristic actions” and prob- must be communicated to the bridge

Structural Engineering International 4/2011 Technical Report 453

 Front support Back support MA1

ZMA1

15 m

70 m
MA2

MA2 MA1 ZMA2

ZMA1
ZMA2

15 m

Fig. 7: Location of LMSS plus liquid concrete mass in Rio Cabriel Bridge during concrete pouring operation

designer. This may be treated as a supports with independent move- structural problems in the deck during
major “equivalent accidental friction ments (Δ1 and Δ2). This may happen prestressing application,9 and because
coefficient”. near an abutment, where the support operational difficulties may arise in
displacements Δ1 are nearly null, or the LMSS as problems regarding
The second is exclusively related to
may happen in the middle of a bridge, lowering of the LMSS after deck pre-
LMSS with winch locomotion, typi-
where both displacements are to be stressing and regarding adjustment of
cally characterized by having two
evaluated. These displacements may the formwork.
winches, for redundancy. In this case, if
produce important internal efforts
one winch collapses, the other assumes Moreover, the geometric tolerances
in the LMSS structure, unless other
the force of the first. This may be a fast for bridge construction are absolute
measures are taken. In long bridges
phenomenon which implies dynamic
this should be evaluated by the bridge values10 which represent very low
amplification. Hence if the service force relative values for LMSS span ranges
designer and transmitted to the LMSS
of each winch is F (the global force on (from L/3500 to L/4500).
designer.
the two winches is 2F), the structural
elements where the winches are fixed In Fig. 8 the closing position of the According to previous experience, for
should be designed for the accidental bridge across the Hostovsky Creek LMSS, good results are achieved if the
force 3F = F × (1 + 1 × DAF), where Valley is shown, where horizontal dis- mid-span deflection limit is L/1000.
DAF is the dynamic amplification fac- placements on the LMSS are indicated. One effective solution to achieve
tor, considering a conservative value of In this bridge, special sliding devices reduced deflection on MSS and LMSS
DAF = 2,0 (unless more accurate cal- on the LMSS were conceived for the is the application of organic prestress-
culation is done). “closing” span. ing system (OPS).11,12 This solution
also provides other relevant additional
Heat-Induced Horizontal Deflection Control advantages.11,12
Displacements on the LMSS The common practice in the specifi- OPS is mainly an active control sys-
Supports cation of scaffoldings is to limit their tem which controls the tensions and
maximum deformation to (L/4009; deformations in the LMSS main girder
In the construction of the closing L being the deck span). In LMSS by means of increasing or decreasing
span of a bridge an LMSS is longi- this limit should be more restrictive the prestressing on the LMSS pre-
tudinally typically supported on two because such deformation may imply stressing cables.

1
2

Fig. 8: Picture of the closing position of the bridge across the Hostovsky Creek Valley

454 Technical Report Structural Engineering International 4/2011

 1 Maximum actual span with LMSS: 90 m
2 Location of joints: at L/4
3 Prestressing layout: classical span-by-span solution
4 Consideration of horizontal loads at front piers: (a) horizontal projections of LMSS weight, (b) LMSS sliding friction, (c) brak-
ing loads, (d) forces in locomotion reaction points, (e) wind actions on LMSS, and (f) accidental LMSS-induced forces
5 Consideration of adequate combinations of horizontal forces and vertical forces, according to LMSS functioning
6 Eventual consideration of wind-induced vibrations on piers, eventual need of LMSS bracing
7 Consideration of accidental LMSS-induced actions on the deck
Table 2: Bridge design recommendations

1 Minimum natural frequency (horizontal transversal mode): 0,2 to 0,25 Hz

2 LMSS traveling weight nearby: (0,75 × L + 15) × B t (L is the span in m, B is the deck width in m)
3 Desirable friction in bogies: 2 to 5% (wheels)
4 Use of hydraulic “soft” braking system
5 Eventual consideration of higher wind velocities for LMSS—a case-by-case analysis is recommended
6 Consideration of thermally induced displacements on LMSS (closing spans)
7 Maximum mid-span deflection of about L/1000 (under full concrete weight)
8 Td = To × F (Td = design tolerances, To = tolerances indicated in the Operation Manual, and F a safety factor)
9 Connections of elements with structural function—connected/disconnected every cycle—should have redundancy
Table 3: LMSS design recommendations

Rio Cabriel - Span 5 [2] Mathivat J. The Cantilever Construction of

30 240 Prestressed Concrete Bridges, 1st Spanish edn.
EDT, S. A.: Barcelona, 1980.
220
[3] EURONORM 12811-12. Temporary Works
25 Equipment – Part 1. Scaffolds, 2003.
Mid–Span deflection

200
[4] EUROCODE 1. Actions on Structures – Part 3:
180 Actions Induced by Cranes and Machinery, 2005.

Stroke
20
160 [5] Afonso B. Mobile Equipments for Bridge
Construction. MSc Thesis, IST, Lisbon, 2007 (in
140 portugese).
15
Ms deflection (mm) [6] CONFEDERACIÓN NACIONAL DE
Stroke (mm)
120 LA CONSTRUCCIÓN (CNC). Manual of Self
Launching Scaffoldings, 1ª edn. CNC: Madrid,
10 100 2007 (in spanish).
15:30:00
15:37:57
15:45:54
15:53:51
16:01:48
16:09:45
16:17:42
16:25:39
16:33:36
16:41:33
16:49:30
16:57:27
17:05:24
17:13:21
17:21:18
17:29:15
17:37:12
17:45:09
17:53:06
18:01:03
18:09:00
18:16:57
18:24:54
18:32:51
18:40:48
18:48:45
18:56:42
19:04:39
19:12:36
19:20:33
19:28:30
19:36:27
19:44:24
19:52:21

[7] Hyo-Gyoung K, Je-Kuk S. Determination

of design moments in bridges constructed with
Time a movable scaffolding system (MSS). Comput.
Struct. 2006; 84(10): 2141–2150.
Fig. 9: Measures of mid-span deflection and OPS actuators stroke during a concrete
[8] VALTER, Company Vásquez, J., Domínguez
pouring operation in Rio Cabriel Bridge
Santana, B., Viaducto Río Cabriel - Análisis
Dinámico Pilas, Report, Number 074.08.P23/
In the presented examples, the Rio as in the successful cases of the Rio IN-005.2. PAVASAL, Valencia, February 2009.
Cabriel Bridge and the Hostovsky Cabriel Bridge and Bridge across the [9] Vasques De Carvalho D. Study of the
Creek Valley Bridge, with OPS-streng- Hostovsky Creek Valley Bridge. Application of the Prestressing Application
thened overhead arches the maximum Stage in Decks Constructed Span by Span –
Deformation of the Scaffoldings Effects. MSc
mid-span deflections registered were
clearly below L/2000 (see Fig. 9).
Acknowledgements Dissertation, FEUP, 2008 (in Portugese).

The authors wish to thank all the BERD team [10] CEN. BS EN 13670: Execution of Concrete
Structures, 2009.
members who worked in these Projects, Valter
Conclusions and SHP (bridge designers), Construgomes [11] Pacheco P, Guerra A, Borges P, Coelho H.
(MSS operator), DOKA (formwork supplier), A scaffolding system strengthened with organic
The main conclusions are presented in
QREN (ID support), and PAVASAL and prestressing – the first of a new generation of
Tables 2 and 3. EUROVIA (bridge builders). structures. Struct. Eng. Int. Assoc. Bridge Struct.
Eng. 2007; 17(4): 314–321.
If these recommendations (or simi-
lar) are followed, the building of 70 References [12] Pacheco P, André A, Borges P, Oliveira T.
to 90 m span bridges adopting span- Automation robustness of scaffolding systems
[1] Morim M. Study of a 90 m Span Concrete strengthened with organic prestressing. Autom.
by-span construction with LMSS will Prestressed Deck Constructed Span by Span. Construction 2010; 19(1): 1–10.
become very economical, safe, and fast, MSc Dissertation, FEUP, 2008 (in Portugese).

Structural Engineering International 4/2011 Technical Report 455